The movie of The DaVinci Code is coming out soon, with Hollywood’s Mr. Nice Guy, Tom Hanks. (I actually like Hanks a lot onscreen.)
The book’s been out for a couple years now. I bought it with fascination after Christmas 2003, right at the beginning of the time when it became a phenomenon.
I was appalled. Not because I am a conservative Christian (I’m not), but because it was so horribly, stupidly written.
Any “mystery novel” whose protagonists are much more clueless than I am as a reader is a failed “mystery.” When I could see what was coming three pages before the characters in the story, I felt really disappointed. It was like learning the secret of a magic trick: “Is that all there is?”
The most egregious stupidity, I think, is probably the “mystery” of the code writing–the point when the main guy (whose name I’ve forgotten) makes the stunning discovery that something is written in a “secret code.” Duh. Hold the book up to the mirror. Most eighth-grade kids learn something about DaVinci and mirror writing.
In the NY Times on February 9 there’s a piece by Laurie Goodstein about the film company’s setting up a website for critics of the film to vent. The site seems intended for those conservative Christians who can’t abide the feminist theology that underlies the story.
I was actually fascinated by the feminist theology and the notion of Jesus of Nazareth having a wife. What galled me was Dan Brown’s ham-handed and glib way of presenting this notion in fiction. Somebody should have done a better job with this. Oh well. Brown’s laughing all the way the bank now.
Too bad. It’s a shame such a lousy book has become such a favorite of the theological left.
Entries (RSS)
For the first time I think I’m going to have to disagree with you Dave. I read the Da Vinci Code sometime in 2004 and I loved it. Now I must explain what I liked, because, unlike a lot of other people, it was not only the whole “Opus Dei vs. The Chruch - Jesus Christ had a child” part of the book that I liked. It’s Dan Brown’s style of writing. After reading it, I went out and bought all his other books in paperback. I read each and every one and love each and every one of them. Now, I liked them so much that I’ve actually bought the special hard-bound illustrated edition of Angels and Demons and I’m waiting till the Da Vinci Code one is available.
It seems you knew what was going to happen at every turn. The funny thing is that I didn’t! I had an idea of what was going to happen, but something totally different did. For example, I never got that “the teacher” was actually Teabing. It was quite surprising. And in Angels and Demons when it turned out that the Pope’s assistant was actually pretending to be an Illuminati representative, it was a pleasant and enjoyable twist in the story. Dave, I think you’re taking Brown’s books a bit too seriously. I’m reading Umberto Eco’s The name Of The Rose at the moment, which a friend recommended to me and it is not in the same league as The Da Vinci Code. The Da Vinci Code is a cheap thriller in comparison. It’s like comparing Jeffrey Archer and John Grisham or J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkein. They cannot be compared! Just like a well-written ghost story can’t be compared with a “Goosebumps” book.
Maybe it’s wrong that Dan Brown used this medium to convey facts. I saw a special on National Geographic and it seems he actually researched a lot of his book. He used it to his advantage, maybe unfairly. He’s a fiction writer, not a researcher or a theologist. I think we’re judging him incorrectly. For a thriller, he’s written quite the bestseller.
–
Simran
I liked the DaVinci Code, too, although I agree with Dave about the pointlessness about some of the “mystery.” I could see it coming ahead of time.
I did really enjoy the story in the context of a culture (roman catholicism) that I understand from having grown up in, and that he used real art and architecture (much that I have seen either in person or in pictures.) And I really liked the theology behind the book. And as an adventure (not necessarily a mystery, but an adventure) it seems pretty nicely paced to me.
He also reminds me a bit of Anne Rice - same kind of over-the-top writing, but rich sense of place, which I do enjoy.
I like to alternate “serious” reading with light “fluff” reading - DVC definitely qualifies in the latter. So does a lot of the lighter Science Fiction that I sometimes read.
Although I’ll admit that I like Tony Hillerman’s mysteries a lot better. I can often figure him out in advance, too, but he richness of the culture he writes in, and the skill of his spare style of writing, and his characters make up for that - I must agree that Dan Brown is not nearly as strong in those areas.
And Angels and Demons was interesting, up till the last 50 pages - when too much that was too unbelievable happened too quickly. He lost pace and mostly he lost willing suspension of disbelief - terrible in a writer.
I’ve been on a real roll of serious books lately - Martin Marty’s bio of Luther, a real thick history of the Reformation, a German HIstory (in prep for my Germany trip), a book on prayer, “Reading Lolita in Teheran,” “The Kite Runner” and right now “Cry the Beloved Country.” So I’m about due for a light one soon.
I wonder if there is a new Hillerman.
I have a question for you, Dave. Are you a regular mystery reader? I wonder if DaVinci appeals more to non-mystery readers, who may not try so hard to “figure it out,” and may appreciate other aspects of the book. I am definitely not a “mystery reader” and the mysteries I read are usually for other things.
“Are you a regular mystery reader? I wonder if DaVinci appeals more to non-mystery readers, who may not try so hard to “figure it out,” and may appreciate other aspects of the book.”
Hmm. I’m not really a “regular” reader of mysteries; but you’ve reminded me of the context of my pleasure reading at the time I read DVC. I had just read two very interesting mystery novels about magicians, or with magic (that is, performance magic) themes. One was Carter Beats the Devil, by Glen David Gould; and the other was The Vanished Man, by Jeffery Deaver. I had also recently read The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, by Michael Chabon.
I expected much less from each of these books, because they were “niche” novels, and because I thought the magic would make them quite gimmicky. But I was pleasantly surprised, amazed, and truly mystified by those.
With DVC, I found myself actually distracted by the non-mystery at times.
(Julie, I notice you are now posting while logged in to Blogger! Careful–this is how I started this blog, by signing up for a Blogger account. Of course, you already have a blog, so I guess you’re immune to the Blogger-disease…)
Actually I am not logged in to blogger. Blogger’s interface has an “Other” option which will let me use my name without being a blogger.
Anyway, I’m already a blogger, and what is worse, I have to translate myself.
Here’s another interesting thing. Have you ever read the original Sherlock Holmes stories? Many of them are SO easy to figure out. But it is some of the great mystery writing of all time. Why?
I think because the characters in it work so well. Which may be one issue with Dan Brown. His characters aren’t very deep. . . . .
Well, I haven’t read a lot of mystery, I’m more into the mythical, fantasy novels…
Maybe I’ll refer back to this post when I’m done with The Name Of The Rose and read some of those books both of you mentioned.
You must keep in mind, that my opinion reflects that of a 17yr old, inexperienced (never heard of a lot of good books, keep getting tips) reader, who’s just discovering new stuff.
You can post as “other”? Great! Because I want to restrict my Blogger identity to my FOWL Radio blog. Btw, thanks for the comment Julie!
Julie! I’m being called a spammer on your blog! *sniff*. It’s telling me my ISP is routing me through an “open proxy” or something. And I don’t have your email id either. You can email me at: simzz88 [at] gmail.com (this isn’t my main id, but I’m posting it, because it’s the only one where I don’t mind receiving spam.)
Brown’s Angels and Demons is the worst book I’ve ever finished. A friend recommended it to me, so I felt obligated to get through it. But the implausibility (wireless security cameras?), the inaccuracy (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Angels_and_Demons/Divergence_from_reality), and the high-school level of writing (my favorite is the mention of “diffusing” a bomb) made it utterly unenjoyable.
Thank you, Bill. You get what I’m saying. Your example of Dan Brown’s confusing “diffuse” for “defuse” is precisely what I’m talking about. To me he often seems rather clueless as a writer. “Wireless security cameras” are another great example. Implausible, but probably necessary to move an improbable plot point along.
Yesterday in class, a student who had read this blog entry said he found The Da Vinci Codefull of unfulfilled setups and meaningless red herrings.
This is what I mean when I say it’s badly written. Not that it presents fiction as fact, or that it defames the Catholic hierarchy or any of that stuff; but that it is just schlock writing.
[...] About a year ago, when the film version of The DaVinci Code was about to come out, I wrote here about my sheer contempt for the novel. I’m a Tom Hanks fan (That Thing You Do is one of my favorite light and fluffy movies), but the DVC film was, by all accounts, a disaster. (I must admit that I did not spend the $9.00 charged by Northern Virginia cinemas to see the thing.) [...]