The Da Vinci Code
I finally got around to reading Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code. So what did I think of it? I found myself alternately enjoying it, and being quite annoyed by it.My annoyance started almost immediately, when I found myself thinking, "Why, this guy is just an amateur writer...about like that kid that writes fantasy that everyone oohs and ahs about, because it's so good for a kid, but you find yourself sincerely hoping that he'll grow out of his dead and lifeless prose as soon as he outgrows his adolescence." (to my brothers: don't tell my nephews I said that!
)Only Brown isn't a kid, so he doesn't have any excuse. He pulls the lazy writer's trick of telling you how to feel, instead of setting a scene that naturally makes you feel the way he wants you to. It's kind of like the old live studio audience trick of holding up signs that say "Applause".
It just doesn't work for me.
Fortunately, though, once he got going, he got into a pretty good rhythm, and either outgrew his laziness, or kept the suspense level high enough that you didn't really notice the laziness anymore. That was when I started enjoying it. There are enough puzzles, riddles, and surprises in this story that Brown can get away with making each chapter a "cliff hanger" - just when you think you're about to discover something important, the end of the chapter comes and wham! You're now following a secondary plotline, and have to wait a whole chapter to find out what's at the bottom of the cliff. This makes the book harder to put down than I expected.
Then I got annoyed again. This time because I kept figuring out his codes and clues. One code in particular annoyed me because I had used the code as a basis for one of my online passwords. Imagine my disgust when I saw one of my passwords in print in a "worldwide bestseller".
Don't worry. I changed my password.
Then as someone who enjoys art, I got a kick out of Brown's offbeat interpretations of Da Vinci's paintings. In particular, I got a real charge out of his "That's a woman sitting next to Jesus at the Last Supper." Of course, it would be good to take a look at the standards of male beauty at the time, before passing that kind of judgment - there are male portraits from that era that are a whole lot more effeminate than Da Vinci's portrayal of John!
Then I started getting annoyed again, as I realized Brown was cheating. What do I mean by that? Well, he starts out by giving a list of "facts" before the story begins (and it's a pretty shallow list of facts - just that a couple societies exist, and that they had members). The implication is "Everything else is my fictional invention." But Brown isn't willing to leave it at that; on several occasions he has his scholar character saying things like "This is historically well documented." About "facts" that Brown has made up. No wonder people have gone into fits about this book, and why people have to keep saying "Remember...this is a work of fiction." Brown has introduced enough facts into his story that the lines have blurred between fact and fiction, and he has deliberately pushed the line far out of kilter by implying the line is somewhere other than where it really is. That's cheating.
Here's just one example - at one point the scholar is explaining that Constantine rewrote the entire Bible, right back to the book of Genesis, the creation and the fall of man (putting the blame on Eve). Of course, one has to wonder how a Christian emperor convinced the Jews to start using his rewrite of their scriptures.
But, of course, the whole thing is given a weight of credibility, because the explanation is given by the scholar, who insists that this is "historically documented". And if people are not well versed in the history of Judaism and Christianity it won't even occur to them that this is part of the fiction of the book.I don't know, maybe Brown was naive enough to think that people would recognize the difference between when he was giving facts and when he was giving fiction, but I have my doubts...I suspect he knew exactly what he was doing, and didn't care that he was betraying the trust of his readership.
I never really recovered completely from that annoyance. I did have one more moment of enjoyment - it came from one of the codes I didn't figure out, which was the Sir Isaac Newton poem. Very clever. Should have seen the answer, but didn't.
So, I'll wrap this review up with comments made by two friends about The Da Vinci Code.
Trent: It's well written blasphemy.
Jim: I don't understand what the big deal is...it gives people opportunities to talk about the real Jesus, and that's always a good thing.
Posted On May 3, 2006 at 11:12 AM
On May 3, 2006 Doug wrote: Another way of expressing my annoyance with this book: when someone writes historical fiction, they are allowed to "invent" things, but an implicit assumption is made that they won't invent things that are contrary to known facts...unless they are writing an "alternate history", in which case they make it obvious that they are writing alternate history (Orson Scott Card's Alvin series is a great example).
But Brown is writing alternate history, all the while pretending that it's historical fiction. Bad boy. Shame on you.
On May 3, 2006 Trent wrote: Great post. I didn't realize that Mr. Brown had plagerized your passwords. It wasn't enought that he borrowed from those British sources.
Man, I can hardly wait for the trial. May I come as a witness??
Doug Replied:
wait...are you coming as a witness on my behalf? Or on behalf of your cousin-in-law?
On May 3, 2006 Beth wrote: I read it last summer, and I too was annoyed with how people could have been mislead if they didn't know Christian and Jewish history that well. I thought the book was overrated. Yes, it was suspenseful at times, but I couldn't see what the big deal was about.
I couldn't get that riddle either!
Doug Replied: oh...here's another one...ever read any of the "other" gospels? In one of them (I think Thomas) Jesus announces that he's going to turn Mary Magdalene into a man so she'll be worthy to hang out with the rest of the disciples.
Kind of makes you wonder where Brown got the notion that it's the canonized gospels that "oppress" women.
On May 12, 2006 Trent wrote: may 3rd.
Hmmm
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
I think that equals 10 days total.
hmmmmmmmmm
On May 12, 2006 Trent wrote: Oh i'm sorry
was that out loud?
Doug Replied: Ha ha. I was actually thinking that exact same thing earlier this afternoon. Very soon I shall tell all about my exciting and oh so hectic week...
|
Doug's Random ThoughtsEverything from Soup to Nuts,And Maybe Even More! ABOUT ME Current PostsBlog Is Moving...Emergency Room Last Entry Join The Chorus Jeorge Sings A Hymn 
|
