The Da Vinci Code

[Dirtydutch 8]

I don't know if I can talk about this book without belittiling it's fan base. Mass appeal of a book only increases the likely hood of it being dumbed down, not decreases it. I'm bored and lazy and don't again really feel the need to break down a book that I hate, I'd rather talk about books I liked, but since you asked what I disliked about the book, Here's a book review from Amazon.com for DVC that I completely agree with.Seventy pages into Dan Brown's surprisingly putdownable potboiler, the inevitably green-eyed, French-accented code cracker Sophie Neveu sighs, "This is not American television, Mr Langdon." Oh, Sophie, if only that were true. You know a book owes too much to the screen when an albino assassin appears on the very first page, and rather than taking the time to construct an original variant on the intelligent-action-man hero you're simply instructed to think of Harrison Ford - in tweed. This is a movie, pure and simple: a thinly plotted, strongly visual, mildly entertaining Hollywood chase movie about cardboard characters (replete with sappy childhood flashbacks) and with enough Opus Dei-bashing to make it a fast-acting antidote to "The Passion of the Christ." Crammed full of supposedly arcane revelations about mathematics, religion, symbolism and art - most of which read like verbatim downloads from Google - the "intellectual" content won't be dazzling or new (forget accurate) to anyone even slightly inquisitive about these topics. Worse, it's presented with a juvenile fascination for "connections" that would embarrass the most seasoned New Age charlatan. It all moves at a cracking pace, of course, and has enough scope and colour to hold your rapt attention for a few winter nights, and enough Catholic conspiracy theory to warm the heart of an atheist. But it's so devoid of literary merit, so apparently committed to the squandering of every opportunity to do anything interesting with the material - rather than just ape the narrative grammar of cinema - that it truly beggars belief. The characters are just names on the page, huge swathes of deadpan "I'm glad you asked"-style exposition pad out the clunky plot shifts, and because it's all so closely modeled on the rhythms of Hollywood nothing ever comes as a surprise - not a word, not an image, not a moment. This is post-literate prose at its direst, plugging directly into pre-fabricated scenarios, characters and images, absolving the reader of the need to imagine anything - which is why it's such a famously easy read. This is reality as a simulacrum of television, a copy of a copy, and about as convincing. It's an odd stylistic choice in a novel which takes as its theme the notion that great art depicts truths which evil empires would suppress. My advice? Save your time, and wait for the movie, i.e. wait until this story is presented in its natural form. I'm actually really looking forward to it. Seriously. I quite like the story, I just dislike the way it's presented here. It's fundamentally a puerile novel, but as a Hollywood movie I'm sure I'll be tickled by it. In the mean time, if you want to read the kind of novel this purports to be, get yourself a copy of Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" or, better yet, "Foucault's Pendulum". If those don't grab you, at the very least try Donna Tartt's "The Secret History" - nothing to do with the Grail, but it's certainly more deserving of the "intelligent thriller" label than this. Is there really nothing better to be said for "The Da Vinci Code", as novel? Sadly, I'm with Harrison - I mean Robert: "Langdon considered it a moment, then groaned." (p.93)All the qualities you say you like about the book, the fast paced ness and what not, are the qualities of a good action thriller, not a book. Again, like the book reveiwer, I think this book will make a decent movie, since the medium informs this book so greatly. This is a book for people who don't like to read, who think reading is boring, who have short attention spans, and yet still think they are intellectual because the book deals with "issues" Well it doesn't. It deals with about the most lame brained conspiracy/thriller plot I have ever read. This book is pure pulp fiction, and anyone who says it's a great book has never read one*****EDIT******If someone is wanting a good book to read, I suggest...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Jest

Yes. Everything seems t obe in order. :icon_clap:Also, Infinite Jest Rocks harder than one can imagine.

[wilheldp 0]

I don't know if I can talk about this book without belittiling it's fan base. Mass appeal of a book only increases the likely hood of it being dumbed down, not decreases it. I'm bored and lazy and don't again really feel the need to break down a book that I hate, I'd rather talk about books I liked, but since you asked what I disliked about the book, Here's a book review from Amazon.com for DVC that I completely agree with.

It sounds a whole lot like you hate this book for the simple reason that everybody else that reads it seems to like it. It is just like I said in my previous post, although I could have worded it less agressively...you are a pretentious, book snob. Just like there are Academy Award nominated, artsy movies and shoot'em up Tony movies, the same applies to books. I happen to like both types of movies, and I like both types of books. Then people like you come around, that are so high-and-mighty that you can't see the merit in works that you don't like, so you feel the need to attack people that do like those works.Sometimes people, even those that enjoy great literature, aren't in the mood to read page after page of character development or elaborate scene descriptions that have little, if any, impact on the story. For those times, for me, it is when I am travelling for work, the Dan Brown books are a great read. If you are too blind to realize that, then enjoy whatever it is that makes your books so much better than mine.BTW, I really enjoyed the irony in the fact that you copied a book review verbatim that slammed a book for being unoriginal.

a copy of a copy

[BigDMcGee 3,354]

It sounds a whole lot like you hate this book for the simple reason that everybody else that reads it seems to like it. It is just like I said in my previous post, although I could have worded it less agressively...you are a pretentious, book snob. I happen to like both types of movies, and I like both types of books. Then people like you come around, that are so high-and-mighty that you can't see the merit in works that you don't like, so you feel the need to attack people that do like those works.Sometimes people, even those that enjoy great literature, aren't in the mood to read page after page of character development or elaborate scene descriptions that have little, if any, impact on the story. For those times, for me, it is when I am travelling for work, the Dan Brown books are a great read. If you are too blind to realize that, then enjoy whatever it is that makes your books so much better than mine.BTW, I really enjoyed the irony in the fact that you copied a book review verbatim that slammed a book for being unoriginal.

Yes I am a pretentious book snob, and proud off it. Reading is a wonderful, time consuming thing. I love to read. And I resent terrible books that eat up My precious reading time with crap.I don't know what "Just like there are Academy Award nominated, artsy movies and shoot'em up Tony movies, the same applies to books." is supposed to mean exactly, other than you don't know **** about Film. the Tony awards are theatrical, not for motion pictures. The popularity (or lack there of) of a book really doesn't mean **** to me. As I said, I don't like the book because it was written for people with a reading comprenhsion level of an ADD 8th grader.I don't care what excuses you have for liking bad pulp fiction. I don't. End of story.Also, irony doens't mean what you think it means. Grab a dictionary. I enjoy literature with irony, and I enjoy ironic reading of terrrible books like Left Behind and DVCAlso I don't know why it's funny that I copied a book review about the lack of orginality of DVC. You're really just pathetically reaching for insults now. What does the lack of orginality of the DVC have to do with refrencing a book review? It's not like I claimed that book review was my own, with cosmetic differences, and then tried to sell my book review to 50 million people. It's called "refrencing" it's done in papers, thesises, that sort of thing. If you'd had some formal education you'd know that, but as you're such a loyal DVC fan, I know you haven't.

[ajs510 122]

Wait, The Da Vinci Code was a book?

[L. Ron Hubbard 0]

If you guys are looking to read a good book...

[BigDMcGee 3,354]

If you guys are looking to read a good book...

I like my crack pot sci fi relgions free of charge, thank you very much...I suggest The Urantia Book, if you've got a few hours, and some hallucinougenic drugs to consume while reading it,. Any of the papers is pure, breathtakingly insane genius.http://urantiabook.org/newbook/index.htmlBeats the hell out of Xenu any day of the week.

[wilheldp 0]

If you'd had some formal education you'd know that, but as you're such a loyal DVC fan, I know you haven't.

Really? Know that for a fact, do you? Last time I checked, I had an Engineering degree from the #1 undergrad engineering school in the country, and I'm halfway done with my masters degree in Engineering Management. It is true that neither of those degrees required a great deal of fictional reading, but I did a lot of it regardless. Let me guess, you have a degree in something extremely useful in life such as English Literature, or African-American Studies. Maybe they will let you hang your diploma in the breakroom of Starbucks someday.By the way, "shoot'em up, Tony" is a phrase to describe an action thriller movie. It has no connection whatsoever to the Tony awards. Not that I give a flying ****, though, because all award shows are a farce anyway.I have still only seen one example from you of books that you liked, and have seen virtually no description of what you think makes for a good novel. You seem to think that Dan Brown has a problem with character development...tell me an author or two that you think develop characters well. I agreed in a previous post that the plot was thin for most of the book, then all plot twists were crammed in at the end of the book. That is definitely one of Brown's weaknesses because Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress had the same problem. I still enjoy Brown's writing style, though, because it is very captivating. I have trouble putting his books down until I am through with them. I would say that Dan Brown is the polar opposite of Joseph Conrad. I literally could not stay awake when I trudged through Heart of Darkness. I really didn't even care for the movie based on that book either (Apocalypse Now).

[timwakefield 68]

Dan Brown's work is great fiction.

No it's not. That's like saying Face/Off is an example of great film.

[Dirtydutch 8]

No it's not. That's like saying Face/Off is an example of great film.

Are we talking Travolta or Van Dam?

[BigDMcGee 3,354]

Here are some good books I'd recomend.. The rain maker, John Grisham. Clear and present danger by tom clancy. Insomnia by Steven King Ice Bound by Dean Koontz Jurrasic Park by Micheal Crighton. Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris Omerta by Mario Puzo.

[wilheldp 0]

Here are some good books I'd recomend.. The rain maker, John Grisham. Clear and present danger by tom clancy. Insomnia by Steven King Ice Bound by Dean Koontz Jurrasic Park by Micheal Crighton. Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris Omerta by Mario Puzo.

I have read the Rainmaker, Clear and Present Danger, and Jurasic Park out of that list. I have also read several other Grisham and Clancy books as well as one other Crichton book. Dan Brown is not as good of a writer as those gentlemen, but I still don't understand the outrage against his work.

[Mercury69 3]

I haven't read this book and I'm not saying I won't but I'm betting it falls into the same category as John Grisham novels: Thinly disguised screenplays.I'm not even going to back up my statement. Either you will "get it" or you won't and, frankly, I don't find any worth in discussing nuance like that with someone who doesn't get it, which I have discovered is pointless. If you literary hotshots want to read something truly well-written about history, religion and conspiracy, try reading The Name of the Rose, by Umberto Eco. Now THAT is a well-written book.Also, recent authors that have shucked my jive are Neal Stephenson (Cryptonomicon, The Diamond Age and others) and Guy Gavriel Kay (not as complex as Tolkien, but excellent if you like pseudo-fantasy writing).And for those of you who will take exception to my post, piss off.

[BigDMcGee 3,354]

I have read the Rainmaker, Clear and Present Danger, and Jurasic Park out of that list. I have also read several other Grisham and Clancy books as well as one other Crichton book. Dan Brown is not as good of a writer as those gentlemen, but I still don't understand the outrage against his work.

HGAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHADHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHASince you're not picking up on my sacrasim I'll be shutting the register now.Quit poker. You have no ablity to read players hands.I did like Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash", though I hated the religious/ babyelon story arch, and thought it ended like crap. The concept was very interesting, and very funny.

[Dirtydutch 8]

Reading John Grisham is a lot like... ah... NO! My magic powers! Damn you, John Grisham, you've ruined my vocabulary and vast cultural knowledge.

[wilheldp 0]

HGAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHADHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHASince you're not picking up on my sacrasim I'll be shutting the register now.Quit poker. You have no ablity to read players hands.I did like Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash", though I hated the religious/ babyelon story arch, and thought it ended like crap. The concept was very interesting, and very funny.

I really don't care what you like to read any more. It's obvious that you are of the opinion that the authors that you read are good and anybody that reads anything else is an idiot. This reminds me of a religious debate. "I have it right and anybody that says differently is stupid." I find it no coinincidence that most of the authors that you listed above are some of the most popluar modern novelists in the world. I still think that your book snobbery is getting in your way of seeing the merit in nice, little, fast-paced novels. I also think that my comment about your useless college degree hit a little close to home.

[BigDMcGee 3,354]

I really don't care what you like to read any more. It's obvious that you are of the opinion that the authors that you read are good and anybody that reads anything else is an idiot. This reminds me of a religious debate. "I have it right and anybody that says differently is stupid." I find it no coinincidence that most of the authors that you listed above are some of the most popluar modern novelists in the world. I still think that your book snobbery is getting in your way of seeing the merit in nice, little, fast-paced novels. I also think that my comment about your useless college degree hit a little close to home.

College, what's that?what I did find amusing was your back handed racist comment.. I can make up educational credentials online too. I have a phd in asto-bullshit from Oxford, and my cok is 13 inches long. The only thing that you can actually prove is that you, like the unwashed masses of the american public, have a terrible taste in books. I don't think that anything anyone reads anything else is an idiot, but I do not respect anyone's opinion on books who thinks the list of authors I have represents quality literature. If I want mindless entertainment, I'll turn on the TV.

[Dirtydutch 8]

College, what's that?what I did find amusing was your back handed racist comment.. I can make up educational credentials online too. I have a phd in asto-bullshit from Oxford, and my cok is 13 inches long. The only thing that you can actually prove is that you, like the unwashed masses of the american public, have a terrible taste in books. I don't think that anything anyone reads anything else is an idiot, but I do not respect anyone's opinion on books who thinks the list of authors I have represents quality literature. If I want mindless entertainment, I'll turn on the TV.

We missed you D.

[wilheldp 0]

College, what's that?what I did find amusing was your back handed racist comment.. I can make up educational credentials online too. I have a phd in asto-bullshit from Oxford, and my cok is 13 inches long. The only thing that you can actually prove is that you, like the unwashed masses of the american public, have a terrible taste in books. I don't think that anything anyone reads anything else is an idiot, but I do not respect anyone's opinion on books who thinks the list of authors I have represents quality literature. If I want mindless entertainment, I'll turn on the TV.

I never said that it was quality literature. I said that it was great fiction. Fiction novels ARE the mindless entertainment of the literary world.That's fine if you don't like my taste in books, but you have mentioned on more than one occasion that you have to belittle people in order to describe why you don't like Dan Brown's books. Why is that? I find it amusing that simply mentioning a degree in African-American Studies makes me a racist. I don't care what you say, a degree in AA Studies IS a useless degree. It's fine if African Americans want to learn about their culture, or if others would like to learn about it as well, but seriously, what the hell are you going to do with a full degree in such a subject? Take a few courses...hell, get a minor in it, but why would you waste your time and money on a degree that has virtually no market.

[timwakefield 68]

Fiction novels ARE the mindless entertainment of the literary world.

I have to take issue with this statement. First of all, "Fiction novels" is redundant.Second of all, most of the great literature ever written is fictional.

[BigDMcGee 3,354]

I never said that it was quality literature. I said that it was great fiction. Fiction novels ARE the mindless entertainment of the literary world.That's fine if you don't like my taste in books, but you have mentioned on more than one occasion that you have to belittle people in order to describe why you don't like Dan Brown's books. Why is that? I find it amusing that simply mentioning a degree in African-American Studies makes me a racist. I don't care what you say, a degree in AA Studies IS a useless degree. It's fine if African Americans want to learn about their culture, or if others would like to learn about it as well, but seriously, what the hell are you going to do with a full degree in such a subject? Take a few courses...hell, get a minor in it, but why would you waste your time and money on a degree that has virtually no market.

First off, scroll back into this thread if you want to see who kicked off the belittlement. Also, I'm not belittling people who like Dan Browns books, only their taste in literature.Second off, you're racist because you equated AA studies with useless, not because you mentioned it. Also your, the choice of mentioning AA studies when you were talking about "useless" degrees, when there are hundreds of choices you could have picked, like communications, basket weaving, industrial engineering or elementary education. The fact that you picked AA as one of your two choices, english Lit actually being germane to our topic, and understandable, but AA just out of the blue, while not proving that you're racist per se, is smoke to the you're a bigot fire.Why would you waist your time and money on a degree that has virtually know market? I don't know, for the bettement of your self and your mind? It's an antiquated concept, I know.Third off, Tim Wakefield pretty much hit that ball out of the park when it came to your conception ( or lack thereof) of literary terminology. Ulysses, while fiction, isn't exactly what I'd label "mindless entertainment." what it comes down to is art verses commerece. Ulysses is art, and DVC is commerece. If you wish to ignore the art of literature in favor of mindless, "entertaining" drivel, what's your progrotative, you're certainly not alone. 50 million elvis fans can't be wrong.

We missed you D.

Missed you to Dutch. Nothing better flame war to kill the hours away. Though this is rather of the fish in the barrel variety. I know I wouldn't go into a thread about electrical engineering, and start sht talking about how good some mirco chip was...

[wilheldp 0]

First off, scroll back into this thread if you want to see who kicked off the belittlement.

OK, I did. It seems like we were having a nice conversation about The DaVinci Code and how it compared to other Dan Brown books. Bampote came in at post #12 and said that he didn't like Dan Brown's novels, but he did so in a respectful manner. Then in post #19, you came in and started belittling people for liking The DaVinci Code. You came off like a complete as.s, and when I called you on it, you accused me of starting the fight. When I saw that you really wanted to debate the issue, I indulged you. When you look at the number of people that said that they like the DaVinci Code in the first dozen posts, you would see that you Tim Wakefield, and Dirty Dutch are outnumbered, but I was the only one that had the time or interest in actually discussing the topic.I've tried to find out what you guys dislike so much about modern novelists' writing styles, but despite your implied vast intellect, you have yet to provide such a description. I have said what I like and dislike about Dan Brown books, but you have provided a bunch of thinly veiled attacks on my choice of books and cut-and-pasted somebody else's review of a single book.Fiction, is by definition, an untrue story. Stories, whether they be presented in a book, on TV, or in a movie is intended as entertainment. Since the stories aren't based in fact, and the reader doesn't actually learn anything by reading it, it is mindless. Get it? Mindless entertainment...regardless of when it was written. I'm sure that Ulysses was regarded as tripe by some of the book snobs of the 1920's, but it has since become regarded as great literature. I am not implying that Dan Brown, et. al, will ever be regarded as the great writers of the 21st century, but simply that there are always people that dislike certain works no matter how well-written they are.If you could provide a cogent argument against Dan Brown's writing style, then maybe we could debate the merits of that argument. But your "I don't like it...there are better writers out there...you guys are stupid" argument is getting old in a hurry.

[BigDMcGee 3,354]

Fiction, is by definition, an untrue story. Stories, whether they be presented in a book, on TV, or in a movie is intended as entertainment. Since the stories aren't based in fact, and the reader doesn't actually learn anything by reading it, it is mindless. Get it? Mindless entertainment...regardless of when it was written.

See, this here is the whole point of the matter. I've learned so much from fiction over the years. It has broadend my mind, the way I think of my self and the world. If you don't see that, there's just no way I can make you see that in a couple of paragraphs on a message board. Great fiction is so very much more than a good story.

[Dirtydutch 8]

Great fiction is sociality important. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Dostoievski just wrote fun stories.

[BigDMcGee 3,354]

Great fiction is sociality important. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Dostoievski just wrote fun stories.

yeah, but notes from underground is hilarious, if you're sick and twisted like me

[Dirtydutch 8]

yeah, but notes from underground is hilarious, if you're sick and twisted like me

Yes, and yes.