Jim's Reviews > The da Vinci Code
The da Vinci Code (Robert Langdon, #2)
by
by

This is a pretty formulaic page turner, a fun quick read. Written at about the level of the average Nancy Drew mystery, it is best appreciated at that level. As far as the content, there are howlers on virtually every page (starting with the hero who looks like "Harrison Ford in Harris tweed" and is a "Professor of Religious Symbology at Harvard" -- good work if you can find it). You have to ignore very pulpy, cheesy writing to enjoy this romantic thriller.
Intended as a book that a dedicated reader could finish in a day, or something you take to the beach and casually finish in a weekend, The Da Vinci Code makes for a reasonable airline novel, so much so that it is often a bit clunky in its desire to ensure that no intellectual effort on the reader's part will be required. Here's a recurring example in this novel: a bit of unfamiliar terminology, say "crux gemmata" (jeweled cross) will will be explained on page N, then on page N+1, a character will finger his jeweled cross and explain, "Oh, yes -- this is a crux gemmata." I've read dinner menus that were more demanding on the reader. My wife and I both read about a third of it in a day, sharing the same copy, and that's a full work day plus taking care of kids, bedtime, etc. That's also a kind of virtue, I guess -- it's fast and peppy.
As far as history goes, Dan Brown apparently thinks that "most historians" give credence to the hoary forgeries and frauds promoted in sensationalist best-sellers like Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This author gets the best of both worlds: simultaneously claiming that "it's just fiction," while introducing the novel with claims that the historical record contained within is "fact." That claim is ridiculous. To pluck a random example, he spends some time talking about the Council of Nicaea, and incorrectly summarizes it as the origin of the doctrine of Christ's divinity by Constantine. He ignores the Arian controversy out of which it arose, which is like trying to explain the Treaty of Versailles without mentioning World War I. He ignores the documented fact, agreed upon even by the cheerleaders of the gnostics that he is sympathetic to, that the earliest gnostic doctrines held that Christ was *purely* God, and not really man -- the very reverse of the doctrine that serves as the linchpin of his novel's intellectual base (such as it is). This is a bad novel for weak or misinformed Christians, but anyone familiar with history should spot the train wreck of Brown's ideas a mile off.
Oh yes, and in Brown's world, Opus Dei has shadowy assassin "monks" (in real life, Opus Dei is not a monastic order -- there are no Opus Dei monks, let alone trained assassins), and the Catholic Church has been promulgating known lies as its central dogmas, promotes violence throughout the world, and has been retarding the progress of science and knowledge for 2 millennia. Brown leaves the reader with the impression that this, too, is a matter of settled historical record. Oh, but then again, it's just fiction. Except when it's not.
In general, if you're looking for a heady thriller wrapped around Christian arcana, I'd recommend Umberto Eco's excellent The Name of the Rose, not this dumbed down, by-the-numbers novel.
Intended as a book that a dedicated reader could finish in a day, or something you take to the beach and casually finish in a weekend, The Da Vinci Code makes for a reasonable airline novel, so much so that it is often a bit clunky in its desire to ensure that no intellectual effort on the reader's part will be required. Here's a recurring example in this novel: a bit of unfamiliar terminology, say "crux gemmata" (jeweled cross) will will be explained on page N, then on page N+1, a character will finger his jeweled cross and explain, "Oh, yes -- this is a crux gemmata." I've read dinner menus that were more demanding on the reader. My wife and I both read about a third of it in a day, sharing the same copy, and that's a full work day plus taking care of kids, bedtime, etc. That's also a kind of virtue, I guess -- it's fast and peppy.
As far as history goes, Dan Brown apparently thinks that "most historians" give credence to the hoary forgeries and frauds promoted in sensationalist best-sellers like Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This author gets the best of both worlds: simultaneously claiming that "it's just fiction," while introducing the novel with claims that the historical record contained within is "fact." That claim is ridiculous. To pluck a random example, he spends some time talking about the Council of Nicaea, and incorrectly summarizes it as the origin of the doctrine of Christ's divinity by Constantine. He ignores the Arian controversy out of which it arose, which is like trying to explain the Treaty of Versailles without mentioning World War I. He ignores the documented fact, agreed upon even by the cheerleaders of the gnostics that he is sympathetic to, that the earliest gnostic doctrines held that Christ was *purely* God, and not really man -- the very reverse of the doctrine that serves as the linchpin of his novel's intellectual base (such as it is). This is a bad novel for weak or misinformed Christians, but anyone familiar with history should spot the train wreck of Brown's ideas a mile off.
Oh yes, and in Brown's world, Opus Dei has shadowy assassin "monks" (in real life, Opus Dei is not a monastic order -- there are no Opus Dei monks, let alone trained assassins), and the Catholic Church has been promulgating known lies as its central dogmas, promotes violence throughout the world, and has been retarding the progress of science and knowledge for 2 millennia. Brown leaves the reader with the impression that this, too, is a matter of settled historical record. Oh, but then again, it's just fiction. Except when it's not.
In general, if you're looking for a heady thriller wrapped around Christian arcana, I'd recommend Umberto Eco's excellent The Name of the Rose, not this dumbed down, by-the-numbers novel.
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
The da Vinci Code.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
July 17, 2007
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-25 of 25 (25 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
Shannon
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:18PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Dec 11, 2007 07:49PM

reply
|
flag

Religion has retarded the progress of science. Other then that everything else you say is basically spot on and it's definitely a good review!



"Religion has retarded the progress of science."
May I chime in?
This statement is simply not supported by the historical record. The first universities were founded by the Church and religious orders have responsible for the education of millions all with the purpose of the discovery of Truth including the workings of the natural world. Just citing these two facts demonstrate that religion not only does not impede scientific progress but has actually been the catalyst for much of it.





This sentence was written in a mmagazine that mentioned the hero, and the hero says it's a "ridiculous line".
So it makes no sense to mention it in your review as if to say the author had some ridiculous writing.
Also, this book is fiction, and I've read far more crazier stuff about the origins of christianity in non-fiction books. So, I don't see the point of mentioning that Opus Dei has no assassin monks. Of course not.
You mention the page stated as "FACTS" in the beginning of the book.
There are 3 facts listed. One of them says that the Opus Dei exists and is a Vatican prelature. Not that they have assassins.
Brown is however mistaken on his first fact, and funnily enough you don't even mention it.
"while introducing the novel with claims that the historical record contained within is "fact"."
Not at all. He claims before the prologue that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals are accurate." Which means something else than what you wrote.
Last thing, I particularly dislike it when people write stuff like "something you take to the beach and casually finish in a weekend". It's incredibly SMUG and condescending.
The book is more than that, and I can see all the work that it demanded the author (research then plot then writing).
Because it's not your style doesn't mean ist's "just" something to read in a day.

This sentence was written in a mmagazine that mentioned the hero, and the hero says it's a "ridiculous line".
So it makes no sense to mention i..."
Sorry you didn't like my review. As someone once said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. When Brown says his descriptions of artwork are accurate, and they're immediately falsified by simple Google searches, his credibility drops precipitously.
An honest comparison of his description of the Virgin of the Rocks with should suffice to demonstrate his carelessness with the truth. His description doesn't match the work at all, including the title, which he gives as The Madonna of the Rocks so that he can work in an awkward anagram, "so dark the con of man." Consider the most basic question: who is who in this painting? He gets that completely wrong -- Jesus is on the right, sitting, not the left, kneeling. His whole analysis falls apart after this. Anyone remotely familiar with "religious symbology" would know this. What's more, his description of the tone of the painting is just bewildering. No one looking at this painting would describe any adult in the painting as threatening any child. I would encourage you to actually look at the "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals" in question. Brown's ignorance literally begins on the cover and continues through the book. He and his "expert" characters call Leonardo "da Vinci," as if "da Vinci" were a surname. If his characters were truly experts in their fields, none of them would have these elementary confusions.
Dan Brown is just lousy with facts. One example: he begins Digital Fortress with a description of the NSA that describes its headquarters as "hidden dicreetly in the wooded hills of Fort Meade, Maryland," which is great, except for the inconvenient facts that there are no woods near the headquarters, there are no hills, and there are signs on the Baltimore Washington Parkway indicating the location of the NSA headquarters, whose buildings are clearly visible. It's not just that this is wrong. It's that it is easily checked. Anyone living in the area knows this, and a casual drive to the location demonstrates it. And the NSA is central to that novel.
If, apart from all the factual errors, you find something good in the novel, by all means, enjoy. As to prose style, I guess it's a matter of taste. I found it to be wrong on facts, weak in prose, and dishonest in its approach. From my point of view, it does have the veneer of a casual beach read, which I find to be the most honest thing about it.
If what I've written above makes me smug and condescending, at least I come by it honestly, having read it and thought about it and tried to find whatever virtues I could in it.

I like that sentence.
I understand that people may not like the book. I for one don't find it flawless and it's not my favourite book.
However, I just think that it is somehow disrespectful for the author to say it's dumbed down or nothing more than a one-day beach read.
Of course, this type of book exists, but it's, to me anyway, obvious that The Da Vinci Code demanded a lot more research (even if Brown distorted the interpretations of artworks and such to fit his plot)...

"I've read dinner menus that were more demanding on the reader." OUCH!! XD But very true!

If you (and anyone else reading) liked Eco's The Name of the Rose, I would recommend to you his book Foucault's Pendulum, which is actually directly related to this whole Holy Grail take. (Be forewarned, it's very long, and very challenging.) I would be surprised if Brown did not read / borrow from it as well as Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

I would not recommend it to a friend))))

