Rating: 
Summary: Wolf in sheep's clothing
Review: The Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, and many masons have kept alive among their secret beliefs that the Merovingian line of Frankish kings from the early Middle Ages were descended directly from Jesus. To justify this outlandish claim, they must profess that Jesus did not die on the cross but survived it, and went on to live a much longer life, married Mary Magdalene and had children with her, from whom the Merovingians supposedly descend. There isn't any historic evidence for this. (The Merovingians were replaced on the Frankish throne in the 8th century AD by the Carolingians, chief among them Charlemagne.)In this novel a proponent of that nonsense has created a popular vehicle with which to attempt to deceive the public into thinking that this thesis is true. Yet it flies in the face of all historic context. From the report about Jesus contained in the writings of Flavius Josephus to the bald fact of hundreds of people who knew Jesus and witnessed his death, resurrection or ascension, and who gave their lives for Him, the contemporaries of Jesus who were familiar with the facts bear tacit testament contrary to this slander of Him. Nor does it square with early Frankish history. There are quite a few writings about Jesus that never made it into the canon of Scripture. When you have read enough of them, then you realize that they are mostly a lot of fantasies about Jesus or those connected to Him. There are reasons they are not in the Bible. They have more in common with second party spinoffs of Jane Austen's novel Pride and Prejudice, for example, written by people who loved the original so much that they wrote their own fantasy continuations of the story. This scurrilous novel defames Jesus in every possible fashion. In a back handed way, it contends that He lied when He said that He would be killed and then would rise from the dead. It purports that all of His disciples lied in their representations of Him. It says that the crucifixion was a lie, that Easter was a lie, that His ascension was a lie, and thus that His promise to return is a lie. Either everything essential to His coming into the world was a lie or what this book proposes is a lie, couched in novel form. Something else Jesus said is that Satan is the Father of Lies (John 8). Open your eyes and don't be duped by this well crafted lie.
Rating:
Summary: A ho hum read
Review: I found this book to be a ho-hum read. It never captured my interest. It is so full of tired old literary tricks that I found annoying. One technique I found particularly annoying is the extreme overuse of non-English phrases and definitions within the first few pages. I suppose the author (and many readers) found that to be sophisticated and "learned." Also, the whole premise is so obviously controversial while claiming to be "just a good thriller" that it's obvious the author has some personal issues with Christianity. But I suppose it'll be just a matter of months before a major TV network makes it a "movie of the week." Not very original at all but B-O-R-I-N-G.
Rating:
Summary: Bad Fiction, Bad History
Review: Welcome to the world of cardboard villains. Brown's idea of giving dimension to a character seems to be either having them switch allegiances without warning, or else giving them some sort of disabling condition, like albinism or walking on crutches. (Improbably, Brown's albino character seems to suffer none of the usual loss of visual acuity that accompanies that condition.) Our Junior Batmen are chasing after the Holy Grail, which in Brown's universe, shaped as it is by popular conspiracy-theory speculations rather than certified scholarship, is not the cup of Christ, but a "royal bloodline" composed of descendants of Jesus Christ and (who else?) Mary Magdalene. This theory has been promoted without success before, most notably in the 1983 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh (New York: Dell). That book has been soundly critiqued. Within Mary's tomb, our heroes are told, are all manner of secret documents whose contents will wreck Christianity as we know it. These recovered "truths" will pave the way for us to return to a more enlightened spirituality whose centerpiece is the feminized divine known from goddess worship. The idea that religion was originally matriarchal, or dominated by goddess worship, and later (under the Judeo-Christian dominance) changed to patriarchal monotheism (male dominated) is a myth. It is not true. There is no evidence that any significant religious movement had dominant female deities - they were always linked to their male counterparts, and usually in a subservient role. [See, for example, Tikva Frymer-Kensky's In the Wake of the Goddesses (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993) and Craig Hawkins' Goddess Worship, Witchcraft, and Neo-Paganism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).] The book is mostly spent in chasing after the location of this tomb, but in the end - too bad! - the book closes with the lead character finding the tomb and disclosing nothing, so we will never know whether Mary Magdalene's crypt contained a secret new Gospel or Judas Iscariot's grocery list. One the first things a reader of The DaVinci Code will see, in prefatory material and under a heading in bolded, capital letters, reading "FACT", is this statement: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." In terms of documents and rituals, however - and even artwork and architecture -- The DaVinci Code contains few "facts" and what few it does contain require serious qualification. All of this might be excused, except that Brown baptizes such aspects of the book with the brand of FACT, and that he also puts many of these "facts" into the mouth of a character named Teabing who is described as a reputable historian. I rather think if any genuine, academic historian made certain statements attributed to Teabing, he would be promptly demoted to janitorial duties and remanded for training in History 101. Sadly, Brown's sleight-of-hand under the cloak of fact has tricked others, including the Book Review Editor of the New York Daily News, who commented naively that "his research is impeccable." I found a very thorough examination of the bogus items presented as "facts" in this book here:
http://tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but that's about it.
Review: Maybe this is the reason why I don¡¯t read suspense novels. I can¡¯t take the suspense!
Ok, all right, lame jokes aside¡
So the book then¡ It¡¯s fascinating, certainly, but well written? Hmm¡
To tell you the truth, I think as long as the writing¡¯s coherent it¡¯ll still be an intriguing read simply because of the subject matter ¨C Mary and Jesus sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g¡? The writing¡¯s OK, but just that I¡¯ve read so many better written books.
While I know a mystery novel needs to incorporate some cliff-hangers, it gets a bit silly after a while and it lost its power to be gripping, especially if the author wants to end every chapter with one and also had the bright idea to divide the book into almost a hundred chapters. I found this book to be extremely ¡®well rehearsed¡¯, particularly during flash backs of Langdon teaching at Harvard, it doesn¡¯t get any more clich¨¦d than this ¨C the dumb jocks, the ¡®edgy¡¯ comebacks, the silence and wonder in the room after a revelation¡ it¡¯s so over the top it¡¯s funny. Well¡ I laughed anyway. I doubt I¡¯ll ever read this book again simply because once you¡¯ve finished it, what¡¯s the point in re-reading it? It¡¯s much more likely you¡¯ll want to investigate all the ¡®facts¡¯ or imagine what would happen if it were real. Dan Brown¡¯s opened up the world to a new ancient conspiracy, and you know us humans¡ We love a good conspiracy!
Rating: 
Summary: ....Great story, by the way.
Review: The "Da Vinci Code." Brown bases his story around the history of the Holy Grail and the Priory of Sion. Since there has been much controversy with "Brown's history", I decided to find out what some of the greatest thinkers of our time thought about this thing we call "history":
"History, history! We fools, what do we know or care." -William Carlos Williams
"Imagination plays too important a role in the writing of history, and what is imagination but the projection of the author's personality." -Pieter Geyl
"The historian must not try to know what is truth, if he values his honesty; for if he cares for his truths, he is certain to falsify his facts."-Henry Adams
"History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten." -George Santayana
"Very deep, very deep is the well of the past. Should we not call it bottomless?" -Thomas Mann
"[History is] a graveyard of aristocracies." -Vilfredo Pareto
"In analyzing history do not be too profound, for often the causes are quite superficial." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
"History is, indeed, an argument without end."-A.M. Schlesinger, Jr.
I hope this makes you think about what it is you call "history."
I can summarize the wake the "Da Vinci Code" has created in one word: ridiculous. Like many others with a strong opinion of this book, I should mention that I am not Christian. Why people feel they have to include that they are a Christian when giving their view on this book is obvious, and it made me think about my beliefs when it comes to religion. Among them, what I'm not religiously is an individual with the illusion that someone is making a direct attack on my beliefs when he says something that contradicts it. That is, being as blunt as I can, what the radical Christian does not realize. A radical Christian believes anything that questions his sacred Bible is slander and an attack on his "code of life." He, like many others, has an antisocial illusion that people with different beliefs are only out to ruin them when one raises a question on his religion; he is the one who turns a deaf ear to something he will not take the time to think about--simply because he is horrified to realize a truth in what before he had not realized. A radical Christian does not realize, or will not listen to, contradicting history. Even his Christian history, is not fact, but only fiction. For what is fact? Fact is only based on perception. Does that not make it uncertain? But yet some people are not capable of understanding what I have just said, and those, I feel, are the same people who shun this book off when they call it anti-Christian, or anti-History. Those who cry "anti, anti, anti" are the same one's who do not think about the quote Brown included in his book: "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." That's what this book makes you think about after you've finished. That's a reason why I enjoyed it....That may even be Brown's thesis!
And as for the "history" in this book, what Brown stated as "fact" (used in its everyday sense) is true. The Priory of Sion and Opus Dei do exist, and the "descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals" in the novel are, quote, "accurate". Everything else, past the first page, was never called "fact, or accurate" by Brown. Those who said Brown is biased on some of the history in his story are not mistaken. They are right only in some cases. But I will never understand why some think Brown tried to trick readers into making non-history, history. But I do know that those who make that argument are very wrong, and need to re-read what it is they are criticizing. The first page in the "Da Vinci Code" was written for a purpose, one of those being to rid the book of the criticism with its "history." Again, Brown uses the word "FACT" in bold face, in large font, on the very first page, for a reason. It is quite obvious.
We call some books "thrillers." And the "Da Vinci Code" is a thriller. It is a great beach book, entertaining and easy to read. There is a reason for all the good reviews this book has been given, and it's one of the best thrillers I have read in the past year. If you enjoy a good lay-read book, I recommend picking this one up before starting another.
...One thing "stood" out at me while I was reading some reviews, it was--to wit: "There was no way I could just sit by quietly while so many people are making all sorts of judgements [sic] and opinions about my God and what He stood for." This was a long review, very criticizing, and the reviewer claims to be a devoted Christian. But how devoted is he? Do you not see the problem with what he said...."My God and what He stood for." The key phrase is "stood for", and I highly doubt that this is a typo since his entire review is grammatically correct. The problem with "stood," is that it's past tense, meaning God is dead. A true Christians knows he is not. And if he meant Jesus, who is not God (another problem), still he should not use the word "stood." Again, a Christian knows Jesus rose from his grave on the third day! Is there "no way" that he has not heard of Easter? This is what I am taking about! Ridiculous. What's more, there are many others just like it! This is the sort of garbage ignorant mongers create. Makes me wonder if he himself might actually be "anti-Christian"?
Rating:
Summary: Maybe this work of fiction will inspire further reading
Review: Oh Goodness, I really wasn't going to do this but I will. As someone who has been reading about the Gnostic Gospels and other aspects of "unorthodox" christianity, I just had to throw my two cents into the fray. The DaVinci Code - by sheer purpose of its subject matter - is a fascinating read. Though Brown's prose is right down there with Grisham and many other commercial thriller writers, the fact that he has taken on such a controversial subject matter, and tied it in with a great conspiracy theory (read, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a tedious non-fiction book from the eighties and you can see where Brown drew much of his ideas), makes this book a must read. Warning, I'm about to blow the plot line. Do not read further if you don't want to know the ending.............I love the idea that Jesus just might have been married. If you read Mary Magdaline's gospels (which, though discovered earlier than the Nag Hamadi gospels of the other gnostics, are considered part of the gnostics) you must at least entertain this idea. Because these gospels didn't make "the cut" into the bible during the council of Nicea (politics is everything, especially in religion), doesn't mean they're any less spiritual or true. Brown was very smart to tie this element into his story - heck, I wish I had thought of it. Though one word of warning, the beginning of the book stating that everything in there is "true" seems a bit of a sensational ploy. If you want to really argue the point, we don't even know if any of the gospels that inspired the faith of Christianity are "TRUE". That's why we call it faith. The gnostics and the controversy they inspired have apparently been floating around academic circles for about a decade, and as one academic friend has told me, it takes that long for much of the controversial academia matter to filter down into the public. No one is less or more of a "Christian" by reading this book. I would hope, if nothing else, that the ideas in this book might actually open a few minds to the fact that there is a fine line between myth and religion and that relgion is simply based upon what we want/need to believe. These puritanical evangelists should just get over themselves. What difference would it make if Jesus had been married? Would he have not been more understanding about humanity and all its flaws if he had been? And what, gasp, might have happened if he and Mary Magdaline had had children. The fact that Jesus' off-spring just might be roaming this earth, to me at least, is a very comforting thought.
Rating: 
Summary: Incredible Read
Review: This book was absolutly incredible. Dan Brown is a genius. I could not put it down. Fast paced action and intricate plot lines brought it all together. Highly recommended. Pure Genius. Well researched and great characters. Will keep you longing for more.
Rating:
Summary: A great Book
Review: This Book was great once I picked it up I could not put it down it had a good plot from beginning to end and everyone should by it I know that Christians are up in arms and are saying it is offensive being one myself I can say that it did not offend me in the least and was a great read.
Rating:
Summary: I just love reviews...
Review: ...that begin with the words: "As a Christian..." (puff, puff) Soooo, as a Christian, I loved this book. I wasn't offended, incensed, outraged, aghast or otherwise in need of a 7-day cleansing ritual in a far-off dusty place. Ok, somebody pass me the holy water, I may need to sprinkle my keyboard now. Seriously, it gave me an entire banquet of food for thought, and I do feel the need to delve deeper into some of the areas that gave me pause. As a former flaming atheist, that part of me reveled in some aspects of the book. But the whole of me who now claims my stake at the table of the family of God sees plenty of good in the questions. Do I take Brown to be a pop-theologian who has now turned Christianity as we know it/knew it on its head? Hardly. Really, his ideas are nothing new under the sun...they have merely found a vehicle for mass marketing in a not so spectacularly well-written, but highly compelling book. (I'm no genius, but I figured out all of the cryptograms with just the first clues.) It was fun and fast-paced read. If anything, I think many Christians suffer from microgodism...if God is so small that this book is a threat, the faith really is doomed.
Rating:
Summary: It's FICTION Folks...FICTION!
Review: Plain and simple...This book is a FICTION novel my friends. There's no need to take offense to a novel written based on false ideas. As for the story, WOW! This thing was spectacular! I could not put it down. It starts off a bit slow (The first 80 or so pages), but then really gets going. You gotta get this thing. Best book I have read in years!
|
