The Davinci Code

[Goalie]

What are everyone's thoughts on the Davinci Code. I know it stirred up a lot of questions in me. It was a very intriguing book.

[Watchman]

Never actually read it, but from first-hand accounts and the associated publicity I've came to the conclusion it's a pile of sensationalist, conspirationalist, contrivedly wannabe-clever, perversely conservative junk literature mainly fit to be sold in the kiosks of railway stations.

[Csargo]

What is the DaVinci code?
I've never read the book and I dont know what its about please
Educate me.

[edyzmedieval]

Never actually read it, but from first-hand accounts and the associated publicity I've came to the conclusion it's a pile of sensationalist, conspirationalist, contrivedly wannabe-clever, perversely conservative junk literature mainly fit to be sold in the kiosks of railway stations.

Totally idem.

Read a few pages, dropped it from my hand. Junk.

[Incongruous]

Its based off Holy Blood Holy Grail which is complete and utter nonsense so don't but it for the reason of learning anything factual. Coupled with that is the fact that Dan Brown can't write for pooh.
Load of junk (reminded me of Tom Clancey).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Never actually read it, but from first-hand accounts and the associated publicity I've came to the conclusion it's a pile of sensationalist, conspirationalist, contrivedly wannabe-clever, perversely conservative junk literature mainly fit to be sold in the kiosks of railway stations.

I did read it (largely because a few friends argued that I couldn't have a strong position on the book without reading it) and you are 100% spot on.

The worst aspect is that is very, very badly written. Primary school plot devices and characterisation.

A few hours of my life I won't get back, and of course those people who liked it anyway were still not convinced by my now informed views.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While it is about 99% bull the one percent that isn't is that Jesus married Marry Magdaline and had kids, and that the dead sea scrolls tell you some funny things about the Bible. (I'm reading an interesting book by a theologin at the moment on this.)

That said, the tiny kernel of truth is pure luck from Dan Brown.

[Kralizec]

Brown is pure fiction and should be read as such. I liked Angels & Demons, wich I read first. No literary masterpiece, but a fun read. Reading the DaVinci Code just gave me a deja vu feeling because it used the exact same formula. I haven't read his other 2 books but I expect them to be pretty much the same, and I'm already tired of it.

[Asmodai]

Pure fiction? Maybe not as drastic, but surely a theory, that is rather unreal. Maybe some part of informations, after long research could be true....
Could be, if the author realy wants to seek real facts, not material for fantasy book.

[Rosacrux redux]

I would have to agree with Watchman's post, even though I've (made the huge mistake and) read it. It was a horrible piece of junk pop-"literature" and the conspiracy theories in it have made the most serious of conspiracists die of uncontrollable laughter.

It's a salad of the most known CTs (Priory of Sion, Dead Sea Scrolls, Templars, the apocryphal gospels, rosicrucians etc.) served as a pop-novel, with a terrible, childish writing style (I've read it in English, btw, no lousy translation, it is just shitty to begin with).

The bad thing is that my spouse wants to watch the film... probably gonna drag me along... and she didn't even read the bloody book! Duh!

[edyzmedieval]

Load of junk (reminded me of Tom Clancey).

How come? Tom Clancy is really good.(at least Red October is )

[AntiochusIII]

Hmm...I read it quite a long time ago.

It wasn't that bad per se, as many of us here seem to think he's the antichrist of literature. Just ignore the fanboys--like the anime fanboys I'm familiar with (as I myself is borderline one ), they will tout for what they like as equal to nothing less than The Three Musketeers--and realize that it is the epitome of pop fiction. That's what it is.

All the Priory of Zion (Sion?) and Templar things are just rather shallow, and the book wasn't as good as my friend touted it to be--he called it better than Harry Potter, in which many of you here would agree, but I raised an eyebrow. Oh well, I have never been a fan of thrillers. They, to me, are pathetic scheming little pop fictions--methinks I stopped reading books for a month out of disgust after reading one particularly bad one.

How come? Tom Clancy is really good.(at least Red October is )

Clancy is fun and all (Red October is one of his best), but he's still no Dumas or Voltaire, IMO.

Oh yeah, have I seen you around the Taleworlds forum somehow?

[Kommodus]

Well, I haven't read the book, so my opinion is a bit ignorant. Nevertheless, going by what I've heard, I'd say that if people were to understand the book as historical fiction, it probably wouldn't be that bad.

Unfortunately, the book seems to claim that the historical facts in it are true, without containing the usual disclaimer. Even worse, many of its readers actually believe this claim. Dan Brown needs to learn a lesson about the gullibility of people (then again, maybe he has already learned it, and his intention was to deceive).

It's important, when writing a work of fiction, to make sure people know it's fiction. To some it might be obvious, but to the historically un-educated, it's not.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, I haven't read the book, so my opinion is a bit ignorant. Nevertheless, going by what I've heard, I'd say that if people were to understand the book as historical fiction, it probably wouldn't be that bad.

It's bad because it's badly written, not because of its storyline. In fact, the idea he came up with has some merit as the basis for a fictional thriller, but Brown uses formulaic and preposterous plotting which cheats the reader by being lazy rather than creative.

Unfortunately, the book seems to claim that the historical facts in it are true, without containing the usual disclaimer. Even worse, many of its readers actually believe this claim. Dan Brown needs to learn a lesson about the gullibility of people (then again, maybe he has already learned it, and his intention was to deceive).

It's important, when writing a work of fiction, to make sure people know it's fiction. To some it might be obvious, but to the historically un-educated, it's not.

In fact, Mr Brown has learned the lesson about people's gullibility very well. 40 million plus sales well. He has a disclaimer, but one that leaves just enough doubt for the stupid to think there may be a shred of truth therein. The uneducated and uncritical is exactly where the money is these days, be it publishing or TV or whatever media.

That's the sad thing - his success means that we will suffer an unending stream of mediocre writers proferring their 'might be true if you squint' pseudo-histories. As you rightly note, this corrosion of ideas means that many people start taking fiction as fact.

[Geoffrey S]

It reads like Brown sought out as many conspiracy theories he could, stuck them all together and called the result a book. Not only are the contents utter nonsense and an insult to the reader's intelligence, it's also very badly written.

So no, I didn't like the book.

[Keba]

I've read it.

It's not bad, but it's not very good either. A quite entertaining brainless read for a boring week during vacation.

As for Clancy ... he's fun, but he has waay to many characters for me to remember them all, and every one of them is important.

[Monarch]

I actualyl found it to be a great read. Of course, the theories in side are a laod of crap but Dan Brown writes great plots though imo. He's not so good at actually writing, which is why I think the film has a chance to be better than the book.

If you read it as a novel it's good, if you read it is an essay it's crap. do the former and have yourself a good read.

[Watchman]

It is my understanding a very central theme is the whole business with Jesus and Magdalene having kids, and the oh-so-sacred bloodline surviving to this day.

As I hate such "special bloodline" ideas on general principle and categorically, could hardly care less what JC and MM might've done in private and am adverse to stupid conspiracy crap in the first place nevermind the populist sort, I have distinct trouble being one bit interested in even picking up the book.

[Goalie]

I think that the book is based on some fact but very little of it. It is a fiction book after all. I find it funny that a lot of people are taking it seriously and writing books about it not being true.

[Watchman]

I can immediately think of two reasons.

First, they want to shoot it down ASAP before some nutty paranoid idiot Am... eh, forget that... gets stupid ideas.

Two, they like money too.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It's not bad, but it's not very good either. A quite entertaining brainless read for a boring week during vacation.

Exactly.

[edyzmedieval]

Oh yeah, have I seen you around the Taleworlds forum somehow?

Yeah Antiochus, that's me. I love Mount&Blade.

When I read a book, I want to read Clive Cussler. And I'll die happy if I meet that man.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As for Clancy ... he's fun, but he has waay to many characters for me to remember them all, and every one of them is important.

The only problem I have with Clancy is the amazing amount...of...well..."foreplay", I'll call it, before the novel really starts. He could easily cut 150-300 pages out of his books that no one would miss.

[Redleg]

The only problem I have with Clancy is the amazing amount...of...well..."foreplay", I'll call it, before the novel really starts. He could easily cut 150-300 pages out of his books that no one would miss.

Tom Clancy's initial books were good to decent. Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising were both good fiction books with above average plots that were well put together to capture the reader's interest in the storyline.

Most of his recent books are just page fillers to keep the fans happy and his publisher sending the checks. His plot lines have become tired from being repeated often.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That complaint was mostly about "The Sum of All Fears" actually.


Cardinal of the Kremlin was a fairly good book though.

[Redleg]

That complaint was mostly about "The Sum of All Fears" actually.


Cardinal of the Kremlin was a fairly good book though.

I have attempted to read the last three novels - but after reading the first few pages (lucky for me I read the first 5 pages before I buy the book, and shop at a book store that allows this) I quickly came to the conclusion that Clancy is no longer truely writing, but is just throwing words onto the page.

[Avicenna]

There's hardly a good book out there that isn't better than Harry Potter.

Anyway, as before, it's just a story, no need to take it seriously. Believe it or not, I still think it's a good read.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There's hardly a good book out there that isn't better than Harry Potter.

Wait, were you actually serious?

[Csargo]

I started reading The DaVinci Code it isnt bad so far but I havent gotten into it really yet. I read a good by Stephen King The Eyes of the Dragon pretty good I finished it last night stayed up from like 11 til 3 in the morning finishing it up pretty good book.

[The Wizard]

The book is of course propagandistic, arrogantly toned and needlessly hurtful.

To Opus Dei, the wonderful new-spangled foot-soldiers of the Pope, I mean.