I hate the Da Vinci Code. Is it because Dan Brown is a horrible historian, twisting facts like labeling his book as fiction and then stating in the front that all the organizations and stuff are true? Yes. Is it because he is merely riding the coattails of controversy? Definitely yes. But are any of these reasons the only reasons I hate him? No.
I hate it because, in short, he is a horrible writer. And he should not be on the bestsellers list, praised for being a horrible writer. He has no style. His characters are infamously 2D and the SAME for all his books. Read Angels and Demons. Does Vittoria sound familiar? She should. She's exactly like Sophie Neveu. Furthermore, he cannot write or create a plot, except to perpetually use banal cliffhangers and suspension points. If you need to resort to those tricks to keep an audience hooked...sorry, you suck.
However, almost all my friends at school LOVE him and his book. Does literary merit count for nothing these days?
P.S. What about his portrayal of Opus Dei? IF you belonged in Opus Dei, would you be pissed? TIME magazine recently did an article on the REAL Opus Dei.
*EDIT*
I acknowledge wholeheartedly that the book is FICTION. HOwever, a news article awhile back (I can't remember which one) says that Dan Brown himself claims that he had "even more information" to make people doubt Jesus' divinity and cause more "scandal." To me, that sounds like he's crossing into the non fiction line.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
He is a horrible writer. I read the first page and when I saw the part about the albino assasin I couldn't continue.
It's good that he won his recent court case, though. That could have had repercussions far beyond the thriller genre.
well Dan Brown isnt a historian hes a author and his books are brilliant. There in puzzles that get your mind going and there is adventure. Dan Browns books are some of the best ones i have ever read and the film. Oh the film was just fantastic just brilliant i just could believe that such a film could be made. If you have read the book and watch them film you would notice some mistakes but over all it was just fantastic
Well. I liked the book. I thought it was suspenseful and it definitely kept me wanting to know what was going to happen next. I read it as a work of fiction, not a true story. And also, in the front of the book, all it states is that the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei are real organizations and gives a brief history of both. All Brown did was take some controversial historic facts and create a fictional work. It's no different than taking the true story of Ed Gein and creating the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I liked the book prettymuch because the suspense had me continually wandering. I do admit the structure and technique of descriptions and details were sometimes bleak and unimaginative. The controversy is just sointeresting that any story written about it would be interesting. I didnt believe any facts, i mean yeah, some details may have been true but i just took it as a story. Overall the book had me tuned in, it wasn't sooo horrible but ive read better. The movie better be good at least!
~<3~Love and be loved!~<3~
I did not like the book. I hated the characterization. The main character, Robert Langdon, was bland and overly 'good'. Where's the inner turmoil? The inner conflict? And the description was mediocre at best.
But still, I admire his book for being such a page turner, as well as Brown's ability for twisting facts.
At least he got alot of money out of it. I envy him, ha ha.
I liked Angels and Demons quite a bit. It kept me interested. He used good language to put the reader into the scene. I haven't read the Davinci Code though, and dont really have a desire to. I hear it is blasphemous.
If you liked Angels and Demons you'd like Da Vinci I strongly suggest you read it. What do you mean by blasphemous. It is a fiction novel. Actually you could just say Novel, since by deffinition means it is fiction. So read it and develope your own opinion.
-Hutch
"What can I say, that can explain, all this time I'm loving life..."
-The Starting Line
Ha. Finally found someone who hates the book. All my friends LOVE it. The book was so boring and predictable. His previous books were much much better! And his blatant twisting of history was very disconcerting. I loved the controversy it stirred up though. Just shows how many people don't know the truth.
The only way to make the Da Vinci Code stop being so annoying is to cut off the publicity. Including negative.
The book was great!! It had so much information- even though much of it is questionable- it still got your mind moving. I enjoy any book that causes me to regret closing it again- and this book did just that.
Oh my. I think it takes a good author to realize that if you talk controversy than you'll get people to buy your book. That is what capitalism and America are all about. Making money. He already was selling books anyway, not like it mattered. And the front cover states that the artifacts and history and rituals are true. Not what the caracters say about them are true. Get over it, it is Fiction, and it says so. And you can't honestly believe he thinks that he is telling a non-fiction. And as for the person taht says he is not good, AND DIDN"T EVEN READ IT. STOP! You can not talk about someone as a writer without reading his books. I might also assume that the writer of the original post probably didn't even read the Books. But whos to say for sure. Besides them, and they might lie to gain credibiltiy. Dan Brown is a great author and story teller, I think he has proven himself.
-Hutch
"What can I say, that can explain, all this time I'm loving life..."
-The Starting Line
This comment was so refreshing. The man is a terrible writer. You could just smell MOVIE seeping out between the pages. Or maybe more subliminally "I’m going to make a movie of this book, and tom hanks is going to star in it, and I’m going to rip lots of people off and your all going to start to believe it." I am increasingly frustrated with writers like this. The pop-fiction culture is growing by the year, and it's rare to find people who appreciate good literature. I'm sure there are still good writers out there. Please come out, come out, wherever you are, and save society from such superfluous nonsense as "The DiVinci Code". Please?!
It's good entertainment, but horrible literature because it's all plot. Movies are the same way. There are some that are bursting with action scenes and make lots of money, and there are some movies that make you look twice at life and the world. I'm okay with someone having his or her own opinion about the Da Vinci Code story, but anyone who thinks that the actual writing is anywhere near good should probably read more often. And not more Dan Brown books.
Nicholas Hutchins -
I, the original post writer, have read the Dan Brown books I am talking about. I am a bit offended that you "assume" otherwise. Also, I was talking literary merit, not capitalism. Merit and money are often two different things. Take Britney Spears.
I agree. Dan Brown is a mediocre writer, at best. His books include so many unbelieveable scenarios that I rank them up there with the fluff Clive Cussler churns out. I think Mr. Brown must be totally aware of his lackluster skills. Why else would he market such controversy? He must know that this is what makes him a best seller.
Thank you. I probably hate that festering piece of literary swill even more than you do, MasterWangElaine.
Dan Brown is an idiot.
I read both DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. So what do I think about them? Well, the premise for the book is about the same as any contemporary pop-fiction: a "page turner." I don't really think this is that impressive of a skill for a writer to possess. Lots of people can keep you at the edge of your seat, but very few can tame the art of literature and truly contrive a beautiful piece of work - which is exactly what the books on the best seller list should look like. But instead, we are infatuated with a controversial bout of temporary entertainment. It has no value in the scope of literature; only in the influence of fickle pop-culture.
Alex J.
==============================================
"Follow not me, but you!" -Friedrich Nietzsche
Can I just point out that his book is on the bestseller list, because it is a bestseller?
He wrote a controversial book, it solds lots - therefore bestseller list, even if it isn't considered one of the greats of literature.
I did read it, I found it a page turner with a lot of interesting "facts". As a Christian, it didn't make me doubt the Divinity of Jesus whatsoever. Just another good page turner on the list of hundreds of page turners that I've read.
Mindy
I wholeheartedly agree. If you'd like, we can take a look back to British literature and what was considered the popular novel back in the day--the Victorian day that is. A very general idea: While Sir Walter Scott was a man and a very popular novelist at the turn of the century, do you even know any of his books now? Now, if I said Jane Austen, immediately Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility come to mind. He was a "bestseller." She was not.
Do you think Dan Brown will fizzle out in a few years? And hey, my feeling is, if it gets people reading, that's one step forward and a little hurrah for literacy. =)
peace,
ashley
Why I hated the book:
Chapter 1: This guy came to my door. He showed me a horrible picture. Oh, god, what a horrible picture! gasp! What a terrible picture!
Chapter 2: I sat in the car and thought about that picture. How horrible, how terrible! How ghastly a picture it was!
Chapter 3: Now I will finally tell you what it was a picture of. FINALLY.
You get the idea. I stopped caring about the things that he dragged out forever to make suspense. I'd rather read just about anything else than read that book again.
I don't hate books. I hate people who grow whiskers over what is obviously a fiction. And as a fiction, DVC is not bad. If only Dan Brown would stop using the exact same formula for every one of his books.
I was forced to read this awful piece of trash in my English class, along with Angels and Demons. I learned how to read with some proficiency when I was three years old (I am now sixteen), and I can say without qualms that the "Duh" Vinci Code is by far the very worst book I have ever read, taking a back seat even to the Garfield books :). His writing is banal and worse than my own; something I can't excuse under any circumstances, and, though this has been clearly stated many times above, both books have the EXACT. . .SAME. . .PLOT. They are also both utterly predictable from the very beginning. Now, to the subject of this post: the Priory of Sion is a false, made-up organization. It was made up in 1956 by a Frenchman named Pierre Plantard. Check it here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion if you don't believe me. Da Vinci never belonged to it. None of it is real. If Dan Brown had two brain cells to rub together and bothered to do a Wikipedia search. . .OR, perhaps, read Foucault's Pendulum. . .he wouldn't need a sixteen-year-old with little to no religious training to correct him, would he? He's offended a lot of people (including me) with no reason except money, and he didn't even bother to do his research. I hope he's ostracized Puritan-style, and they but a big red "A" on his chest. You know. "A" for "Asshole". Ma gavte la nata.
This is me again (from above). In case some of you haven't noticed, this post started with a post that expounded on hatred of Dan Brown and his work. Why are fans of his work here? Go to one of your millions of fan sites and let us hate him in peace. I've never been to one of his fan sites in my life. Try to emulate in the opposite direction.
"A small rock holds back a great wave."
-Homer
I'm not a fan either. I scanned a few lines and his writing turned me off so much I decided not to bother, not to mention the bad theology and such. The movie was terrible as well (I want my money back), and I think the whole controversy was way overblown. I think it was just another blip on the pop culture radar that isn't really relevant anymore.
zOMG. You people are idiots. Before we go any further just let me say: the cripple done it. OK, so the ending is revealed now let me tell you about the rest. Generally, DVC is the worst book I've ever read, and it is probably the worst book ever written.
Now, my argument comes in two halves. First, a (farily negative, actually) a review of DVC the novel, then an attack (critisism, sorry, criticism) on its author by reference to the rest of his corpus.
But first, a couple of quick points:
* Controvosy: it's completely irrelevant. Forget it.
* Fact vs Fiction. It's a litereary endeveour, thus is fiction. Any section within labelled Fact is merely part of the fiction. That's enough (and, in fact, all there is) on that topic.
OK, to business. Books are made from certain elements: Plot, Characters, writing, Dialogue, and Literary efforts (imagery, metaphor, etc).
The plot was OK (i'm only saying that so it seems like i'm making a reasoned argument. in fact it was gash). Some stuff happens, it all biffs along at a decent rate, there's not *too* much to complain about here.
The characters (the characters...) hmm... this is where things start to fall apart. The characters are, to a large degree, indistinguishable. Apart from a physical difference, and the odd bit of "i'm a policeman"/"i'm a lecturer"/"i'm a woman" nonsense tacked on , they're fairly identical. Somehow a young, modern, eurpoean, female cryptographer behaves in exactly the same way as a middle aged, male, american. (and he's just the same as a hard-living Parisiene murder detective). However, the cast of characters is (rather "should be", it's a shame that once created they're represented so badly) broad, interesting, and original (or is it...see part 2: attach on DB himself ). They are very 2 dimensional, lacking substance or depth. There is no logic behind their behaviour, the just do stuff because DB happens to be pulling the puppet strings in that direction at the time. (See for example, Langdon has at some point walked arount the entire outside wall of the Louvre. Why? What for? Did he want to see the bins at the back? There is no conceivable reason for this except to allow DB to tell us how big the Louvre is. For discussion of. please see writing pt3, below
Writing. Well, in one sense, he's writing a book intended for a certain audience, and I suppose he pitches the writing correcty. That's the pro. The con is that the audience at which it is correctly pitched is Americans who think they would like to go and look at some "culture" in "Europe", but when they get there they finds that they would much rather just eat 2 litres of ice cream and wear obnixious shorts. Americans. Damn.
(speaking of which: the Jadrain de Tuilles are "Paris's very own Central Park". zOMG)
The writing pt 2. The writing is awful. Standalone. Words. Where are the sentences? Far too many facts. The whole thing seems like hes done lots of research, and is so proud of the fact that he wants to tell you everything he's just learned (so the Louvre is 1.3 km in circumference -- or sthg -- so what? what does this bring to the work? it doesn't further the plot? it doesn't create atmosphere. It seems that DB wants to present his book as "factual" ...so what is the overabundence of facts supposed to achieve? to make the book seem authentic? credible? learned? 200 pages of this junk could be lost without any detriment to any aspect. Too much use of slang. Too many details ( the car they're in has a dual vickers twin turbo charged engine? I KNOW cars haveengines. The make and capacity are of no interest...another 100 pages of this kind of dross further lightens the load). Too many stock phrases and repeated vocabulaty. Engines are always "gunned" or "revved". All very boys own and exciting, but a littlle variation goes a long way. Re: stock phrases, one I particulatly dislike is "Langdon quickly explained", usually at the most in approprate times. Lift you're stuck in on fire? Why doesn't langdon quickly explain that lifts were invented in mesoamericans by inca types looking for an easy way to hoist all their gold into the air... Being eaten by red ants? Langdon probably remember a seminar on how red ants were worshipped in ancient egypt because they look so cute. He could quickly explain the rituals involed in ant-worship, if you like.
writing pt3. lots of stuff just doesn't make any sense. At one point the killer is in shiloutte. I.e. he's a black figure against a lighted back ground. So far so good. V Atmpsoheric. I'm almost impressed. Then DB describes his face. ???? (a few more for good measeure - ???) this makes no sense. His face can't be seen. Has DB even applied the slightest thought to the scene.
Writing part 4. "it's all interconnected". If it is I'll see it for myself (or I would if you could write worth a damn). This is really a complaint about DB repeating stuff and / or explaining the obvious. In an effort to be didactic, DB explains, usually through his mouth piece, Langdon, in great detail (but often "quickly", see above (or below, i forget which (woo, nested parentheses))) everything about everything. In some cases this is resonable. It's hard to write a book about a secret sociery (DB seemed to find it almost impossible) without an explanation of that society. It's secret, see, so nobody knows anything about it. On the other hand, he explains everything, not just arcane stuff from the real world, but common stuff from the real world (who would have guessed hamburgers are served in buns?). He even explains stuff that's just happened in his own book. Langdon and Sophie enter a room. There is no need to tell me that they are now in a room. I know that they are because they just entered it.
Dialogue: should be driven by the characterisation. And is. i.e they all sound just the same. The European characters use Americanisms throughout. Nonsense.
Literery Efforts. Not much evidence thereof. Could try harder.
ooh...i think i've come to the end of reviewing DVC. Now, a quick look at the man behind the marvel, the great, (sadly not) late DB:
DB is an idiot of the highest order. That is no idle opinion but actual, scientific fact. Fact. DVC is a rip off of Angels and Demons. All the chaaracters map directly. Langdon = Langdon; the classy, cute French bird = the classy, cute Italian bird; the psychotic,loner killer (monk) = the psychotic loner killer (hash addict); the tough, jaded cop = the tough, jaded head of security; the english cripple = the swiss cripple. And then they romp around various churches looking for clues in paintings and finding dead people. The only difference is the cripple didn't do it in A&D. The pope did (wtf?)
PS Please fogive my spelling. I'm not an educated person.
PPS i got a bit tired typing all this stuff out. I may come back tomorrow and finish my review off. Love and Hugsxx
I'm a not a kind man, nor a particularly brave man. But I can say this with blinding certainty - I am a man forever changed by the awe and majesty that is 'The Da Vinci Code'.
I first encountered this incredible tale while living as a student artist in Paris. Penniless, I would spend my days trawling the streets of the French capital searching for inspiration, the evenings railing against the soulless bourgeoise or staring at the stars through the cracked window of my tiny attic flat. Yet inspiration it seemed was nowhere to be found, no not here in the art galleries, nor there in the cafes and bars.
Until the day of The Changing. Whilst stumbling around Montparnasse, drunk and sorrowful, I found myself in a tiny bookstore run by a ancient French crone clad all in black. Tired of France and it's language, I sought comfort in the single row of English fiction books the store carried - and there it was. A vision in orange and black. My love, my hope, my saviour. Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.
If, like me, you only ever read one book, make sure it is this one.
I really, really enjoyed this book. In fact I think it is my fourth favourite book, behind: the essential, mind-blowing Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban; the inimitable Bleak House by the god Dickens; and the zenith of modern-day literature Moby Dick.
I thought Moby Dick was a song by the Led Zeppers?