the da vinci code.

[decadnids]

so - its going to be a hollywood film.

i tried to read the book - got to about 2 thirds through, but dont think i will finish it - i disliked the writing style, disliked the errors and generally it felt like i had shit on my hands everytime i picked up the book.

[Ladytron]

my friend is finishing the book. she said it's great one. it's next thing i'm going to read. now since you've said this i'm even more curious about it.

[V Knid esq]

Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. Nuff said.

[Spandex]

Watched that documentary on C4 about it last week by accident. Expected it to be annoying but I got sucked in when it actually turned out quite good.. and showed Dan Brown and others of his ilk up as incompetent at best and charlatans at worst.

I've not read the book.. but I got the impression from this that it's like a trashy version of Foucault's (sp?) Pendulum without the subtlety, ambiguity and humour.

There must be something that's made millions of people enjoy it. Maybe it's better if you don't care as much about the Templars etc nids

[Orang Utan]

The book really is the most dreadful piece of exrement I've ever set my eyes on.

Re The Real Da Vinci Code:A bloke phoned my work yesterday evening claiming to be the direct descendent of Jesus Christ and had been sent to prepare the way for him. "I am the proof- I am the bloodline; the Holy Grail." He had 'not had much success convincing anyone of this, but assured us that once he's been baptised at Lourdes the world will recognise him. '
The person who took the call said that the man said that 'he will remember me, though it is unclear whether this will be in a good way, or as the person who refused to give him Tony Robinson's home phone number'.

[decadnids]

Originally posted by Spandex

I've not read the book.. but I got the impression from this that it's like a trashy version of Foucault's (sp?) Pendulum without the subtlety, ambiguity and humour.

foucaults pendulum is an amazing book - its brilliant.

the da vinci code - is terrible.


the stuff in the book - the "facts" stink of Dan Brown doing a quick google search.

[Lady E]

oh i enjoyed it, and angels and demons. read both in about 3 hours. they are written like screenplays really, no literary value except that i do appreciate a good blockbuster. writing something page turning is also a skill.

i dont see what the problem is with a mainstream voice questioning the church on such a large scale, even if his work is inaccurate and derivative. also the references throughout his work are pretty esoteric and therefore should invade the popular consciousness and whet the appetite for further, deeper investigations by some readers.

i am so passionate about reading and literacy and people feeling included in the world of reading that anything that caprtures the popular imagination has to be a good thing.

[Lady E]

foucault's pendulum is an amazing book, but there's no comparison to be made really between the two. ok both are thrillers with a templar theme but it's like comparing a mills and boon novel to 'wuthering heights'.

[decadnids]

a little moan

there is a few bits in the book - one that sticks in my mind, that made me almost throw the book across the room.

there is the main dude - who is meant to be some expert in symbology, and they go and meet some old dude who is an expert on the grail.

and langdon makes a comment on how impressed he is that this old dude could write out the 22 letters of the hebrew alphabet "from memory" - come off it - he is a bloody expert on the grail, and spent all his life researching it. jesus.

and another bit where something is encoded in mirror writing and both langdon and this old dude dont recognise it - its obvious.

its rubbish. it makes me angry.

[Orang Utan]

The thing that annoyed me in the book was how the 'bad' characters had physical disabilities - I thought that was pretty distasteful.

[Orang Utan]

But, emma's right - I am equally evangelical about reading and it's best that people read something than not at all, even Andy McNab!

[decadnids]

well i am into reading.
but i would prefer people to read stuff that is actually good - than to read rubbish.

[Lady E]

Originally posted by Orang Utan
The thing that annoyed me in the book was how the 'bad' characters had physical disabilities - I thought that was pretty distasteful.

well, that isnt true in angels and demons. although you think the bad character whodunnit right to the end is the bloke in the wheelchair, it turns out not to be the case.

that is a convention of so much good against evil story telling isnt it? from james bond to marvel comics to thomas harris.

i am a really big stephen king fan and after reading The Stand in australia have noticed that his books often feature characters with severe learning disabilities, that always represent spiritual purity and connectedness. i havent analysed his work much but i expect he feels that these characters represent a pre-lapsarian innocence and oneness with nature and God that humanity has since lost.

The book is pretty well written but the fact that so many stupid people actually beleave its fact rather than fiction is astonishing. Then again Daily Mail readers do need some escapism between reading their bigotted morning rant and watching Panorama.

[decadnids]

JonnySpeed - you are joking right? well written???? thats questionable.

[Orang Utan]

The book was astonishly badly written - it made me wince in places.

[decadnids]

i'm with you there Orang Utan, it was very bad. especially when he went into "fact mode" - and it was clear he was doing some good old cut and paste from the net.

there was so many times when i had to put the book down and not read it as it annoyed me so much.
and i dont think i can bare to finish it.

[Orang Utan]

I was most annoyed at the way he had to italicise all important 'facts' and plot points.

[mr franks]

i see many many people on the train inn the mornin reading dan brown books, he must be making a mint.

i think im going to read it, as i would like to know what the fuss is. I have read foucaults pendulum, that was ace.

@ emma -

i dont see what the problem is with a mainstream voice questioning the church on such a large scale, even if his work is inaccurate and derivative

i think inaccuracy on a large scale is a bit scary..

[Yer_Maw]

tis not great, its ok. but everying doesnt have to be super-cool-on-the-cutting-edge all the time by the way.

[Lady E]

it is a work of fiction, despite masquerading as fact. and i think only people who are very interested in this field would note any inaccuracies.

i didnt notice anything glaring to be honest.

[decadnids]

emma the problem is that the book states at the front that elements of it are FACT - which is a bold statement, and is very very much UNTRUE

fiction or not, if someone writes something and claims to be factual, then i would hope that they would do a little bit more research than jumping into google or some other search engine and doing a quick look.

if the book had just been FICTION with out the need to claim that elements of it were FACT then i doubt i would be so annoyed.

[Yer_Maw]

mind they said the blair witch project was real? it was.

[mr franks]

im definitly going to end up reading it, i think my girlfriend has borrowed it off a friend at work. I wont read it on the train tho, as i only want people to see me reading super-cool-on-the-cutting-edge books. at the moment i am reading the shockwave rider by john brunner, i might need someone to tell me weather this is super-cool-on-the-cutting-edge or not..the cover looks funny tho.

[decadnids]

mr franks - shockwave rider - is super cool - cutting edge? i guess when it came out it was, and the computer term for a WORM came from that book and that book inspired rtm (robert morris) to create the first "internet worm" in 1988 or so.

[Orang Utan]

I think it's interesting that the writers of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail are talking about suing Brown for plagiarism. If what they claim is true, it's history and how can you plagiarise 'fact'?


One glaring inaccuracy I noticed is that Brown says you can see the Palace of Westminster from St James' Park. You can't. He makes loads of geographical mistakes. Whilst this doesn't interfere with people's enjoyment of the book, it betrays Brown's lazy researching.

[Orang Utan]

Originally posted by Yer_Maw
everying doesnt have to be super-cool-on-the-cutting-edge all the time by the way.

Why not if it's more enjoyable?

[decadnids]

Orang Utan - Dan Brown even kinda slags off the holy blood and the holy grail in da vinci code.

there is another dude, i forget his name, who coined the term "the da vinci code"
who is gonna sue him.

[Lady E]

Originally posted by decadnids
emma the problem is that the book states at the front that elements of it are FACT - which is a bold statement, and is very very much UNTRUE

i havent got a copy to check that, but you said yourself it says that ELEMENTS of it are true. and elements of it ARE true. there is an organisation called opus dei, there were different versions of the madonna of the rocks, there are the churches he talks about in the cities he talks about with the carvings and statues that he talks about in them, there is a scene in the little mermaid where ariel clearly has a copy of 'the penitent magdalene' on her wall. the intrigue of this novel, and what annoys you i suppose is that because some elements are clearly observable fact, the inference is that the rest of it is also, and it is for the reader to decide how much they believe is true. and people seem to be believing that it is all true. in fact to the casual reader his plot has logic and makes internal sense so it is believable.

id be interested to know what is factually so incorrect in this novel, as the only condemnations (apart from stylistic ones) i have been able to find on the net have been by roman catholics.

[Orang Utan]

Even the term Da Vinci Code is erroneous - surely it should be the Leonardo Code? It's like calling Jesus 'Of Nazareth'. I know I'm nitpicking but I can't express how annoyed I was with this book.