|
| |||||||||||||||
What are readers saying about Da Vinci Code?
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-07-22 09:27:01.
(Language: English)
 
After reading the first few lines of the Da Vinci Code, I thought, Ah well, ok I can understand how this non fiction magazine article like writing style could get some people confused into thinking it was actually non fiction.Reading on, it was hard to resist the urge to just throw it out of the window. And I decided to not only read on and finish this one, but I even now started Angels & Demons as an experiment how much crap I can bear without setting fire to the books. I have not bought them, I've got them for my birthday from friends who wanted to enable me to sneer from an informed position. I'm not even too worried about the flatness of the characters, which Brown sometimes tries to deepen by pointless hints at traumata from the past and weird phobias, nor by the explicit oddness of the villains (does the albinism of whatitsname contribute anything to the plot?). The plot twists are all pretty foreseeable, so all in all it's not a good read, but well some people seem to like it. What I really don't get is, how anyone with half a functioning brain can confuse any of these made-up facts the world's worst symobobologobolgist lectures about with real world facts. English the "lingua pura"? The furthest removed from Latin? Oh please. And why give this ridiculous plotdevice to explain why all these "clever", "ancient" lore is done in English and not in, erm, Latin, a Latin name? Years of Resistance have been broken down. Thanks to lovely Holly and Pete I don't have any excuse anymore. Hope the inner snob is wrong and it's as good as they say. 
|
Yes (1) 
No (1) |
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-01-30 09:55:00.
(Language: Arabic)
تعتمد الرواية على نظرية المؤامرة بأن الكنيسة الكاثوليكية تخفي القصة الحقيقية للمسيح وأن الفاتيكان يغطي على تلك الحقائق من أجل ضمان بقائه في السلطة.البطل هو روبرت لانغدون نفس البطل في ملائكة وشياطين، يكتشف لانغدون ألغاز تدل على وجود منظمة سرية " منظمة سيون" مقدسة امتد عمرها إلى مئات السنين وكان من أحد أعضائها البارزين العالم مكتشف الجاذبية اسحاق نيوتن والعالم الرسام ليوناردو دا فينشي. وغيرهم سمعت ان الفاتيكان اعترض اعتراضاً شديداً على محتويات الرواية، ذلك لأنها تتناول علاقة المسيح بـمريم المجدلية بطريقة منافية لما هو مذكور بالكتب المقدسة... بقصد انجيل متى فيها حقائق اعجبتني والفكرة العلمية والهندسية معروضة بشكل اقل مما في رواية ملائكة وشياطين كتاب جيد للقاريء وبنصح بالقراءة مع عدم التأثر بالمكتوب خصوصا ما يسمى بالنسبة المقدسة وتقيد الرب فيها بخلق الكون .. بقصد العدد 1.618 رواية تحترم عقل القاريء ولكن بنصح بقراءة رواية ملائكة وشياطين للمؤلف قبل شيفرة دافنتشي محمد لؤي شعبان
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2008-05-11 06:23:01.
(Language: English)
Um livro longo, mas que vale a pena ler.O Código Da Vinci anuncia a chegada de uma nova raça de raios-passeado, inteligente emocionante… absolutamente imprevisível até a sua conclusão deslumbrante.Um homicídio na silenciosa-hora depois de salas do Museu do Louvre revela um sinistro enredo para descobrir um segredo que foi protegido por uma sociedade secreta desde os tempos de Cristo. A vítima é uma alta patente este antigo agente da sociedade que, nos momentos antes de sua morte, consegue deixar pistas horríveis na cena que só sua neta, observou cryptographer Sophie Neveu, e Robert Langdon, um famoso symbologist, pode untangle. O duo se tornar ambos os suspeitos e detectives procurando não só Neveu do avô do assassino, mas também o segredo de atordoamento dos tempos ele foi acusado de proteger. Meras passos à frente das autoridades e da concorrência mortal, o mistério leva Langdon e Neveu em um vôo através da respiração França, Inglaterra, e da história em si. Brown (anjos e demônios) criou uma página de viragem emocionante que também proporciona uma surpreendente interpretação da história ocidental. Brown's herói e heroína enveredar por um nobre e intrigante exploração de alguns dos maiores mistérios da cultura ocidental - a partir da natureza do sorriso de Mona Lisa é o segredo do Santo Graal. Ainda que alguns vão quibble com a veracidade das Brown's conjecturas, é aí que está a diversão. O Código Da Vinci é um enthralling ler que fornece alimento rico para o pensamento. -- Jeremy Pugh."
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-08-23 09:16:07.
(Language: English)
Truly one of the worst books I've read in the last twenty years, I've been consistently puzzled how any professional critic could fawn over it the way so many did. The book suffers from bad prose, broken grammar, B-grade dialogue, cardboard characters, and Dan Brown's infamous unfamiliarity with his own subject matter. His command of art and church history resembles not so much the impeccable research of James Michener as it does an afternoon spent in front of Google. The most glaring example screams out right from the cover: the man's name is Leonardo, NOT da Vinci, as any first-year art student -- let alone Brown's "art historian" spouse -- should have told him. More puzzling still is how any decent editor could have let this one by. (Oh, and, by the way, Opus Dei doesn't have monks.) Most of the puzzles Brown set for his protagonist were simplistic enough that I sometimes spent half the book waiting for Langdon to realize the obvious. This not only undercut the respect I was supposed to be according Langdon's intellect, it reduced many of Brown's plot-driving cliff-hangers to ennui. At the core of the Da Vinci Code lies an intriguing idea that, in the right hands, might have blossomed into a genuine historical thriller. Unfortunately, those hands don't belong to Dan Brown.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-10-04 07:24:27.
(Language: English)
Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, 'Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?' . . . His number is 666." - Revelation 13:4,18 Released within weeks of the controversial Da Vinci Code, The Omen, opened in cinemas throughout the world on the 6th day of the 6th month of the 6th year of the 21st century (6.6.06). Apart from its disturbing images, the film has intensified interest in the general interpretation of apocalyptic literature and, more specifically, with symbolism and codes found in the New Testament Book of Revelation. Adopted from an earlier 1976 box-office hit film, The Omen may be the first movie made because of its association with its opening date. In the opening scene of the film, Italian scholars incorrectly interpret prophecies in the Book of Revelation as specific tragedies ranging from 9/11 and the Challenger disaster to the 2004 tsunami in Malaysia. They are unable to foresee the appearance of the Antichrist who is born on June 6 in Rome and in a Catholic hospital! Meanwhile, priests and nuns working the maternity ward in an Italian hospital convince a U.S. official to trick his wife into accepting another mother’s child. The Diplomat can't bear to tell his wife that the child she just bore didn't survive. A duplicitous Catholic priest suggests that they take home a boy whose mother died in childbirth the very same hour. Accepting the child as their own, the couple names the baby Damien. For the next five years, the couple unwittingly raises the spawn of Satan in place of their own son, who died at birth. Apart from compelling viewers to believe that Damien is the Antichrist because he has the mark (666) of the beast on his body, the movie subtly makes a number of negative statements about Christianity. "There is no devil," a character states, "there is no God. There is only here and now and life." How should the Book of Revelation be interpreted? Who is the beast that is described in the 13th Chapter and what does the number “666†symbolize? This is the $666 dollar question. Ever since the Book of the Revelation was included in the Canon of Holy Scripture there has been speculation about the identity of the Antichrist and the number associated with the beast. The Book of Revelation, or more correctly, the Revelation of Jesus Christ Unto His Servant John, is commonly referred to as the Apocalypse of John. The book’s name (Apocalypse) is derived from the two Greek words that literally mean, "to pull the cover away from.†It is the last canonical text of the New Testament in the Bible and is the only biblical book that is entirely composed of prophetic or symbolic visions, especially of the imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous. The Apocalypse of John is considered to be one of the most controversial and difficult books of the Bible, and as such, the source of various exotic interpretations. The first-century writer, Papias (c. 60-120), for example, believed that Christ's resurrection had already inaugurated the new millennium. Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165), on the other hand, believed that the church would reign with Christ after his second coming (a view typically referred to as pre-millennialism). As Roman authorities increased their persecution of the church, Christians, like third-century Hippolytus, expected Christ to establish his millennial reign in 496. Still other Christian theologians, like Origen, preferred to interpret Revelation allegorically, rejecting detailed schemas altogether. It is interesting to note that St. John Chrysostom and other 4th Century bishops argued against including this book in the New Testament canon, chiefly because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse. It should not come as a surprise therefore that, although it was included in the official Canon of Scripture, it remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church. How should the Book of Revelation be interpreted? Who is the beast that is described in the 13th Chapter and what does the number “666†symbolize? Six exegetical methods may be used to interpret the Apocalypse of John as biblical prophecy. The first method that may be used is called the Preterist approach. Preterists believe that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events that were fulfilled in the 1st century. The Preterist approach generally identifies Jerusalem as the persecutor of the Church. Consequently, Armageddon, the scene of a final battle between the forces of good and evil, prophesied to occur at the end of the world, is interpreted as God's judgment on the Jews, carried out by the Roman army, which is identified as "the beast." The second half of the Apocalypse focuses attention on the persecution of Christians and the fall of the Roman Empire. Preterists assert that the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70, thereby inaugurating God’s Kingdom on earth. The second method used to interpret the Apocalypse of John is referred to as the Futurist approach. Unlike Preterists, Futurists assign the prophecies found in Revelation to some future time, shortly before the second coming. Futurist interpretations generally predict a Great Tribulation, a seven year period of time when believers will experience worldwide persecution and be purified and strengthened by it, and a Rapture, whereby all true Christians are taken from the earth to be spared the "time of wrath" before finally returning to Earth for God's Kingdom. Originally banned by the Catholic Church, the Futurist approach was first proposed by two Catholic writers, Lacunza and Ribera. Hal Lindsey’s books about the "rapture" and the more recent Left Behind novels by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye have done much to popularize this school of thought. The third method used to interpret the Book of Revelation is called the Historicist approach. The historicist view regards apocalyptic prophecy as spanning the time from the end of the first century until the second coming of Christ. Historicists generally apply the symbols of Revelation to the gradual division and collapse of the Roman Empire, the emergence of a divided Europe in the West and a Muslim empire in the East, and the collapse of the Eastern Empire. Historicist interpretations insist that the Church will expand until it has encompassed the whole world. In the process, however, the church will gradually evolve into an apostate system within which true Christians would be a persecuted minority. The apostate Church, on the other hand, is associated with the symbols of the "Mother of Harlots" and with "Babylon." Unlike Futurists who expect the Antichrist to appear in the last days, Historicists describe an Antichrist political system that will exist for much of history. Consequently, Historicist interpretations tend to be millenarian, emphasizing the literal reign of Christ on earth. Millennialism (or chiliasm), from millennium, which literally means "thousand years", is primarily a belief expressed in some Christian denominations, and literature, that there will be a Golden Age or Paradise on Earth where Christ will reign prior to the final judgment and future eternal state (Revelation 20:1-6). The fourth method used to interpret the Apocalypse of John is called the Spiritual or Esoteric approach. The Spiritual view does not see the Book of Revelation as predicting specific historical events but, rather, visions that describe eternal spiritual truths that find expression throughout history. Spirituals insist that specific and predictive eschatological issues are only found in the last few chapters of the Book of Revelation. The fifth method used to interpret the text of the Apocalypse is the Anglican approach. Anglicans assert that the Book of Revelation is primarily concerned with providing hope to Christians who were and still are being persecuted for their beliefs. The book assures the persecuted that their suffering is not in vain, warning non-Christians of impending judgment. Typical of other Jewish Apocalyptic literature, the Apocalypse uses symbolic imagery to communicate hope to those in the midst of persecution. Consequently, the Anglican method asserts that the events described in Revelation are ordered according to literary, rather than strictly chronological, patterns. The sixth and final method used to interpret the Book of Revelation is the Orthodox approach. Orthodoxy treats the text of Revelation as simultaneously describing contemporaneous and future events. Since Orthodox interpreters of the Apocalypse view contemporaneous events as foreshadowing future occurrences, they reject attempts to predetermine present-day events. Orthodox scholars understand the Book of Revelation as a warning for spiritual and moral preparedness. Months after the September 11th terrorist attacks, a Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies in Revelation will come true. Nearly 25 percent believe the Bible predicted the terrorist attacks specifically. While detailed interpretations of its symbols and vision have been applied to historical personalities and events such as the Trade Center bombing, tsunamis, the World Wide Web, the Pope, Adolf Hitler, feminism, or Osama Bin Laden, the Orthodox approach considers the Book of Revelation as an integral component of the Bible, and consequently, not to be used as a mystical cipher for super-historical analysis. The Orthodox approach guards against fundamentalist approaches that misuse the Book of Revelation because it divorces the book from its original context. The Book of Revelation is a circular pastoral letter addressed to the seven churches in the province of Asia at the end of the first century AD. The book or letter was not for private communication but was to be read in public in the midst of the worshipping community. The Book of Revelation is primarily concerned with encouraging the courage and perseverance of the early Christians who were threatened by Roman persecution in what was then perceived to be the end times. How, then, do we answer the $666 question that is posed in the movie, The Omen? Who or what does the number 666 signify? The Hebrew and Greek alphabets do not have separate characters to designate numbers and letters. Since letters are also used as numbers, each letter receives a numerical value. For example, the Hebrew equivalent of the English letter "w" is "vav" or "waw." The numerical value of “vav†is six. This is the reason why some have speculated that the World Wide Web (www) is indeed the “Mark of the Beast†as it may be transliterated into Hebrew as "vav vav vav", or numerically represented as 666. As we have briefly seen, there are methods for interpreting the Book of Revelation. There are also various theories that attempt to decipher the identity of the Antichrist by relating his name to the number 666. One interpretation is simply that 666 represents humankind in general because of the special significance that the number has in the Bible. Six is known as an imperfect number because it is less than seven, the perfect number. The Bible speaks of seven days in the week, seven tongues of flame, seven spiritual gifts. Therefore, the number 666 represents imperfect man, while 777 represents God. In the final analysis, the derogatory statement against Christianity made in The Omen is false and spiritually dangerous. There is a God, there is a devil and, there is more to life than the here and now! In the end, the Orthodox approach would suggest that the number 666 signifies any offense against the name of Jesus Christ. Our eternal destiny relies on the knowledge of this truth!
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2008-04-17 03:15:45.
(Language: English)
With The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown masterfully concocts an intelligent and lucid thriller that marries the gusto of an international murder mystery with a collection of fascinating esoteria culled from 2,000 years of Western history. A murder in the silent after-hour halls of the Louvre museum reveals a sinister plot to uncover a secret that has been protected by a clandestine society since the days of Christ. The victim is a high-ranking agent of this ancient society who, in the moments before his death, manages to leave gruesome clues at the scene that only his granddaughter, noted cryptographer Sophie Neveu, and Robert Langdon, a famed symbologist, can untangle. The duo become both suspects and detectives searching for not only Neveu's grandfather's murderer but also the stunning secret of the ages he was charged to protect. Mere steps ahead of the authorities and the deadly competition, the mystery leads Neveu and Langdon on a breathless flight through France, England, and history itself. Brown has created a page-turning thriller that also provides an amazing interpretation of Western history. Brown's hero and heroine embark on a lofty and intriguing exploration of some of Western culture's greatest mysteries--from the nature of the Mona Lisa's smile to the secret of the Holy Grail. Though some will quibble with the veracity of Brown's conjectures, therein lies the fun. The Da Vinci Code is an enthralling read that provides rich food for thought
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-11-06 03:12:11.
(Language: English)
Kind of like National Treasure except except some has been murdered and the only way he can clear his name is to solve "The Davinci Code". A really good book, I enjoyed it. Near the end, it gets so "full of itself" that I laughed out loud. It is during these parts that the book is not enjoyable because I would have ...preferred it to have been more realistic and not required so much suspension of belief. The major flaw with the book is that it would have you believe that there is this great secret that men are willing to die to protect or kill to find out. It is in this way that the book gets full of itself. It is a pretty good book otherwise. A mystery, educational, action, a little bit of romance. I have not seen the movie and am now looking forward to watching the movie.Oh yes, I also realize a lot of Christian groups have protested this book. To those people I would say...this ...book ...is ...fiction! Duh! I won't even get into a discussion here about the absurdity of protesting fiction. Even Jesus told parables that were fiction but were used to make a point. In a nutshell, that is the purpose of fiction. Should we ban the bible because in it Jesus gives a parable of a rich man who is tormented on one side of a gulf and a poor man who is comforted on the other? Everyone understands He was telling a story to make a point. People didn't go around protesting because Jesus didn't give an exact agreed upon version of Heaven and Hell. Duh!
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-07-30 02:15:39.
(Language: English)
Dan Brown hates the Catholic Church. His books - and the movies - has created waves of ignorant readers and moviegoers who believe that his work of fiction has any factual merit. "It's a work of fiction - get over it." Sure, it's a work of fiction - a work systematically attacking the very foundations of Christianity and specifically casting the Catholic Church as the greatest villain in history. Let's not even discuss what he does to Opus Dei. The book itself read flat. Many of the plot twists are ringers - the reader is never given enough information to reach the conclusions the protagonist can - this annoys me. A good thriller is one that lays out everything I need to out-sleuth the sleuth. His characters are one-dimensional and contrived, his dialog reads like a high school literary arts rejected submission. It is telling that Brown's first books were dead on arrival. Tapping into the popular anti-Catholic undertow in the American pseudo-intellectual 'elite' - now, THAT'S a ticket to a bestseller. Brown has made millions assaulting the Church. I would love to see him try this with Islam.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-06-14 08:57:24.
(Language: English)
The DaVinci Code is an exciting read ... and not really much else. It is, firstly, a work of *fiction* and even says so on the first few pages. That doesn't excuse any doublespeak that Dan Brown might have dispersed elsewhere. Neither does it excuse people who take any material from any source simply at face value. Because it says it's fact doesn't mean it is. That's true in *non*fiction let alone fiction. There are numerous claims made within the book that are simply inaccurate. Only some of the really basic bits of information are generally understood as true or at least plausible: there *is* a Gospel of Mary Magdalene, found this century and part of the Gnostic Christian texts which does show Mary Magdalene as a *very* prominent follower of Christ; there is some reputable historical/theological scholarship that asserts that the "son of God" view of Christ was not held by either Christ, himself, nor some facets of the early church; and according to some scholars Leonardo DaVinci did imbue numerous of his works with shady and sometimes intentionally offensive symbolism. The complicated and highly fictitious web that Dan Brown weaves from this can be quite fun and makes the book a real page-turner. Unfortunately, the book doesn't really hold together once the last page is turned. Events then seem contrived and Robert (who is a fun and charming character in general) comes into focus as an implausible human being and a convenient, walking exposition and plot device. That doesn't mean the book isn't fun, but personally I didn't understand either the hype or the controversy that surrounded its publication.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-01-30 01:01:20.
(Language: English)
While in Paris on business, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon receives an urgent late-night phone call: the elderly curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside the museum. Near the body, police have found a baffling cipher. While working to solve the enigmatic riddle, Langdon is stunned to discover it leads to a trail of clues hidden in the works of Da Vinci -- clues visible for all to see -- yet ingeniously disguised by the painter.Langdon joins forces with a gifted French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, and learns the late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion -- an actual secret society whose members included Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Da Vinci, among others. In a breathless race through Paris, London, and beyond, Langdon and Neveu match wits with a faceless powerbroker who seems to anticipate their every move. Unless Langdon and Neveu can decipher the labyrinthine puzzle in time, the Priory's ancient secret -- and an explosive historical truth -- will be lost forever.THE DA VINCI CODE heralds the arrival of a new breed of lightning-paced, intelligent thriller…utterly unpredictable right up to its stunning conclusion.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-11-19 11:17:58.
(Language: English)
“I heard a ton about this book before I read it, but made sure when the movie came out that I read it before I saw it. I didn't get around to it until last summer. I really enjoyed it though, more than I would have if I hadn't read the prequel. I caught up with Robert Langdon again, his former lover disappearing like she was a James Bond girl after her starring movie. Again he's plunged into an adventure filled with symbology, danger, and a woman way out of his league. I wasn't surprised to find out that Langdon wasn't really called to help solve the case, but because he was a suspect. The guy in the elevator seemed a little shifty. I didn't expect that he would have to run so fast though. The clues in the Louvre were really interesting, and the way he evaded the tracker was also. I wondered if the high tech bank exists somewhere, or was at at least based off of something. But the bottom line is that this book, with its albino Opus Dei assassins and its double crossing scholars and Christian conspiracies was a fast paced action filled ride, that I really liked. The end surprised me, I really didn't see the double cross coming. And even less the museum owners being long lost relatives.Anyway, 5 stars.”
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-04-04 09:02:29.
(Language: English)
In Dan Brown's latest page turner tragically haired Tom Hanks leaves the comfort of the college swimming pool and his absurdly tight speedos and flies to Paris to team up with the old guy who played Gandalf. Together they battle to uncover a mystery that will bring the vatican to it's very knees. Along the way the get in a fight with evil priest named Father O' Fondle, who has a secret. A secret so terrifying it forces the church to move him from his chapel in Little Codswollop to a cooshy desk job at the Vatican, away from the temptations of 12 year old boys. In the climactic last chapter Tom Hanks battles the very pope himself on the steps of the vatican using a combination of Jiu-Jitsu and Jedi magic. Father Ratzi the Nazi summons demons from the very depths of hell as he seeks to fulfil the church's destiny of buggering every teenage boy in the world.....It's Tom Hanks vs The Vatican...and exposition be damned, Dan Brown will get all preachy, use big words like he's the smartest kid in class with a dictionary, and needlessly explain the obvious over 12 pages taking us completely out of the plot...NY Times bestseller and Oprah's "Books I read on the Shitter" bronze medal winner.......
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-08-10 07:42:09.
(Language: English)
I am the sort, I should tell you, who will read a much-publicized book just to see what all the fuss is about, and that's why I picked up this novel. Having put it down just minutes ago... honestly, I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about. A murder in the Louvre museum draws Robert Langdon, an American professor of symbology, is drawn into a desperate race to either find or protect incredible secrets hidden for millennia. Langdon and the victim's granddaughter, cryptographer Sophie Neveu, are forced to unlock last-minute clues left by the dying man, which in turn point them to other clues, which in turn point them to OTHER clues, and so on and so on. The good first -- Brown crafts an easy read, a quick page-turner that presents a lot of interesting facts and theory regarding the Holy Grail, the ancient Church and all the mystery and symbols that surround it. The ending is also fairly satisfying -- not quite what one expects, but in character with the rest of the book. However, much of Brown's structure is infuriating. This book, by necessity, is packed with exposition... I can deal with exposition, but Brown frequently lapses into long passages that feel like he's writing a textbook instead of a novel -- dry explanations of the meanings behind symbols or words that feel as though they were lifted from an encyclopedia. Even worse are passages where he has characters flash back to previous occasions where the delivered these dry passages to other people who aren't even in the book. Brown even, on occasion, lapses into one of these tangents that has NOTHING to do with the plot, but just seemed interesting at the time. Worse than that, however, is the way Brown crafts his mysteries. This is a book full of one mystery, one puzzle, one riddle after another -- which is all well and good. The problem is, Brown cheats his readers. The fun of reading a mystery is to give the readers and the characters the clues together, then racing to see if you can solve it before the characters in the book. Brown, on multiple occasions, deliberately withholds information from the reader (for example, the last two lines of a four-line verse) until the character themselves crack the code, then goes back and gives the readers all the clues as he explains how they stumbled upon the solution. He does this over and over again, frequently following it by commenting on how clever the characters are to have solved his mystery or, alternately, how clever the man who created the puzzle in the first place was to do so. It's not a terrible book, and in fact has a lot of the elements I like about a good old-fashioned treasure hunt story, but in the end, I feel that Brown's writing leaves a lot to be desired. I can't help but think this is a case where a book became a huge hit because of the controversy, not because of the quality.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2008-12-05 01:45:29.
(Language: English)
Alfred Hitchcock once mused that imitation is a form of flattery and that self-plagiarism is the inevitability of all brilliant minds. In that regard, the Da Vince Code is a spectacular failure by both standards. Not only is it a poor intimidation of a thriller and a desperate cry for attention, it is the backwash of a writer who ripped himself off before he ever became talented. Of course, it may be unfair to fault Dan Brown with this since his previous ventures indicate he was going nowhere fast as a writer. The success of the Da Vinci code is a whole different beast on its own. Much like FOX News or the Shopping Network, there will always be people who will buy something no matter how big a piece of crap it is. (Case in point, you can find enough of these at used book sales to last you all winter.) As a work of literature, the Da Vinci Code is a prostitute among virgins. The protagonist is Indiana Jones right down to his "Harrison Ford in Harris tweed", a description so ridiculous that out of 60+ million copies sold, only Dan Brown found it funny. Its thrills are cheap, its humor painful, its situations unrealistic, its characters flimsy and/or plagarized, its puzzles piss-poor and predictable, its twists self-contradicting, its drama forced, and its sex scenes terrible and uninteresting. The book reads like a fan-script from a failing film-student and its historic merit is all the evidence you need to know Dan Brown consulted CliffNotes in college. In short: don't read this book. It is a chamber-pot of creativity. Consult it only if you egos are so sensitive that they can be inflated by conquering chapters no longer than two pages. You're smarter than that and deserve better than Dan Brown. You'll learn more in the food court of a museum than through the entirety of these pages. Instead, picture for a moment what 'Indiana Jones and the Code of Da Vinci' would've been like as a film. Whatever you're thinking, I can assure you it's better than what Dan Brown scratched together.
|
|
PANKAJ posted a review at 2010-04-29 04:49:13.
(Language: English)
DA VINCI CODE- COMMENT: PANKAJ DHAR CHOWDHURY,ALIPURDUAR,JALPAIGURI,WEST BENGAL. In the novel Leigh Teabing explains to Sophie Neveu that the figure at the right hand of Jesus in Leonardo da Vinci's painting of "The Last Supper" is not the apostle John, but actually Mary Magdalene. In the novel, Magdalene was the wife of Jesus Christ and was pregnant with his child when Jesus was crucified. Leigh Teabing says that the absence of achalice in Leonardo's painting means Leonardo knew that Mary Magdalene was the actual Holy Grail and the bearer of Jesus' blood in the form of the child she was carrying. Leigh Teabing goes on to explain that this idea is supported by the shape of the letter "V" that is formed by the bodily positions of Jesus and Mary, as "V" is the symbol for the sacred feminine. The absence of the Apostle John in the painting is explained by knowing that John is also referred to as "the Disciple Jesus loved", code for Mary Magdalene. The book also notes that the color scheme of their garments are inverted: Jesus wears a red blouse with royal blue cape; John/Mary wears a royal blue blouse with red cape — perhaps symbolizing two bonded halves of marriage. According to the novel, the secrets of the Holy Grail, as kept by the Priory of Sion are as follows: The Holy Grail is not a physical chalice, but a woman, namely Mary Magdalene, who carried the bloodline of Christ. The Old French expression for the Holy Grail, San gréal, actually is a play on Sang réal, which literally means "royal blood" in Old French. The Grail relics consist of the documents that testify to the bloodline, as well as the actual bones of Mary Magdalene. The Grail relics of Mary Magdalene were hidden by the Priory of Sion in a secret crypt, perhaps beneath Rosslyn Chapel. The Church has suppressed the truth about Mary Magdalene and the Jesus bloodline for 2000 years. This is principally because they fear the power of the sacred feminine in and of itself and because this would challenge the primacy of Saint Peter as an apostle. Mary Magdalene was of royal descent (through the Jewish House of Benjamin) and was the wife of Jesus, of the House of David. That she was a prostitute was slander invented by theChurch to obscure their true relationship. At the time of the Crucifixion, she was pregnant. After the Crucifixion, she fled to Gaul, where she was sheltered by the Jews of Marseille. She gave birth to a daughter, named Sarah. The bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene became the Merovingian dynasty of France. The existence of the bloodline was the secret that was contained in the documents discovered by the Crusaders after they conquered Jerusalem in 1099 (see Kingdom of Jerusalem). The Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar were organized to keep the secret. The secrets of the Grail are connected, according to the novel, to Leonardo Da Vinci's work as follows: Leonardo was a member of the Priory of Sion and knew the secret of the Grail. The secret is in fact revealed in The Last Supper, in which no actual chalice is present at the table. The figure seated next to Christ is not a man, but a woman, his wife Mary Magdalene. Most reproductions of the work are from a later alteration that obscured her obvious female characteristics. The androgyny of the Mona Lisa reflects the sacred union of male and female implied in the holy union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Such parity between the cosmic forces of masculine and feminine has long been a deep threat to the established power of the Church. The name Mona Lisa is actually an anagram for "Amon L'Isa", referring to the father and mother gods of Ancient Egyptian religion (namely Amun and Isis). A number of different authors also speculate about the possibility of Jesus becoming a father. There are at least three children attributed to him, a daughter Tamar, born before the Crucifixion, and two sons Jesus (the Jesus Justus from the New Testament) and Josephes, both born after the Resurrection. Although their names are now part of the common culture of conspiracy writers, only two decades ago, when The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was written, the names were not mentioned. The royal descents that lie at the heart of The Da Vinci Code mystery centre on the family of Josephes, who is supposed to be the grandfather of Aminadab del Graal, first of the "Fisher Kings". However the genealogies that are quoted in Grail lore appear to record too few generations, with children regularly being born to fathers in their 40s. COMMENT ON THIS IS REQUESTED.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-09-27 10:23:54.
(Language: English)
The Da Vinci Code is an entertaining but mediocre piece of fiction with interesting conjectures and glaring historical inaccuracies. Aside from Brown's rather incomplete view of church history (wherever did he get the idea that the Church didn't view Jesus as divine until the Council of Nicea?), some other things stood out to me as well, particularily the details about the Fibonacci sequence in relation to musical compositions. It's true that Mozart and Beethoven's compositions are unconciously organized to reflect the Golden Mean proportion. However, Brown implies that the same is true of Bartok's music as well. Bartok's compositions (for example, the Music For Strings, Percussion, and Celeste) do contain the Golden Mean, but only because he specifically wrote them with this in mind. It was quite intentional, not a natural occurence as Brown implies. I understand that a piece of fiction doesn't have to be accurate; that is, fiction can contain contrived characters and make-believe situations, facts, etc. However, when an author implies that his book is historically accurate as Brown does, one must weigh the book at least partially on this criteria. Brown asserts that historical facts and descriptions of historical artifacts and locations are accurate while his hypotheses, described in the book, are merely conjecture. However, I find that even supposed historical "facts" cited in the book are completely fabricated. It seems to me that The Da Vince Code, however entertaining it may be, falls short in the area of integrity. That being said, I don't think this novel is a "threat to Christianity" or whatever some conservatives are saying. If your faith is such that a glaringly inaccurate, sensational novel makes you question your beliefs, you've got bigger problems than being offended by a story. Actually, The Da Vinci Code has opened up a lot of discussion about Christianity, which I see as a good thing.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-06-09 06:49:11.
(Language: English)
3/5 Short version: Page-turning fiction that thinks it's non-fiction. Read Cracking Da Vinci's Code after it. Long version: I couldn’t put down “The Da Vinci Codeâ€, and I couldn’t stop talking about it to friends, even ones who hadn’t read it, which I’m sure they found annoying. I loved reading it, but I found some things offensive. Books and movies like this worry me because, in the name of “fictionâ€, writers can slander a real person or organization as much as they want, and audiences believe them. It’s propaganda. Brown’s ideas seem plausible because he effectively sprinkles in occasional facts and has well-educated characters assert that they are speaking the truth. But you wouldn’t study for the bar exam by reading Grisham, so why learn theology from Brown? I did a little research and, let’s just say that it’s ironic that the book’s main theme is a courageous search for truth. It’s completely avoided on the book flaps, but he’s obviously got an agenda On 20/20, he said he was on a mission to bring a religious message, a new way of thinking about the origins of Christianity, to mainstream America. On NBC’s Today Show, he was asked: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?†“Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies – all of that is historical fact.†That’s not “absolutely all†of the book. Those are details, not main ideas. It’s Male Bashing For example, the scene where Langdon refers to a Harvard lecture he gave where women nodded with understanding during his explanation of “finding divinity†during sex while the men giggled immaturely, being “still boysâ€. His Reasoning Seems Ludicrous The Code says, “Mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base… for obvious reasons, they had to demonize sex. Other major religions did the same.†I’m sure a lot of people were having sex in order to commune directly with God. ;) He refers to Jesus’ divinity as “The greatest story ever sold.†He claims that “Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity.†p. 124 The world’s most famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead, said, “claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed.†Sociology faculty chairman Steven Goldberg writes: “Theories about a matriarchal society… failed to include a single shred of evidence that (they) had ever existed.†Women in the pagan world were not treated as well as Brown asserts. In all cultures, India, China, Greece, you name it, women were considered property with no rights. In fact, even ancient Roman pagan scholars agree that Christianity was the turning point for the freedom and dignity of womenâ€. For example, Alvin Schmidt, author of “Under the Influence†writes that ‘The influence of Christians helped to abolish China’s practice of binding women feet and India’s suttee: burning a woman to death on the funeral pyre with her dead husband, and to fight the practice of some young girls being raised to be temple prostitutes.’ Brown claims that the New Testament was put together by female-bashers. If so, why would women have a prominent role in it? Why would women saints and martyrs be revered, or even recorded? Mother Mary is prayed to. The resurrection itself is first announced to a woman. In one gospel story, sisters Mary and Martha are hosting Jesus at their home. Mary listens to Him while Martha does the “female†things and He affirms Mary and challenges Martha. Paul declares that both genders have equal standing before God. Meanwhile, Gnostic gospels put women down: The Gospel of Thomas, saying 114, has Jesus saying, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling your males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.†Also, in the ritual Heiros Gamos, it doesn’t say how women use sex to gain knowledge, the men do that, she is only a “chalice†in the rite. Brown accuses the Church of Murdering 5,000,000 women as witches The publication “Malleus Maleficarumâ€, or “The Witch’s Hammer†began the idea and practice of killing witches. Brown refers to “Malleus Maleficarum†as being authored by an official of the Catholic church. Actually, the church reacted to its publication by rejecting the legal procedures suggested by the authors, and censuring them. It was secular courts, not the Church, that relied on “Malleus Maleficarumâ€. Secular courts, not Church courts, handed down the majority of capital sentences. Those found guilty of witchcraft by the Church were usually given non-lethal penalties, such as excommunication, or fasting on bread and water for a year. Neopagan author Jenny Gibbons wrote an article that states, "Popular writers trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but a deliberate attempt to exterminate Christianity's rival religion." (This is what Brown means when he refers to the "brutal crusade to 'reeducate' the pagan and feminine-worshipping religions.") Gibbons continues: "Today, we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When the church was at the height of its power (llth to 14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable moral authority." In fact, it was Christian missionaries who encouraged kingdoms and courts to pass laws protecting men and women from charges of witchcraft. These missionaries said such charges were ungrounded, as they did not believe humans possessed the power to do what witches were accused of doing. Also, the fifth century Synod of St. Patrick ruled that “A Christian who believes that there is a… witch, is to be anathematized; whoever lays that reputation upon a living being shall not be received into the Church until he revokes with his own voice the crime that he has committed." And what of the estimates of the number of women killed during the Great Hunt? Brown uses the figure of five million. Most modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 percent were men. The issue of Jesus’ divinity being something decided on by a Church Council Code, p. 233 “Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… but a man nonetheless. A mortal…. Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.†“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?†“A relatively close one at that… Establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to… the new Vatican power base.†- Jesus called Himself: the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Way, the Truth, the Life, said ‘the only way to the Father is through me’, said he could forgive sin, said He would rise from the dead; the gospels say he rose from the dead, He allowed others to call him the Christ, and said He would be the ultimate judge at the end of time. - If He hadn’t really thought He was divine, why not just say so when on trial and avoid an agonizing death? - All martyrs before the fourth century had been dying for the memory of a man? They didn’t already think He was divine? - It got formally voted on because a man named Arius raised the issue by teaching that Jesus was mortal, was declared a heretic by a bishop, moved to Palestine and continued his teaching, sending letters to churches promoting the idea, and kept trying to gain attention until emperor Constantine finally heard about it. Constantine called together over 300 bishops, primarily from the East, (which should have helped Arius’ cause), and had them vote. Brown blatantly lies “Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?†“A relatively close one at that.†The vote was 316 to 2. The Priory of Sion: Brown relies on a 1982 publication, “Holy Blood, Holy Grailâ€, for his information on the Priory of Sion. Those authors relied on documents provided them by Pierre Plantard, an anti-Semitic Frenchman who spent time in jail for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1954 called the Priory of Sion, taking the name from a nearby mountain. Their club's "cause" was the call for more low-cost housing in France. The club dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name. Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, Plantard created a series of documents "proving" the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include Pierre Plantard. He began using the name Plantard de Saint-Clair, saying the Saint-Clairs were direct descendants of the line of Jesus and Mary. In 1993, Plantard's name came up in light of a political scandal involving a close friend of then French president Francois Mitterand. Plantard had, in one of his documented lists of the Priory of Sion, listed Roger-Patrice Pelat as a Grand Master. When called before the court to testify, Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme. The court ordered a search of Plantard's house, which revealed further documents that proclaimed Plantard to be the true king of France. The judge gave Plantard a stern warning and dismissed him as a harmless crank. The phrase “The winners write the history†Sophie seems surprised by this concept, as if it’s new. Conspiracy theorists love this phrase. It conveniently discounts virtually all historical accounts. Also, as far as Brown’s specific claim against the Church goes, the New Testament was written well before Christians stopped being killed for their faith, so they were hardly winners at the time. (Version I sent out:) Hey ladies. I couldn’t put down “The Da Vinci Codeâ€, and I couldn’t stop talking about it to friends, even ones who hadn’t read it, which I’m sure they found annoying. I loved reading it, but I found some things offensive. I don’t want to talk everyone’s ear off tomorrow, so I’m sending this long-winded e-mail out now instead and I’ll try not to talk too much at the meeting. :) Take it or leave it. Books and movies like this worry me because, in the name of “fictionâ€, writers can slander a real person or organization as much as they want, and audiences often believe them. It’s propaganda. Brown’s ideas seem plausible because he effectively sprinkles in occasional facts and has well-educated characters assert that they are speaking the truth. I'm sure we know we can't study for the bar exam by reading Grisham or learn theology from Brown, but I did a little research and, let’s just say that it’s ironic that the book’s main theme is a courageous search for truth. What I’ve learned is in normal font; the parts in italics are just my opinions. The underlined parts are the various topics I found annoying. It’s completely avoided on the book flaps, but he’s obviously got an agenda. I would have liked a warning. On 20/20, he said he was on a mission to bring a religious message, a new way of thinking about the origins of Christianity, to mainstream America. He tries to make it seem real On NBC’s Today Show, he was asked: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?†“Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies – all of that is historical fact.†That’s not “absolutely all†of the book. Those are details, not main ideas. It’s Male Bashing For example, the scene where Langdon refers to a Harvard lecture he gave where women nodded with understanding during his explanation of “finding divinity†during sex while the men giggled immaturely, being “still boysâ€. His Reasoning Seems Ludicrous The Code says, “Mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base… for obvious reasons, they had to demonize sex. Other major religions did the same.†I’m sure a lot of people were having sex in order to commune directly with God. ;) He refers to Jesus’ divinity as “The greatest story ever sold.†He claims that “Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity.†p. 124 The world’s most famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead, said, “claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed.†Sociology faculty chairman Steven Goldberg writes: “Theories about a matriarchal society… failed to include a single shred of evidence that (they) had ever existed.†Women in the pagan world were not treated as well as Brown asserts. In all cultures, India, China, Greece, you name it, women were considered property with no rights. In fact, even ancient Roman pagan scholars agree that Christianity was the turning point for the freedom and dignity of womenâ€. For example, Alvin Schmidt, author of “Under the Influence†writes that ‘The influence of Christians helped to abolish China’s practice of binding women feet and India’s suttee: burning a woman to death on the funeral pyre with her dead husband, and to fight the practice of some young girls being raised to be temple prostitutes.’ Brown claims that the New Testament was put together by female-bashers. If so, why would women have a prominent role in it? Why would women saints and martyrs be revered, or even recorded? Mother Mary is prayed to. The resurrection itself is first announced to a woman. In one gospel story, sisters Mary and Martha are hosting Jesus at their home. Mary listens to Him while Martha does the “female†things and He affirms Mary and challenges Martha. Paul declares that both genders have equal standing before God. Meanwhile, Gnostic gospels put women down: The Gospel of Thomas, saying 114, has Jesus saying, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling your males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.†Also, in the ritual Heiros Gamos, it doesn’t say how women use sex to gain knowledge, the men do that, she is only a “chalice†in the rite. Brown accuses the Church of Murdering 5,000,000 women as witches The publication “Malleus Maleficarumâ€, or “The Witch’s Hammer†began the idea and practice of killing witches. Brown refers to “Malleus Maleficarum†as being authored by an official of the Catholic church. Actually, the church reacted to its publication by rejecting the legal procedures suggested by the authors, and censuring them. It was secular courts, not the Church, that relied on “Malleus Maleficarumâ€. Secular courts, not Church courts, handed down the majority of capital sentences. Those found guilty of witchcraft by the Church were usually given non-lethal penalties, such as excommunication, or fasting on bread and water for a year. Neopagan author Jenny Gibbons wrote an article that states, "Popular writers trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but a deliberate attempt to exterminate Christianity's rival religion." (This is what Brown means when he refers to the "brutal crusade to 'reeducate' the pagan and feminine-worshipping religions.") Gibbons continues: "Today, we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When the church was at the height of its power (llth to 14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable moral authority." In fact, it was Christian missionaries who encouraged kingdoms and courts to pass laws protecting men and women from charges of witchcraft. These missionaries said such charges were ungrounded, as they did not believe humans possessed the power to do what witches were accused of doing. Also, the fifth century Synod of St. Patrick ruled that “A Christian who believes that there is a… witch, is to be anathematized; whoever lays that reputation upon a living being shall not be received into the Church until he revokes with his own voice the crime that he has committed." And what of the estimates of the number of women killed during the Great Hunt? Brown uses the figure of five million. Most modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 percent were men. The issue of Jesus’ divinity being something decided on by a Church Council Code, p. 233 “Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… but a man nonetheless. A mortal…. Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.†“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?†“A relatively close one at that… Establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to… the new Vatican power base.†- Jesus called Himself: the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Way, the Truth, the Life, said ‘the only way to the Father is through me’, said he could forgive sin, said He would rise from the dead; the gospels say he rose from the dead, He allowed others to call him the Christ, and said He would be the ultimate judge at the end of time. - If He hadn’t really thought He was divine, why not just say so when on trial and avoid an agonizing death? - All martyrs before the fourth century had been dying for the memory of a man? They didn’t already think He was divine? - It got formally voted on because a man named Arius raised the issue by teaching that Jesus was mortal, was declared a heretic by a bishop, moved to Palestine and continued his teaching, sending letters to churches promoting the idea, and kept trying to gain attention until emperor Constantine finally heard about it. Constantine called together over 300 bishops, primarily from the East, (which should have helped Arius’ cause), and had them vote. Brown blatantly lies “Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?†“A relatively close one at that.†The vote was 316 to 2. The Priory of Sion: Brown relies on a 1982 publication, “Holy Blood, Holy Grailâ€, for his information on the Priory of Sion. Those authors relied on documents provided them by Pierre Plantard, an anti-Semitic Frenchman who spent time in jail for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1954 called the Priory of Sion, taking the name from a nearby mountain. Their club's "cause" was the call for more low-cost housing in France. The club dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name. Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, Plantard created a series of documents "proving" the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include Pierre Plantard. He began using the name Plantard de Saint-Clair, saying the Saint-Clairs were direct descendants of the line of Jesus and Mary. In 1993, Plantard's name came up in light of a political scandal involving a close friend of then French president Francois Mitterand. Plantard had, in one of his documented lists of the Priory of Sion, listed Roger-Patrice Pelat as a Grand Master. When called before the court to testify, Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme. The court ordered a search of Plantard's house, which revealed further documents that proclaimed Plantard to be the true king of France. The judge gave Plantard a stern warning and dismissed him as a harmless crank. The phrase “The winners write the history†Sophie seems surprised by this concept, as if it’s new. Conspiracy theorists love this phrase. It conveniently discounts virtually all historical accounts. Also, as far as Brown’s specific claim against the Church goes, the New Testament was written well before Christians stopped being killed for their faith, so they were hardly winners at the time. He refers to his main characters as 'Sophie and Langdon', not 'Sophie and Robert'. I don't know why this bugs me. That's it. :)
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-05-23 06:24:29.
(Language: English)
I was recommended this book about 2 years ago by a colleague and I ended up finished reading it in THREE days. It is a story about the grail. Some people say it's the cup used by Jesus in the last supper and some say it's the cup that the Roman soldiers used to collect Jesus's blood. Instead of using these myths about the grail, Brown gives us a totally different explanation of what the grail is about. Let me give you some background information. The idea of the cup is never mentioned in bible and it first appeared in a story written by a French novelist in the middle ages. Legends says that drinking from the cup will give you eternal life. The story started off with a murder of an elder of a secret society. Then what follows is a series of puzzles that the main characters Robert and Sophie had to solve to find out the location of the grail. During the search, via the discussion between the characters, Brown details the historical background about the legends of the grail and the various myths associated with the grail. You can see the techique Brown used. He puts a thread through the various myths and makes a connection between the various events and facts and links them into a story. However, many of the facts mentioned are indeed true, such as the origin of the "black Friday". I also learned a lot about the famous Leonardo Da Vinci and a lot of the "decoding" skills. I have to say I enjoy reading the story very much and it is one of the best adventure fiction I've read in a long time, a clue follows another. Sooner or later you will notice that you cannot put down the book!! Another thing which I get from the story is the crytex which is a mobile vault for keeping valuables-well I think this is a good tool for storing things like wedding rings or valuable gift. A lot of you may think that the book contradicts many of the religious belief and it's blasphemy to the church. Well as a moderate catholic, I see this only as a good work of human-how can Brown imagine such a explanation, with facts that myths that fit in so well together?? Personally I do not care whether this "bloodline" of Christ exists, what matters to me is really his teaching and love to us
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-07-08 02:19:54.
(Language: English)
You know what's in store for you when one of the reviews on the back-cover of a book says "Umberto Eco on Steroids"... Where Eco’s writing is wonderfully original, Mr. Brown gives us quite a pedestrian piece of literature. Personally, I was not expecting anything great- anything more than disposable and forgettable thrills. And I am glad there weren't any surprises. It made my reading of the book much easier over a brain-dead weekend that I wanted to have. First of all, it is not one of the best written books. In fact, at times I wonder if there were two authors who actually did the writing. While this theory might sound as fluffy and badly presented here as most of Brown's theories in the book, I think this argument might have some merit. For, to give Brown his due, some of the facts do come from thorough research and are well presented, and do invite a bit of attention. But then there are times in the book where you wonder if the writer actually took a second look at the text at all, or if the "facts" were even researched... Someone as intelligent in his ability to connect things to "encode" and "decode" as Brown, should have paid attention to basic nuances such as: the fact that the Italians do not call a mobile phone a cell-phone, even when they are talking to an American; or how many times is a Harvard teacher likely to use the expression "shit!" in his conversations. Brown’s attempt at providing a fringe romantic benefit in this thriller is quite feeble, and basic dialogue and character construction, it seems, is also not one of his strong points. The Da Vinci Code is a story of Robert Langdon - a teacher of Symbology at Harvard (a discipline that does not, yet, exist at Harvard!), who has spent his life researching the connection and history of various symbols. He lectures at various Universities, and is at the brink of becoming a celebrity in his own right due to his inspiring insights on the subject. In this book, he ends up helping the daughter of the murdered curator at the Louvre museum in solving a mystery involving the search of, hold your breath, The Holy Grail! From then on, a series of coded messages and clues lead them to the ultimate reality and truth about the Grail. Robert Langdon, it seems, would become the main character of Brown's upcoming books, as he has already featured in one earlier. While it may be far from possible that Langdon goes down in the thriller and suspense history shoulder-to-shoulder with Perry Mason, or Mr. Holmes, he is quite likely to be remembered as one of its kind intellectual cow-boy. In some of the "Codes" the book presents, one cannot help but chuckle out with mild amusement. The Da Vinci code does have a readability factor after all: this book has the ability to make one feel like a true genius. It is understandable to feel like one when one is able to get to the gist of something that a Harvard symbologist and a royal historian struggle with for the next few pages... It adds a wow factor. At times, I wonder, if this is what's making the Da Vinci Code the real hype that it has become... It brings out the Langdon in everyone. Essentially, Brown is not the first one who has written such a book. In fact the person he is pretending to be, albeit on steroids, can perhaps be credited for one of the most brilliant books in this style of writing. Umberto's "Foucault's Pendulum" was perhaps a bit of a code for Brown itself, as he seems heavily inspired by the style of writing, and the book seems to be one of his major sources of research as well. Well to you all, the book is worth picking up. How else would one defend a better point of view? And tell the world that what is being read here is of very little real literature value...
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-10-09 10:57:54.
(Language: English)
The DaVinci Code is an exciting read ... and not really much else. It is, firstly, a work of *fiction* and even says so on the first few pages. That doesn't excuse any doublespeak that Dan Brown might have dispersed elsewhere. Neither does it excuse people who take any material from any source simply at face value. Because it says it's fact doesn't mean it is. That's true in *non*fiction let alone fiction. There are numerous claims made within the book that are simply inaccurate. Only some of the really basic bits of information are generally understood as true or at least plausible: there *is* a Gospel of Mary Magdalene, found this century and part of the Gnostic Christian texts which does show Mary Magdalene as a *very* prominent follower of Christ; there is some reputable historical/theological scholarship that asserts that the "son of God" view of Christ was not held by either Christ, himself, nor some facets of the early church; and according to some scholars Leonardo DaVinci did imbue numerous of his works with shady and sometimes intentionally offensive symbolism. The complicated and highly fictitious web that Dan Brown weaves from this can be quite fun and makes the book a real page-turner. Unfortunately, the book doesn't really hold together once the last page is turned. Events then seem contrived and Robert (who is a fun and charming character in general) comes into focus as an implausible human being and a convenient, walking exposition and plot device. That doesn't mean the book isn't fun, but personally I didn't understand either the hype or the controversy that surrounded its publication.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-10-28 11:15:47.
(Language: English)
Seventy pages into Dan Brown's surprisingly putdownable potboiler, the inevitably green-eyed, French-accented code cracker Sophie Neveu sighs, "This is not American television, Mr Langdon." Oh, Sophie, if only that were true. You know a book owes too much to the screen when an albino assassin appears on the very first page, and rather than taking the time to construct an original variant on the intelligent-action-man hero you're simply instructed to think of Harrison Ford - in tweed. This is a movie, pure and simple: a thinly plotted, strongly visual, mildly entertaining Hollywood chase movie about cardboard characters (replete with sappy childhood flashbacks) and with enough Opus Dei-bashing to make it a fast-acting antidote to "The Passion of the Christ." Crammed full of supposedly arcane revelations about mathematics, religion, symbolism and art - most of which read like verbatim downloads from Google - the "intellectual" content won't be dazzling or new (forget accurate) to anyone even slightly inquisitive about these topics. Worse, it's presented with a juvenile fascination for "connections" that would embarrass the most seasoned New Age charlatan. It all moves at a cracking pace, of course, and has enough scope and colour to hold your rapt attention for a few winter nights, and enough Catholic conspiracy theory to warm the heart of an atheist. But it's so devoid of literary merit, so apparently committed to the squandering of every opportunity to do anything interesting with the material - rather than just ape the narrative grammar of cinema - that it truly beggars belief. The characters are just names on the page, huge swathes of deadpan "I'm glad you asked"-style exposition pad out the clunky plot shifts, and because it's all so closely modeled on the rhythms of Hollywood nothing ever comes as a surprise - not a word, not an image, not a moment. This is post-literate prose at its direst, plugging directly into pre-fabricated scenarios, characters and images, absolving the reader of the need to imagine anything - which is why it's such a famously easy read. This is reality as a simulacrum of television, a copy of a copy, and about as convincing. It's an odd stylistic choice in a novel which takes as its theme the notion that great art depicts truths which evil empires would suppress. If you want to read the kind of novel this purports to be, get yourself a copy of Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" or, better yet, "Foucault's Pendulum". If those don't grab you, at the very least try Donna Tartt's "The Secret History" - nothing to do with the Grail, but it's certainly more deserving of the "intelligent thriller" label than this. Is there really nothing better to be said for "The Da Vinci Code", as novel? Sadly, I'm with Harrison - I mean Robert: "Langdon considered it a moment, then groaned." (p.93)
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-10-23 08:51:50.
(Language: English)
I wish you could give zero stars, because that's what the Da Vinci Turd deserves. If it was a b-grade action film it would still be relatively dumb, but as a novel it was excruciating. I'm completely baffled why this book is so popular - do the people who like it actually read other books? Where to begin? Why is there always a character who knows a stupid level of detail about every scrap of history, geography or technology that they come across? And why does the reader need to hear it? I really don't give a toss about how much Dan Brown knows about the Louvre or the Paris street map or what colour shoes cultists wear, and it certainly doesn't help the story. Sometimes it's effective to leave some gaps in a story Mr Brown, and let the reader piece things together themselves. And the ridiculously implausible romance? Where the hell does that come from? And the horribly clumsy "twists"? Perhaps they're not predictable, but neither are they remotely interesting or surprising. To be fair, the holy grail is an interesting area of study from which to draw a premise, but one treated a million times better and by Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum. Why don't people love that book? I've thought long and hard about this, and I think it is actually the worst book I've ever read. And that includes an Alien Vs Predator novel I once read because it was the only thing in English in an Italian youth hostel. Save your brain and stop reading it, please.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-09-19 01:05:04.
(Language: English)
One of the worst written books I've ever read. In terms of craft, narrative structure, evolution of the plot, character development, and just even putting a sentence together it failed. Example: Towards the end of the book the main characters are on a wild chase through Rome, just a hair's breadth away from death, so what do they do?!? Why they stop into a library, of course. The male character and the librarian have a nice chat, flirt a little, then the librarian performs a "straight Boolean search" - those words are forever seared in my brain because I was flabbergasted that a writer, at the height of a life and death chase, would actually interrupt the momentum to give the reader a primer on the various types of searches you can perform in a library!! Who the hell does that!?! Dan "I-couldn't-write-a-decent-grocery-list" Brown apparently does! But this isn't the first time Monsieur Brown has pulled a stunt like this. In the first chapter or two the main characters, whathisname - Robert Langdon? - and a woman who will henceforth be known as French Woman are running from the police who are just seconds behind them. So what does Brown have them do? Why, the only logical thing to do, of course: stop in a stairwell and discuss 16th century Catholic symbolism. Right. Because when I'm being hunted by foreign law officials I just want to hear about the minutiae of tapestry. And if that isn't horrifically ridiculous enough, Langdon uses the cheesiest line before he leaves. The police (okay, so they're French, but still...) are but seconds behind and still Dan "not-much-luck-with-ladies" Brown has his protagonist lay out one of the worst lines known to man. This is even worse than, "Is your daddy a rocket scientist, 'cause your ass is outta this world." No, what Brown's male lead says, after spending 10 minutes discussing Catholic symbolism, cops just seconds away, about to be caught! - he says to her, "I'll only go on one condition." She says, "What! What is it -" So Langdon says ever so suavely and cool, "That you stop calling me *Mr.*Langdon." Because, you see, when running from the police it's important that in addition to discussing tapestries it's also good to sexually harass your getaway partner. I'm going to stop there before I have an aneurysm. Suffice it to say that DaVinci's Code is the worst book I've ever read. I would read a case load of Nancy Drews, Hardy Boys, and dime store novels before I would read another Brown book. Only the Queen herself could compel me to read one of him again.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2007-11-09 09:00:31.
(Language: English)
Dan Brown's writing style is poo. The sucess of The Da Vinci Code is down to the historical speculation, presented as fact, which underpins this weak thriller. In a society odsessed with tabloid scandal, surrounding B list celebrities and politicians, of course the scandalising of a big name celeb, like Jesus Christ, is going to draw quite a crowd. But this is not Brown's own work, the content of the historical conspiracy theory is clearly lifted from the likes of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Books which presented the same speculation in a form less conducive to mass appeal. So, what we have here is a poorly written thriller, which uses cliched "hooks" to keep the reader turning pages, and which gained sucess due to the free publicity gained by The Churches reaction to a plagiarised conspiracy theory. Therefore this is a rubbish book, right? Well, not necessarily. I actually enjoyed this book. The speculation surrounding The Priory of Sion, Mary Magdalene, etc. were new to me on reading this novel, and these ideas are quite exciting. Also, although the writing is poor, I have to admit this a page-turner. This book is not as awful as some critics may claim. However, nor is it as good as it's many fans, and it's huge sales figures, may indicate. The Da Vinci Code has been phenomenally sucessful. This is despite the poor writing, the seemingly plagiarised content, and the lack of charisma that Dan Brown displays, not only in his writing, but also in person. It is therefore very tempting to rubbish this book - I want to say, "Don't read this! It is a bad book!". However, this desire is a knee jerk reaction to the massive sucess of a moderate product. This is worth a read. Allow yourself to enjoy it. Just don't start thinking this is a great work of art, or that Brown is a great artist. You'd be very, very wrong and you'd look very, very silly. On the positive side, this book did upset The Church, and anything that interupts the smug, ignorant, arrogance of established religion is good. But if you want a church-baiter, Dan Brown is an embarrassing specimen, try Richard Dawkins instead. Peace.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2008-06-22 05:34:10.
(Language: English)
I got this book for my thirtieth birthday and nursed a hangover while reading it. I was unable to put it down, it was a real page turner and at that time i would have said i fully love this book. As a novel. Even at the time I felt i had to leave my brain at the door a bit but I enjoyed the trip. What has made me lose love for the book is the number of people who think that as a Christian I should have my faith seriously challenged by this suspense and guns story. even worse are the ones who think that as a feminist I would find the book refreshing, liberating or true. As a christian, I can see that the church's (any church's) attitude to power is problematic, and in particular the role of women is an issue that interests me. The book didn't for me add anything new to that arena however. As a feminist I found the book to be the same old patriarchal tripe i am used to in 90% of what I read (maybe a degree worse than some). Women liberated by %&#*ing? Sounds like a man's fantasy to me. Mary Magdalene "elevated" from discipleship to being a love interest and incubator. PLEASE. Women have often in history been worshipped for their receptivity (likeness to a grail) and childbearing but this is a form of exclusion/oppression. Nothing very groundbreaking here. If you read it, read it for the fast-paced plots and suspense. Preferably lie in bed with a wicked hangover surrounded by empty bottles and let it entertain you A good hangover book but not a great one for truth. No new material really and I do not understand therefore why any church got its knickers in a knot.After all the hype my response is - yawn
|
Share your views!
Similar books
