I read The Da Vinci Code a while back and I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I think because I've heard a resurgence of discussion here and there surrounding its premise. A few weeks ago, I wrote about fiction that is nothing more than a hollow conduit for the author's research. I included The Da Vinci Code as one of those books. There were those who thought I was crazy for thinking the book wasn't so good. To be honest, I feel like Elaine in "Seinfeld" when she can't stand The English Patient.
It's not that Dan Brown's premise is not intriguing. In fact, I was so interested in his research that I started searching the Web for more information. I found a great site that objectively discusses some of his assertions: Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, The Last Supper. This site contains a number of factual problems with the book. For example:
The Samaritans only recognize five books in their Bible. The Ethiopian Orthodox church has 81 books in its Bible. The Syrians have 22 books in their Bible, while the Roman Catholics and Protestants have 27 books.
Dan Brown's error in this case is that there are NOT 80 non-canonical gospels! Sure, we just discovered a few more gospels in the last century which is rather amazing after 2000 years. But most researchers agree on a total gospel count of about 35.
If you have not read The Da Vinci Code, I'll let you you in on a little secret: the entire book is built on the premise that there is more to Christ than what the Bible actually describes. Yet Brown seems to be a little sloppy with his facts (as shown above). Fiction has an interesting paradox; if you perform research and get the details wrong, you can destroy the illusion for readers who know the subject matter. For example, you can make a movie about aliens destroying the world and I'm right there with you until you show Air Force personnel wearing hats and saluting indoors. In this book, if you are familiar with the artwork, the history of the church, or even the geography of Paris, the errors are apparent.
But what really bugged me about the book wasn't the fact-checking (or lack thereof). I was mostly disturbed by the simplistic and immature writing style. Brown has four books to his credit and his writing is full of cliches, two-dimensional characters, and predictable plots. In The Da Vinci Code, he writes with a omnipotent point of view and interjects the characters thoughts in the middle of the narrative, which becomes über annoying about ten pages into the novel. Not only are the characters' thoughts scattered about the text, the thoughts are also painfully obvious statements. It's like Brown's characters are zapped with a blindingly obvious thought ray (BOTR) in every friggin' scene. Here is an example:
Walking toward the bare wooden wall, Sophie sensed the chanting getting louder. Hesitant, she leaned her ear against the wood. The voices were clearer now. People were definitely chanting . . . intoning words Sophie could not discern.
The space behind this wall is hollow! [ed. Huh, no shit]
Feeling around the edge of the panels, Sophie found a recessed fingerhold. It was discreetly crafted. A sliding door. [ed. Really? I'm glad she told me or I wouldn't figured it out when she slid the damn door open in the next two sentences!] Heart pounding, she placed her finger in the slot and pulled it. With noiseless precision, the heavy wall slid sideways.
Holy crap! There's only so much of the BOTR I can take.
Brown also switches point of view character every chapter. The average chapter length is something like five pages. I think he does this so he can switch the point of view without clumsy transitions. My point is that the book needs some serious editorial and stylistic polishing. So much so, it was distracting.
So there you have it. That's why I'm not a fan of The Da Vinci Code.
I'm really not a book snob. Really. I'm serious. Don't you believe me?
Popularity: unranked [?]
Wretched Human Mirror by Bloodbath
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Re: BOTR: This is a Book Review
I also read the Da Vinci code and was at first quite enthralled with all of Brown's theories. But as I read on I was bored at how one dimensional the characters were – in particular the lead man accused of murder – his name escapes me.
Have also read that many of his theories are quite literally crappy.
The end I found to be ridiculous. A couple of nice twists – I will give it that – but a really silly ending.
Also…and this is a compliment to Brown. In this age of the sexual revolution regarding the role of the female – Brown has cashed in by writing a book on the sacred feminine. Sheer genius. I dont think he cares too much whether we buy into his theories on Jesus – his main aim was to cash in on the sexual revolution.
Re: BOTR: This is a Book Review
You may have something about the feminine angle in his book. However, nearly super-human female leads in thriller and popular fiction have been all the rage for more than a decade. So while the "history" of the sacred feminine is a part of it, Brown still plays into stereotypes. Both of his lead characters are good looking, smarter than your average bear, and naturally attracted to each other. Sophie, the female lead, is a cop as well as a cryptographer. She is well educated and can even take care of herself. I'm glad he didn't slip up and name her Laura Croft, Clarice Starling, or Princess Leia. Similar to comic book heroines, these types of characters appeal to men more than women.
Re: BOTR: This is a Book Review
HAhaha…Lara Croft.
But yes, I agree with you. I am not really siurprised about how well the book has done – becaus people love conspiracy theories.
Heck, I fell for all of it and bought and read the book.
I really found the end disapointing.
Re: BOTR: This is a Book Review
If you are intrigued by the premise that "there is more to Christ than the Bible actually describes," you must pick up Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore (http://www.chrismoore.com/lambprologue.html">prologue). It is side-splittingly funny, but it's not brain candy – Chris Moore presents a thought-provoking perspective of Christ’s childhood and all the elements of being a kid: friendship, loyalty, temptation, decision-making, and, of course, stupid grown-ups. I'm only halfway through, but it's a book that has kept my mind entertained even when I'm not reading it (and has sent me into fits of giggles while reading it on the train, much to the alarm of my fellow commuters). It's too, too easy to imagine David Sedaris performing the audio version.
Re: BOTR: This is a Book Review
It's a recent phenomenon that fact is mixed with fiction at such a prominent level. Scholars have always mixed in a little opinion and a pinch of theory in what they write. But it has only been the past decade where documentary has become editorial.
Read the book for what it is: fiction. But don't confuse that with fact. And for goodness sake don't drag Scripture into it.
Although I would be interested in a rousing deiscussion of the Dead Sea scrolls and the other "historical documentation" from the time, as opposed to what King James decided should be included.
Re: BOTR: This is a Book Review
Actually, I read the book as fiction. I didn't drag scripture into it, but rather I did some reasearch on the historical claims Brown made. For example, Brown claims that Constantine was baptized on his death bed, which is not true. Constantine, I remember from high school world history, converted to Christianity so win battles.
As for fiction, it sucks, pure and simple. I got the feeling Dan Brown was on a deadline and pulled an all-nighter to get it to the publisher the next day.