So I've finally started the Da Vinci code (possible spoilers)

[johnsemlak]

Edit: I've added a spoiler warning for the spoilers that may appear later in the thread.






This book has become the the absolute must read for younger readers in Moscow; it seems to be being read by every young Moscovite woman (now that I think of it, that's the best reason to read it ). I was reading it on the subway the other day and someone direclty across from me was reading it as well.

My 'excuse' for reading it is a student of mine is reading it and I'm reading it so I can discuss it. I need this excuse to explain why I"m reading it to my colleagues, most of whom are more 'serious readers' who probably wouldn't probably pick this up.

Anyway, a few questions...

1. What makes this book so popular?

2. OK, I'm assuming that most of the 'history' in this book is pretty much fantasy, but is any of this stuff at least based on fact?

3. Anyone like this book? I'm a bit on the fence so far. I have to say I'm enjoying the read, but it does seem to get increasingly corny.

 

[Fast Learner]

My first thiought upon reading the title of the thread was "I'm sorry." While the ideas were fun (though much better explored in fiction by Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum), I couldn't stand Dan Brown's writing, the super-simplistic characterization, and the endless, ham-handed deus ex machina events. I was very disappointed.

As to why it's popular: it's a fast read (very easy reading that pulls you through), and it regurgitates some interesting theories about da Vinci, Jesus's hidden story, the Grail, etc., stuff that is probably completely new to most readers. I'll certainly admit that it was a fun read, for about the first half, anyway.

As to the history, there is a lot of very muddy history surrounding these ideas. There are plenty of real world historians (and theologians) who certainly insist that a great deal of that stuff is true, and much more than Brown includes. There are many more historians (and theologians) who say it's not true, but it's not total fringe stuff: I'd say it's on the border between accepted unprovable alternate history and tin foil hat material, at least from my reading.

 

[Shemeska]

I'll second that 'I'm sorry" feeling

1. What makes this book so popular?

Combination of hype and easy reading.

2. OK, I'm assuming that most of the 'history' in this book is pretty much fantasy, but is any of this stuff at least based on fact?

Not accepted history at least. Brown bases a lot of things on the book 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' which was itself based partially on a batch of documents about an organization known as the 'Priory of Sion' that later turned out to have been an intentional hoax by a man named Pierre Plantard. Plantard admitted to this under oath in a French court in 1993, and much of these ideas seem to spawn from his own activities, which the authors of HBHG seem to have been ignorant of, and likewise Brown. But better people than me have deconstructed that book. Brown was just the first to capitalize on it and write it into a fictional tale, it's the equivalent of candy and pork rinds for a reader's brain. It tastes good but it's totally worthless for you in the long run.

3. Anyone like this book? I'm a bit on the fence so far. I have to say I'm enjoying the read, but it does seem to get increasingly corny.

I made it through three chapters before I laughed and brought it back to the library.

 

[johnsemlak]

My first thiought upon reading the title of the thread was "I'm sorry." While the ideas were fun (though much better explored in fiction by Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum), I couldn't stand Dan Brown's writing, the super-simplistic characterization, and the endless, ham-handed deus ex machina events. I was very disappointed.

As to why it's popular: it's a fast read (very easy reading that pulls you through), and it regurgitates some interesting theories about da Vinci, Jesus's hidden story, the Grail, etc., stuff that is probably completely new to most readers. I'll certainly admit that it was a fun read, for about the first half, anyway.

As to the history, there is a lot of very muddy history surrounding these ideas. There are plenty of real world historians (and theologians) who certainly insist that a great deal of that stuff is true, and much more than Brown includes. There are many more historians (and theologians) who say it's not true, but it's not total fringe stuff: I'd say it's on the border between accepted unprovable alternate history and tin foil hat material, at least from my reading.

Totally agree Umberto Eco handled this much better.

What strikes me as particularly contrived is that the conspiricy behind the book (which I've read so far) seems to envolve every possible group or artifact that could be connected with a conspiracy theory.

 

[Dark Jezter]

1. What makes this book so popular?

Honestly, I have no idea. I finally broke down and read it a couple of months ago just to see what all the hype was about, but in the end found myself pretty disappointed. The Da Vinci Code ended up being a fairly run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory story with unremarkble characters, fictional history passed off as fact, and lots of Catholic bashing (I'm not Catholic, but even I was a little put off by Dan Brown's demonization of the Catholic church).

2. OK, I'm assuming that most of the 'history' in this book is pretty much fantasy, but is any of this stuff at least based on fact?

Pretty much all of the "history" in the book is made up. Although the descriptions of different churches, monastaries, and museums are very accurate. Honestly, I think that Dan Brown would be better off writing travel guides than novels (although I doubt Dan Brown would agree with me, considering that he's probably made a mint off sales of his book).

3. Anyone like this book? I'm a bit on the fence so far. I have to say I'm enjoying the read, but it does seem to get increasingly corny.

I thought Dan Brown's other book, Angels & Demons, was quite a bit better than the Da Vinci Code, although neither one of them was a must-read. I'm no book snob either; I can like just about any book as long as it's a page-turner or has something really memorable about it. But when I finished the Da Vinci Code, I was very underwhelmed.

 

[Dagger75]

Its an easy read. I enjoyed, it was enteraining. Sure it was simplistic but who cares. Nobody should really have to justify why they read a book, except for the Wheel of Time. (Why do you people continue to read that?)

If you liked the Da Vinci Code you would probably like Angels and Demons. Its about the Illuminati.

 

[johnsemlak]

I certainlly don't blame anyone for reading it if they enjoy it, and they certainly shouldn't have to justify doing so.

Anyway, my disapointment stems from a bit of failed expectations. Maybe I was expecting a more or less repeat of Umberto Eco's works, and am disappointed that the Da Vinci Code (in my opinion) pales in comparison.

 

[Eternalknight]

I enjoyed it. A had heard a lot of the theories before (and that is what they are, theories) but overall it was enjoyable. I think the reason it was so popular is because of the Catholic church coming out and telling people not to read it; people immediately wanted to know why they shouldn't, so they read it

 

[Renton]

I was dissapointed by it. I though Angels and Demons was a good junk food paperback, right up until the end.

 

[KenM]

I want to wait for the paperback. But I heard the publishier(not sure what company) keeps pushing back the date of the paperback to generate hardcover sales.