The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown)

Personally, I find it endearing, when an author becomes so attached to his creation, that he begins to confuse his own fiction for fact.

Don't all artist become more appealling the crazier they become?

I rarely have any patience for murder mysteries.
But on the recomendation of every body here, I have picked up the book and I am now half way through it.

Mr. Brown is better than average at painting his scenes.
Moreover, his pace is fast.
Brown also effectively uses the strategy of very short chapters of sub-plot to give an impression of rythmic contrasts.
An effective strategy when the pacing is too fast for sublety.

For a pulp murder mystery, I give 'The Da Vinci Code' a B+.

 

Yeah, I read it.
I love it.
In fact, a friend of mine still has it (along with Holy Blood, Holy Grail).
I'd like it back.
lol

 

Ok.....Firstly, I found the theories in this book incredibly interesting, I couldn't put it down, but by the same token I found the actual story pretty ordinary. Angels and Demons, which is largely about the Illuminati and the constant battle between science religion was much better, and I beleive it is actually a prequel, but I could be wrong.

Secondly, there is obviously alot of debate about the subject of FACT and TRUTH in the book. With out any intention of offending anyone, couldn't you view the Bible the same way? I mean how can you know that it wasn't orginally written as a work of fiction? In the end there is no way that man will ever know the truth about God and creation or any of that kind of thing. Each to thier own, as long as we are good people does it really matter what we beleive?

 

i love it and i got totally into it. im gonna read angels n demons soon. it blows my mind and almost everyone i know read it. its a must read and discuss kinda book.
groovy...

 

I don't think you understand - he doesn't believe this stuff.... he's just saying he does to sell books...

 

It's interesting to see diversity of opinion and knowledge on this subject matter. It's strangely comforting to know that we don't all like the same thing. I didn't realize that DB was getting crazier, I was under the impression that although his themes broadened to a vast consideration, the physical exaggeration of his main characters' abilities was becoming a touch more earthly, ie. less jumping out of helicopters and collapsing icebergs. Still, we all hear and read different things in the various parts of this world. I am curious as to how the bible was written as a work of fiction (or to be precise, one or more parts of it), since it was never created as a single unit, rather collected through the centuries. I have no doubt that it can be read as prose, as so many other classical religious text. Maybe Psalms was written for the entertainment of some Judaic royal court and may, in a way, be constitued as a form of fiction, as we understand it. It will be interesting to see what DB comes up with next and if he can maintain the momentum he's achieved with the DV Code.

 

Dan,
Your comment appears to be, like Mr. Brown's, a perfect example of someone, who is so attached to their ideas, that they're willing to believe their own mere interpretations as fact.

How would you know Mr. Brown's true intentions?
Either he has come out and stated them directly with no room for interpretation,
or, you're interpreting his intentions and calling your interpretation fact.
Just like Mr. Brown.
Which is not uncommon, and nothing to beat yourself, or Mr. Brown, over the head with.

 

Scorp,
You may be right, D.Brown may be more realistic than before.
I never read his other works.
I did call him a little crazy, because his preface indicated that he was actually beginning to call his fiction fact.
Revealing a possible neurotic preoccupation common to artistic attachment.

But from your funny discription of helicopters and icebergs, that would explain why I've never bothered with D. Brown till now.
I've got little patience with those weak, unimaginitive, and lazy plot scemes of pulp mystery fiction.

You say you wonder about the broad range of bible interpretations.
I interpret the Bible as I would interpret a Rorschach Test Blotch.
A tool for revealing the complex psycho-pathologies of the Hebrew's collective neurotic preoccupations.
And through the Hebrews, our own similar collective un-conscious.


By the way Scorp, IMO, your posts are more interesting than most.

 

So you have evidence to say otherwise? are you not guilty of the very crime you acuse me of?

I don't remember stating that what I said was hard fact, sure, I also didn't state it was an opinion, but it seems you're bashing me for no reason other than the fact that I disagree with you.

Someone else stated they didn't like the list of "facts" that DB listed at the beginning of the book, but that's just the point - by the time he listed them, the book had started - the story had started, and this was his way of developing the mood of the book - to draw people in.

He's also said in a television interview that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, orginisations and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" - now OK, that's not the book, that's him talking - but, if you look at exactly what he's listed (artwork, archecture, documents, orginisations, secret rituals) - they all are - OK sure, the Prioty of Sion (for example) might not me an aincent secret society - but it did exist - even if it was only set-up as a prank by a frenchman who dreamed of being royal...

Again, this might only be my opinion, and if you're able to offer evidence to suggest otherwise, i'll listen, but I still think you're selling him short - he's not a madman that believes this, he's just a very intellegent author out to sell books - and I commend him for it

 

OK, maybe I didn't understand.
I thought YOU were putting him down for putting book sales ahead of integrity.
But you weren't; my mistake.
You were letting him slide.
Which is cool by me, because that's what I was doing.

Being a successful writer isn't easy, and, even though I don't care for his pulp-fiction genre, I'm not going to put him down.
At least not for the same reasons of factual integrity that everyone else is putting him down for.

I wasn't try to bash you.
I was trying to get you to see how much you and all of us have in common with D. Brown.
I was trying to get you to see how all of us tend to make our interpretations out to be facts.
And not to blame or bash Mr. Brown for being simply human.
I thought you were trying to get on a high-horse and look down on D. Brown.
I thought you were calling the poor guy a sell-out.

Now I find I was wrong, because that's not what you were trying to do.
My mistake.