Only several? To me, reading the book was like watching a condensed, B-movie version of Indiana Jones, with several half-hour BBC documenteries inserted every five minutes. The fact that nearly all the documenteries were false is only slightly annoying; the fact that Brown claims that they are true in his opening statement goes beyond irritating. It’s deceptive, insulting, and a feeble attempt to “educate” the masses as to his own personal beliefs (in an interview, Brown said that he believed the assertations he made in the book).
Brown throws so many “facts” into his book, it becomes difficult and very distracting trying to distinguish between truth and fiction. The way it’s written, it’s very tempting to take Brown’s ideas as fact, and from what I’ve heard, many readers have done just that. I even participated in a discussion on this board with someone who belived the Q-document was written by Jesus himself (a claim made in The Da Vinci Code). But when it came to the idea of there being secret sex rituals in Solomon’s temple as part of the Judaic practices, that was too much for me to swallow.
I’m glad I did some research and asked around about the stuff in the book. I’d still love to see a point-by-point factual contention of this book, but Sandra Miesel presents a pretty thorough debunking of many of the ideas presented (although she is Catholic so is kind of biased I guess). Plus, the Priory of Sion, around which nearly all the plot revolves, was founded in 1956 (story here with original documents here), not several hundred years ago.
That being said, I did enjoy the ride to a certain degree. I’ve always been a fan of puzzle stories, but was expecting something more along the lines of Da Vinci having left clues in his paintings as to the location of the Grail. Plus, I had just read two of Cecil’s columns shortly before reading the book itself, one on whether there ever was a Holy Grail and another as to whether Jesus and Mary were lovers, which for me was more than enough to destroy any credibility Brown had going into the game.
Silas was Paul’s companion and friend. I found it … funny that Brown chose that name for the Bad guy’s dupe/muscle (who he named after Holy Blood/Grail Author Leigh) and wondered if the evil-dumb-duped-but-truly-religious Silas was a purposeful/symbolic name choice by Brown.
Appreciation
All the big Grail conspiracy/Jesus kid books: Specifically the *Holy Blood Holy Grail * series and other derivatives tend to do this : “Jesus & Mary M have a kid, and 600 years later their descendant Dagobert …” I appreciated Brown at least saying Jesus & Mary had a daughter named Sarah
**
Slam**
I can’t finished on preview who said this but I too was annoyed by the overuse of this device:
“I am posting this in CS.”
“Hunh?”
“CS stands for Cafe Society a forum on the Straight Dope Message Board. It is a place to share thoughts about the Arts, Leisure and Entertainment. By posting this here, scores of people will read what I wrote.”
“I see. This way you can read other’s opinons of the Da Vinci Code and share your own.”
“I am posting this in CS.”
“Hunh?”
“CS stands for Cafe Society.”
“Isn’t that a forum on the Straight Dope Message Board? A place to share thoughts about the Arts, Leisure and Entertainment?”
If the other person already knows about it, WHY are they explaining it to each other??
Gandalf: Take the ring. It’s quite cool. As you know, Frodo, you would expect it to be hot, just coming out of the fire and all, but this is a special ring that defies the laws of thermodynamics one of which is conservation of energy.
Look inside-- what do you see?
Frodo: Nothing yet … O mon Dieu! which means “Oh my God!” in French! There are runes inside the ring!
Gandalf: Yes, runes! Beautiful writing in an ancient mythological language possibly concealing a secret message. Like a code.
Frodo: Other forms of codes include substitution, invisible writing, and symbols!
Gandalf: Can you read it?
Frodo: It says “…htrof os dna meht ediug ot gnir enO lla meht elur ot gnir enO”
Gandalf: Ah! It must be a rare ancient Elven code. Few can read it, fewer speak it, Oh what shall we do? How shall we ever decipher it? Wait! What’s that rustling in the shrubbery?
Sam: Bollocks! I got thorns in me arse!
Gandalf: Samwise Ganshee, why I oughta…!
Sam: Oooh look! A pretty ring! And it’s got writing in it that says “One ring to rule them all One ring to guide them and so forth” except some nincompoop wrote it backwards!
Frodo: Samwise, my friend! You’ve broken the code! You’re a bloomin’ genius!
Gandalf: (sigh.) Leave it to a Hobbit to decipher something so bloody simple. I was thinking “extinct race of hill-elves” or whatever.
Frodo: Samwise, join me on my quest!
Sam: I will Mr. Frodo, but only if you stop callin’ me Samwise and start callin’ me Sam! <wink wink>
I don’t know if I would say that Foucalt’s Pendulum is an “easy” read. If you don’t know a lot of mysticism, kaballah, etc. you probably won’t understand quite a bit of the book. It’s not explained. Then again, it probably shouldn’t be, too much explanations of everything would have the work reading like Dan Brown’s.
I don’t know what you people are talking about. I found the Da Vinci Code to be a well-written, factual, and insightful thriller. I couldn’t put it down! And I speak from a position of some authority, as I am a professor of symbolismology at a major Ivy League university.
I suggest you look a little closer. Are you sure you REALLY understand what the author was trying to say? fnord
Please see the attached. This bunch isn’t going for the “Dan Brown” stuff. I just pasted one of the standard replies, though I doubt they’ll buy it. No biggie, though–just a bunch of geeks on a trivia board. We have the best seller charts all locked up, after all, and now Opie has agreed to do the movie for us … as well he should. Eris knows how much we’ve done for that guy’s career. Those Oscars aren’t cheap, you know, not to mention all those bodies buried up on Mulholland.
Still, musn’t push it too far. After this wave crests, we’ll switch over to the Atlantis routine for a while. That’ll keep them off the real scent. Then back to the aliens. Ah, good old aliens, they’ll be due for a comeback by the decade’s end.
With so much debate over what is real and what Brown fabricated, I ask this: was it true that Mona Lisa is considered one of the greatest paintings of all time because Da Vinci (one of the greatest artists of all time) SAID it was his greatest work?
When I first saw it in the Louvre, I asked myself “What’s the big deal?”
I thought the Da Vinci Code had answered my question. Now I am not so sure.
I just finished it and have a lot of the same criticisms mentioned here for both Angels & Demons and The DaVinci Code. I also got it for Christmas and was told by many it was great. Overall it was a pleasant way to spend several lunch hours and it kept my interest up.
Also, I don’t read a lot of fiction, so it was a nice change of pace.
Dex’s Staff Report on the question gives a nod in this direction (“the calling card” issue), but also points out lots of other factors. Even then, he doesn’t address the common assertion that dates its unique fame to Walter Pater’s enthusiasm for it.
After reading this thread, I went ahead and read The Da Vinci Code just to find all the amusing stupidity in it. It was a relatively fast-paced thriller, but abysmally written and with plenty of amusing stupidity; if Dan Brown didn’t seem to be taking it seriously (he claimed at the beginning that it was all true, for crying out loud) it would have been much more enjoyable as a goofy adventure novel.
One of my favorite stupid parts was this, right near the end of chapter 28:
Okay, first off, how can irrational thought have anything to do with an evil plot? The characteristics of brain hemispheres are an issue of biology, not something people can choose or are capable of redefining in an effort to undermine sacred feminitudositousness.
And second, “irrational thought” is right brain, not left! The left hemisphere is the logical one, associated with language and reason and whatnot, and the right hemisphere is associated with emotion and creativity and all that irrational business. Dan Brown has just undermined the whole point of this paragraph with his incorrect example.
