The Da Vinci Code

[duke o' york]

The writing is spellbindingly awful. I got it for Christmas from someone who clearly couldn't remember what I liked/wasn't arsed/had no idea what it was like, and after I'd read the first chapter was asked what it was like. "Written in the thriller style," was my reply, with all of the traditional clichéd bunk and narrative ineptitude that encompasses.
Had it been written in the Thriller style, then at least there would have been disco zombies.

[our_man]

It's the kind of book that explores the nature of fiction itself imo... the most potent message is that Christians have no monopoly over the interpretation of Christ's life, and in a wider context, no one group can claim a part of history as their own.

ROFLMAO!

Whaleboy, you had me in stitches. I never thought I'd see anyone say that Dan Brown's book has a 'potent message'.

Yes, it really is a profound meditation on the history of the RCC and its links to paganism. Mr. Brown is surely one of the most foremost theologians of our age.

The Da Vinci Code is pure popcorn entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe that Dan Brown has an anti-popery agenda to promote in his books, I think he just wants to get very rich and has hit upon a winning formula to do so.

The writing is spellbindingly awful.

As a Catholic, I must say I still enjoyed the book very much, although I must admit it wasn't as much a page turner as "Angels and Demons". Dan Brown can't write well to save his life - I've rarely read such 2D characters before or flimsy plotting. In his defence he has a great sense of pacing. As much as I hated the lousy writing and predictable style, I just couldn't put it down. It is a thrilling read. His books are also very, very (unintentionally) funny. They are just so outlandish and stupid at times (the Sacred Feminine in The Da Vinci Code, the parachute incident in Angels & Demons).

The reason that a lot of people are worked up over what is contained in this book is that some of the readers seem to be taking more from it than they should. There is no deep message that Brown is trying to get across; to say otherwise is to give the man undue credit and demean your own intelligence.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Re: The Da Vinci Code

Originally posted by atomant
but the symbology

Boondock Saints:

Detective Dolly: So, what's the symbology of all this?

Agent Smecker: "Symbology"? Well, now that Duffy's relinquished his King Bonehead crown, I see we have a new heir to the throne. The word I believe you're looking for is "symbolism".

[Boris Godunov]

I read The Da Vinci Code on my flight back from France last year. It was fun, especially since I had just been to many of the places described. But if you think about it too much, the plot holes really start to stand out.

Angels and Demons was worse, much worse. While reading it, I pretty much kept thinking "this is the most preposterous book ever" on every page. Yet I still kept reading, because Brown certainly knows how to write in an entertaining way. It was just a ludicrous story. The bit at the end with the helicopter made me guffaw it was so stupid.

[our_man]

The bit at the end with the helicopter made me guffaw it was so stupid.

Yes, it's brilliant in it's absurdness. I consider myself more broadminded than most, so the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the Pope's child (I hope that's sufficiently vague for anyone who hasn't read it yet). I just couldn't stop laughing.

Angels and Demons - so bad it's good.

[Ramo]

I figure that anything this popular has to be crap (see Tom Clancy, Anne Rice, etc.), so I haven't read it, nor do I plan ot.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
I figure that anything this popular has to be crap (see Tom Clancy, Anne Rice, etc.), so I haven't read it, nor do I plan ot.

Elistist snob

[Whoha]

Re: Re: The Da Vinci Code

Originally posted by BeBro

SATs rule?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It's the kind of book that explores the nature of fiction itself imo... the most potent message is that Christians have no monopoly over the interpretation of Christ's life, and in a wider context, no one group can claim a part of history as their own.

Ooooooooooookay.

Actually, that "potent message" is what's in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. That's the book Brown used as his primary source for all the Grail lore. So he wasn't exactly being Mr. Original in his thesis.

[Ted Striker]

Re: Re: The Da Vinci Code

Originally posted by BeBro

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
I figure that anything this popular has to be crap (see Tom Clancy, Anne Rice, etc.), so I haven't read it, nor do I plan ot.

Interesting. So you've never seen or read Lord of the Rings, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 24, anything by Asimov, etc.?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo is PWNED!!

And Clancy's early work is pretty entertaining. Ain't meant to be literature or anything.

[Ramo]

It's a little difficult to be ZPWNNNED##DK~!!!111 through a facetious comment.

And I haven't seen 24. And LOTR (the book) is crap (at least Fellowship, didn't bother reading the others). And a lot of Asimov is crap.

[Verto]

LotR pwns j00.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And LOTR (the book) is crap

And the movies? What about Hitchhicker's Guide?