[JamesL]

I recently finished this and thought it was a pretty decent read, although at times read more like a history book and some of the characterization and plotting left a little to be desired.

Has anyone else read it? What do you think about it?

[knivesout]

It's important to realise that most of the 'fact' in there is cooked up, despite Brown's claims to the contrary. The main bloodline concept is lifted whole from Holy Blood, Holy Grail (Michael Baigent, et al) a fascinating but extremely dubious work of fringe history.

Another important point is the 'Priory of Sion', which Brown confidently claims is a real, and ancient organisation. In fact, it was put together in the 20th century by French right-wingers as part of a money-making scam.

See this site for more about the facts behind Brown's 'facts': http://priory-of-sion.com/ (http://)

Having seperated fact from fantasy, what remains? A fairly average but amusing thriller. The fact that the plot is an almost exact replay of his previous book, Angels and Demons, may or may not be worth considering as well.

[JamesL]

Yes, I was aware that much of the information had been lifted from various sources and is - in the Fortean community - common knowledge; the main reason the book has been successful is because the general public are unaware about the various conspiracies surrounding the Grail.

I agree that it is a fairly average thriller. While much of the info is not original, it makes for a nonetheless interesting read.

Might have to pick up a copy of that book you mention - I've heard of it before and it might be pretty interesting.

What is interesting is that the three authors of that book are trying to sue Brown for stealing their ideas - the thing is their book is about history, and who can lay claim to history?

[Miriamele]

I am hesitant to pick up this book merely because it is such a HUGE bestseller. That usually turns me off of books, because I don't believe it's the best books that appeal to the masses. At least the kind of books I personally enjoy are never bestsellers.

Plus it kind of bugs me how so many people are accepting the book as fact when it's obviously just a novel.

But that's just my opinion; I haven't actually read it.

[knivesout]

What is interesting is that the three authors of that book are trying to sue Brown for stealing their ideas - the thing is their book is about history, and who can lay claim to history?

I know! The suit is like a tacit admission that the thesis presented by Baigent et al is basically fictional, and therefore subject to copyright, and not genuinely historical!

Like Miriamele, something that annoys me is that that people read the book and simply accept some very dodgy theories as fact.

A week back, I was in a cafe having a late lunch when I heard a young boy (abt 11 or 12) in the next table telling his father about this artist called Da Vinci and the code that he made. While I'm glad that young boys are reading at all, it makes me feel rather sad to think that this young lad will probably always think of Da Vinci as a man who helped conceal (and yet also reveal) some controversial Christian secret, rather than remember Da Vinci for all his very real achievements (the complete Rennaisance man!).

Bah.

[wastra]

I thought it was a fun read, not much more.

Angels and Demons is better- it's frankly just more believable until one part near the end.


But the "facts" he uses are more "what ifs" than fact, despite his claims to the contrary.

The priory was created in the 20th century.

"Opus Dei" is neither secretive, monastic, nor fringe. It's also not "at odds" with the Church. In fact, it's among the fastest growing lay orders in the Catholic Church that teaches that working hard in the secular world is as good and godly as staying seperated from the world and praying all the time.

The locations of Da Vinci's works within the Louvre are not accurate.

There are a few other issues as well with his "facts."


It's entertaining, but not earth shattering.

[Monty Mike]

I picked it up a couple days ago but haven't got round to reading it. I'll deffinately read it before the film comes out, as I'm really anxious to see how they compare....

[JamesL]

This is a problem - it is very easy to believe every word that is written in The Da Vinci Code.

What we have to remember is that firstly this is a work of fiction. Such works always almost without exception embellish on the truth.

Secondly - the 'facts' in the Da Vinci Code that are viewed by specialists as 'historical' are, at best, simply musings and suggestions. While the argument in the Da Vinci Code can be persuasive, at the same time there is nothing but circumstantial evidence to support it.

Seeing as though we are also on the subject on finding fault with it - ;) - I would just like to say that - firstly Jacques Sauniere is 76, the mandatory retirement age in France is 65 so there is no way he would be Museum curator. Brown also claims the Louvre pyramid has 666 paines of glass - this is wrong. No one is totally sure how many it has, but it is commonly agreed that it is definitely not 666.
Brown makes Opus Dei out to be some sort of extreme secret Catholic organisation. They are not - they even have their own website. Talk about secret! :rolleyes:

There is the also the claim in The Da Vinci Code that when Jesus was alive, thousands of works were written about him. This is practically impossible - the majority of people were illiterate.

I could go on, but the fact is that, for all its shortcomings, I enjoyed the book and so don't want to lay into it too much! :D

[kater]

I didn't like it much, it was a big chase scene set over a whole book with a large amount of infodumps that at points verged on the utterly pointless. Not to mention the ending was an absolute damp squib, could it have been more obvious? I don't like when authors present something as semi-fictional. For all Brown's supposed research there were only two 'true' things in the Da Vinci Code and both of those he took significant artistic license with, grossly misrepresenting them. I don't expect 'truth' or even 'history' from a book such as this, but what I do expect is for a book to be what it says, not some gimic to sell the damn thing. Take out the supposed truths of the story and what your left with is a staccato single chase plot intermixed with 'info-dumps' and a weak ending that went nowhere. Can you tell I didn't like it? :D

[JamesL]

To be honest - while I enjoyed it - it is fair to say that it is just one big chase with lots of 'info dumps'. Hey...I quite like that phrase... :)

It is quite funny how Brown claims how it takes him 2 years to write a book due to the "substantial research."

What research? Reading a couple of books and visiting a few locations? I did more research for my undergraduate dissertation!

But I still liked it! Although I think I like the whole Grail conspiracy rather than the actual plot of the book. I really ought to read a few serious books on the grail.

Maybe I can find it and be rich. :D