The Da Vinci Code

Rating:
Summary: The Great Da Vinci Swindle
Review: You've got to be kidding me - *THIS* book has sold over 6 million copies and become an international sensation? That a book this badly written, characterised and plotted can be a runaway best seller is bad enough. That the ludicrous conspiracy theory it peddles, in between all the cliches, terrible dialogue and hackneyed chase scenes, is actually being given creedence by some readers is much, much worse.

This is an astonishingly stupid, stupid, stupid book.

Other reviewers have already outlined Brown's flaws as an author, but what bothers me most is the way favourable reviewers (including some professionals) keep talking about his "impeccable research". Did we read the same novel? Anyone who is familiar with "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" would recognise that about 80% of the (ahem) "information" Langdon drones on and on and on about has been lifted directly from that classic piece of lowbrow, pulp, pseudo-historical conspiracy.

In fact, on the first page of Chapter 60 Brown effectively gives the reader his whole bibliography: Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh's "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", Picknett and Prince's "The Templar Revelation", and Margaret Starbird's "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar" and "The Goddess in the Gospels". These four books - widely ridiculed and utterly discredited pieces of paperback speculation of no academic standing whatsoever - represents the bulk of Brown's "impeccable historical research". That he is able to convince people that the pastiche of nonsense he extracts from these crackpot books is credible says something about our culture's historical illiteracy.

And about its chronic lack of informed critical thinking. An intelligent 12 year old would be able to dispose of much of Brown's "impeccable research" given access to an internet connection or a decent encyclopaedia.

Brown has one characters lecture about the suppressed gospels found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls - a 15 second search on Google could tell you that *NO* gospels or Christian writings of any kind were found in the Qumran material.

Brown says the Council of Nicea set the canon of the New Testament. A few minutes browsing reveals that the canon was *not even discussed* at that Council and that an official canon was not set until the Council of Trent 1300 years later.

Brown says that the Witch Craze was orchestrated by "the Vatican" and resulted in "five million" women being burnt by "the Inquisition". In fact, the Witch Craze was a largely *Protestant* phenomenon, the numbers killed over a 300 year period are around 20-50,000 and 20% of them were men.

And so it goes on. Virtually everything Brown presents as "fact" in this stupid novel is either wrong, completely wrong or wildly and unbelieveably wrong. Many of those who have criticised this book have been Catholics - which is understandable, considering how their Church is presented in the book. But this book is not just offensive to believers (I'm an atheist), it's an insult to anyone with a knowledge of medieval history and the history of early Christianity. Or anyone with a brain.

I'm with the others who have recommened Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum" instead - it's smart, well written, amusing and well researched. And, unlike "The Da Vinci Code" it laughs at stupid conspiracy theories. Brown's terrible novel shows why they deserve to be ridiculed.

One star because you can't give them no stars. Terrible.

Rating:
Summary: A Book To Talk About . . .
Review: Your friends are probably talking about the DaVinci Code, and you probably will have to read it in self defense. Notice that they only talk about it's thesis. No one remembers the characters or the writing, it is unmemorable. No one grows or learns except possibly the minor character of the Bishop. It's not really a novel. You've already learned from the other reviews that the thesis was lifted from an earlier book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, so what else can I tell you? Two things, both about the thesis.

First, from a mythological perspective, the thesis is laughable and cannot be. The Christian story is a member of the family of Middle Eastern religious stories involving a dying and ressurecting deity who is a son (Jesus, Baal, Adonis, Dumuzi, Tammuz) or a daughter (Persephone). Not one of these deities had any offspring. It was their function to sacrifice their personal fertility to provide for the fertility or salvation of the rest of the planet. Had Jesus had offspring, his story would not have been believed by anyone in the Middle East, but in fact Christianity spread rapidly there. So we must conclude that the bloodline thesis is mythologically unsound. Feel free to impress your friends with this post-obvious fact that they will not have thought of.

From the perspective of legend, the Grail is first mentioned in Chrieten de Troys' Perceval in the 1170's. Chrieten makes it clear he is writing a work of fiction, even though it is based on an earlier story (which does not survive). You may read this for yourself or watch the movie Perceval, and it will be clear that a serving vessel that contained food (not beverage) is described, and that it is carried by a woman and many women are involved in principal roles in the story, so there is no reason to suspect the Grail is an indirect reference to a woman. There is no hint of the bloodline thesis in Perceval. While it is clear the Lance and Grail are probably intended to represent Christian relics, most of this explanation is added by later authors who continued Chrieten's story.

What is the opinion of scholars on the origin of the Grail legend? It has been much studied and there are many opinions. One voiced by Jessie Weston in her book From Ritual To Romance actually does involve the Mediterranean Mystery Religions, and their regenerative aspects, but there is no trace of the bloodline thesis. The established view, and so firmly established it would be very difficult to dislodge, comes from Roger Loomis in his The Grail: From Celtic Myth to Christian Symbol, in which he convincingly traces its origins to a pagan dish of plenty which is never exhausted, and functions as a fountain of youth and wellness for anyone eating from it.

Two stars are due, as the book is at least a page turner. But don't expect to learn any secrets, because Brown doesn't have any, so he never lets any character actually see the rumored proof. But if you are handy with a search engine, you can discover that the principals of the Priory of Sion have admitted they founded it as a hoax in 1956.

Rating:
Summary: ONLY pick up this book if...
Review: Your reaction to this book will completey depend on your expectations. If you consider yourself someone who reads purely for "escape," has no literally expectations, and can let a controversial subject such as the foundation of Chrisitainity slide off your back, you will enjpy this book. It is fast-paced, and more interesting than your average thriller.

However, if you are reading this because the title piqued your interest and you enjoy thoughful, literally fiction or non-fiction on religion (i.e. Eco, Friedman, C. Ginzburg, Willis) you will be utterly disappointed. This text lacks sound research and is anything but literally. Brown's poor use of dialogue will bore you, his lack of depth will leave you shiveringly cold, and his simplisitc didactism, references, and conclusions will infuriate you (I was often reminded of Pirsig's doctrinaire), especially when weighed against such a serious subject.

The bottom line of this book is: "take it for what it is worth." However, in the final analysis, I find Brown's writing for such a controversial subject irrrepsonsible and its conclusive, matter-of-fact air disturbing. I may sound elitist, but I worry about this becoming the "Love Story" of religious understanding.

Rating:
Summary: Encode
Review: Zoom in, then to the outline, then back in;
This bood is done in code. Do you see it?

Rating:
Summary: TAKE YOUR TIME BEFORE DECIDING TO READ THIS ONE . . .
Review: _____________________________________________________

It appears, with 2381 reviews as of this posting, that many people have at least heard something about this book that's made them curious enough to buy and read it . . . and that's fine, that's how it works. That isn't really how it happened with me though. It was an impulse buy off the stand of a book store. I didn't talk with anyone about it or read any reviews other than the short sketch on the back cover which mentioned a secret society of famous artists and scientists from history and a dangerous action-packed chase leading up to an "unpredictable and stunning conclusion."

All I can do is give you my honest opinion:

Although THE DA VINCI CODE starts out interestingly enough with a gripping murder amid bizarre circumstances and a somewhat believeable investigation, the action becomes too repetitious and the book soon shows what fiction at its worst is all about. The characters and their development are cliche and ridiculous to the point of being comical, but that alone is not the problem. The real bore to me concerns how many of the mysteries' outcomes (i.e. Sophie's geneological identity, the missing orb on Sir Isaac Newton's tomb, etc.) are totally predictable from about the first third of the book onward.

More importantly, though obviously fictitious, I found myself quite offended at the subject matter of the main plot. The story is blasphemous in the extreme, though nowadays I'm probably among a small minority that would even care. It argues that paganism is at the true heart of Christianity. Fiction can sometimes veil ideas that people take into their minds and twist into fact (some of the reviews here illustrate this). The thing that kept me reading in the face of all this was the hope that a development in the storyline would put things right in the end, but this hope was in vain. One review I read here makes the somewhat lucid point that this is all in fun, the book is only fiction and that one should forget these things and simply have fun and enjoy it. I can agree with this only up to a point. Fiction should be fun, but when it starts making a mockery of sacred things - pointed directly at the Savior, even in the context of fiction, it looses me in a hurry.

I try to be as positive as I can in doing these reviews but this time I'm sorry, the hype and high recommendations some are giving this book are undeserved. The only redeeming quality that I could find is the fact that, yes, it is fast paced. This should provide you some mercy in being able to get through it quickly - if you make the regrettable decision to waste your time reading it like I did. Truly, there are much better fictional novels out there!

Rating:
Summary: Likeable message... in an utterly ridiculous packaging
Review:  
I have the greatest affinity with the philosophical and spiritual message put forth by this book's author. Yet I wish that a truly talented novelist (like Tom Robbins) had gotten hold of this particular plot and enmeshed it with the required amount of erudite research. As things stand, the Da Vinci Code makes the action novels I used to read as a 10-year old (that was in the 1950's) appear like beacons of litterary achievement.

It's not only that the flow of absurdities and logical incoherences in the plot makes you wonder whether the man (or for that matter, his editor) has reread his writing before sending it to the printing press. What actually really annoyed me was the inconsistency of an author who probably did spend a few weeks in Europe, but couldn't be bothered doing his research properly - on the probable assumption that his American market wouldn't notice the difference.

A few ridiculous cases in point: Interpol having real-time information on hotel guests over Europe, based on the forms filled at hotel receptions? A man arrested in France, but jailed in Andorra? Railroad tracks in Andorra? A 20th century French cop exclaiming "Jesu" [sic]? The "French king Godefroi de Bouillon"!? A Swiss bank operating by the rules of Swiss banking on French soil? The "Captain" [?] of the French police giving orders to the police in Kent? A bright French girl who never had noticed that her grandfather's "château" had a cellar? And who as an adult is so deeply ridden by neurosis that she won't speak to him ever again after catching him in the midst of a sexual act?

As they say where Dan Brown comes from, "Give me a break, please..."

The result is rather distressing: in the face of such obvious flaws, we are entitled to wonder whether the book's apparent erudition is to be taken at face value, with its distinct feel of a patchwork collection of esoteric issues. I am not overly familiar with these matters, but other readers have questioned the validity of its historical research too. I am afraid that the very praiseworthy message underlying this work will be lost on those who, intellectually speaking, could profit most from it.

And I, for one, will not be looking forward to the sequel. Nor to reading Dan Brown's previous books, if they happen to be in the same vein.