Jump to content

Dan Brown: The Da Vinci Code


Guest Anonymous

Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

The success of The Da Vinci Code is certainly a literary anomaly. Both unexpected and unexplainable, the sheer volume of sales is surprising as the book is not, in my opinion, well written, intelligent, or original.

 

It begins in Le Louvre, Paris, with some of the clumsiest writing I've ever seen. Classics such as describing the eyes and hair colour of a silhouette are par for the course here as a museum curator of considerable renown (and how many curators have you heard of?) is murdered. From there, enter our cardboard hero, Robert Langdon, who will solve the mystery armed only with a similarly cardboard French girl and the author's help. Off he goes solving puzzles you and I solved pages ago (sometimes even chapters) despite us laymen not being schooled in his esoteric field. Throw in a couple of lame baddies, a historical secret, and the 'thrill' of the chase and you have The Da Vinci Code.

 

The book is fast paced, its 500 plus pages are quickly digested, although this is because the author writes such short chapters that there's a lot of blank space when one chapter ends a few lines into the page. Throughout, it uses one plot device: the cliffhanger. Fair enough, it gets you reading through the book but the author could have used more literary tactics in order to develop his story.

 

There are a number of places, however, where the book falls down: the writing, the characters, and the history. At times, it seems, Brown has raided a factbook of dubious authenticity and tried to cram as much of its content into his book without even deliberating over its relevance to the story at hand.

 

Firstly, the writing: It's simple and unemotional. There are many clumsy instances where the author says something which is simply not possible (see the silhouette comments above) or jars i.e. 'Silas prayed for a miracle and little did he know that in two hours he would get one'. You are left wondering if the author is, in parallel to the dubious facts, trying to squeeze in as much content as possible from his Little Book of Bad Cliches.

 

The characters, despite travelling with them for the duration of the book, never developed. They 'ooh-ed and ah-ed' their way through the startling revelations and that's about it. Their dialogue was intolerable, at times, and there were occasions when you just couldn't believe what was coming out of their mouths: Englishman saying 'soccer', French girl saying 'spring break'. It's Americanism after Americanism with these people despite only one character being American; surely, if you do as much research as Dan Brown claims to have done, you would find out how your characters speak. Another

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The success of The Da Vinci Code is certainly a literary anomaly. Both unexpected and unexplainable, the sheer volume of sales is surprising as the book is not, in my opinion, well written, intelligent, or original.

 

 

Gotta disagree with you there, I thought it was well written, gripping and very thought provoking, definitely gets top marks from me. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
The success of The Da Vinci Code is certainly a literary anomaly. Both unexpected and unexplainable, the sheer volume of sales is surprising as the book is not, in my opinion, well written, intelligent, or original.

 

 

Gotta disagree with you there, I thought it was well written...

 

I suppose it depends on your definition of well-written. I give a stuff about the laying out of words on a page and how they work together. Skimming over your list of books, you seem more interested in plot-driven genre fiction. The spice of life, and all that.

 

I just thought the prose was clunky, the choice of words weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've refused to read this precisely because of the two previously mentioned books. I read Holy Blood & Holy Grail, which is worth reading just for the spectacular comedy value - I read it first as a 14 year old with no critical faculties and took it at face value. I then re-read it about 5 years ago and could hardly stop myself laughing. It's up there with von Danicken.

 

And then Foucault's Pendulum, which I enjoyed but is perhaps a bit too over-wrought largely rehashed the same stuff. I think I was disappointed by Foucault's Pendulum because it wasn't as good as Name Of The Rose, but it satisfied my need for novels about rosicrucians, templars, cathars, secret societies, the elders of zion, and so on.

 

I will say, though, that people who've read the Dan Brown say that the religius conspiracy nonsense really just acts as a backdrop for the thriller. So really, you're just reading a thriller with a backdrop of rosicrucians rather than with a backdrop of nazis or aircraft, or whatever.

 

On that basis, apparently, it works perfectly well. It's "just" a thriller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will say, though, that people who've read the Dan Brown say that the religius conspiracy nonsense really just acts as a backdrop for the thriller. So really, you're just reading a thriller with a backdrop of rosicrucians rather than with a backdrop of nazis or aircraft, or whatever.

 

On that basis, apparently, it works perfectly well. It's "just" a thriller.

Precisely, its a good story!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that basis, apparently, it works perfectly well. It's "just" a thriller.

 

Absolutely - it is not particularly well written in the same was as Agatha Christie books aren't. Like Agatha Christie it still had me turning the pages, and I still went on to read Brown's other books.

 

It is silly in places, and the constant cliffhanger endings on chapters grated after a while, but I still found it entertaining and have re-read it with pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
I read Holy Blood & Holy Grail, which is worth reading just for the spectacular comedy value - I read it first as a 14 year old with no critical faculties and took it at face value. I then re-read it about 5 years ago and could hardly stop myself laughing.

 

I'm in the same boat there, Andy. I read it years ago - probably some tattered library copy - and took much of it to be factual rather than supposition. Looking at it later, it does make a mockery of concluding a historical investigation by jumping from A to Z, missing out B through Y.

 

And then Foucault's Pendulum, which I enjoyed but is perhaps a bit too over-wrought largely rehashed the same stuff. I think I was disappointed by Foucault's Pendulum because it wasn't as good as Name Of The Rose, but it satisfied my need for novels about rosicrucians, templars, cathars, secret societies, the elders of zion, and so on.

 

I'm the other way round, preferring Foucault's Pendulum to The Name Of The Rose. Perhaps it's because I read the former as my introduction to Eco; and partly because it was set in a more recognisable world. All the conspiracy stuff and pseudo-religious stuff in Foucault's Pendulum I'd read about in dribs and drabs, whereas, with The Name Of The Rose I had yet to read Jorge Luis Borges to form a complete appreciation of the text. One day, I suppose, I should read it again.

 

I will say, though, that people who've read the Dan Brown say that the religius conspiracy nonsense really just acts as a backdrop for the thriller. So really, you're just reading a thriller with a backdrop of rosicrucians rather than with a backdrop of nazis or aircraft, or whatever.

 

Yeah, that's right. The strange interpretation of Opus Dei - with monks! - is no different to Indiana Jones being chased by Nazis. All the guff between is just filler, with some really dodgy puzzles that a five year old could solve within seconds never mind our top team of symbologists and cryptographers taking a few chapters at a time. Painting by numbers is the obvious comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion... the thing about books is that there are so many genres and types of books, that there's something for everyone. Personally, I don't think any one of us can define what makes a 'well-written' book - what works for one won't work for the next person.

 

If some people find that they enjoy the book, and it holds their attention, then to them it's a 'well written' book.

 

As admin, I would like to say that we have members on here who enjoy all sorts of books, and I want to keep it that way. I also expect you all to express your own views, and discuss them.. but it's not necessary to belittle what another member thinks, or reads. Thank you! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends on your definition of well-written. I give a stuff about the laying out of words on a page and how they work together. Skimming over your list of books, you seem more interested in plot-driven genre fiction. The spice of life, and all that.

 

 

My version of well-written, is just that, my version.

 

I am hoping that you are not saying that because I read books by the likes of Jodi Picoult, Tess Gerritsen and Dean Koontz that I wouldn't know what a well-written book is like!

 

Ahhh just out of curiousity how many of the books on my list have you read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
My version of well-written, is just that, my version.

 

I am hoping that you are not saying that because I read books by the likes of Jodi Picoult, Tess Gerritsen and Dean Koontz that I wouldn't know what a well-written book is like!

 

No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I believe well-written applies to the words on the page and how they work together regardless of what the story is about. I know that many of the more (shall we say popular?) authors are not what I like because for them the words only serve to push the plot along.

 

Ahhh just out of curiousity how many of the books on my list have you read?

 

Just three. Koontz, Herbert, and Laymon. That was in my teens though and I feel that as a reader I've outgrown them as writers. Just to be a pedant, though, the Richard Laymon novel you list as The Island is just called Island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with you about Laymon.. but I still enjoy the other two.

 

So it would appear that some people like the way the words are put together, whereas some look for a good storyline / characters etc. To me, a 'well written' book is one that holds you, and you enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
So it would appear that some people like the way the words are put together, whereas some look for a good storyline / characters etc.

 

Heaven forbid we shouldn't expect both in the one book. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything has to just right for me, from the characters and plot, to the wording and way its presented.

 

If the characters are brilliant, yet its written all higgotty piggotty then its not well-written.

 

A far-fetched plot is good, if its written in a way that even if you can't quite believe it, you enjoy reading it anyway. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
A lot of people are making this novel famous, just because it is not totally 100% accurate. And I bet Mr Brown is loving it!

 

Mr Brown can love it all he wants, and fair play to him. But I don't believe for one minute that the inaccuracies are the sum total of the criticism. Religious groups, also, seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill with respect to it as it doesn't really tackle any questions of faith, just mentions an already debunked theory in passing.

 

The biggest criticism is just how bad a wordsmith that Brown is - clumsy stuff (like the silhouette with eyes I've previously mentioned) and the tired archetype of giving the "baddies" physical disabilities so as to differentiate them from you or I. Is that really fulfilling? Is such turgid prose substantial enough to be called entertaining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jake

I think most people read Dan Brown's books for a bit of light entertainment before moving onto something else, probably again, for light entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
I think most people read Dan Brown's books for a bit of light entertainment before moving onto something else, probably again, for light entertainment.

 

Bruce Forsyth; now that's light entertainment. :D

 

At least you mention moving on; you should see the people on a certain Dan Brown forum. They just read his four novels over and over and over! again. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jake

I never intentionally read a book twice, I don't see the point. I enjoyed Deception Point from an entertainment point of view, but I'm not interested in reading anything with a religious slant, hence I tried but failed with his other books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
I never intentionally read a book twice, I don't see the point.

 

I'm like that too, as I hate reading over something and getting that obvious deja vu feeling. Even when I've lost a bookmark and I'm reading where I thought I'd left off only to discover I'd already made it past that chapter.

 

There are, of course, books out there that reward multiple reads; I'm led to believe my current read, Lolita, is one such book. These books tend to be literature wherein the fun of rereading comes from clues left in the text that you can only pick up the second time around or increased knowledge that explains references further. I can't help but let the alarms go off when someone mentions they reread something plot driven as the whole charm of them is read once, know what happens, throw it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...