Hahaha reading through this thread I see someone recommended Foucault. How silly.

Anyway, Da Vinci Code was what it promised to be- a best seller, not a pulitzer prize winner. Dan Brown seems to be an intelligent man even if he is not a brilliant writer. He is dedicated if nothing else. The book was good fun up until the last ohhh 150 pages when it just got too predictable for me. Overall I really enjoyed the book. It got me through an otherwise tenious bus ride so I feel a bit partial to it. And I applaud almost anything that gets society interested in art and history.

Dear fucking God.

haha, I thought most boyfriends "dont read"?
Im reading it now but will pick it up better after my exams are done even though I will probably wont be finished by the time I see the movie.
Everyone is bitching about tom hanks' hair. Why is this? Isnt the story set a few decades back where hair was supposed to be bad? Sometimes I cant stand to see some people over groomed in the movies ALL the time. Geez REAL people in REAL life have bad hair days too...

yeah it was something about people not finding him sexy (wtf?) with the 'academic hairstyle'...



when was tom hanks ever considered sexy?

dan brown: i want my four hours back

__________________
you'll go to hell for what your dirty mind is thinking

oh! c'mon!!!

nah, not feeling it.

i think he was cute, but never sexy.

Never, but I was feeling it in parts of the trailer. God help me.

Here's a little piece on the Da Vinci Code (not fully edited) that was sent to me for publication. It sums it up for me, really.

Sarah Hunter
Da Vinci Code

What is it about The Da Vinci Code? It has enraged Catholics worldwide (when is the Catholic Church not pissed off about something?), spawned books explaining it and denouncing it; websites and forums dedicated to it; a blockbuster movie and a high profile plagiarism court case challenging it. And it’s sold a shitload of copies.

The Da Vinci Code is the second book in a trilogy concerning Robert Langdon, a Harvard Professor who is implicated in the murder of fellow academic Jacques Sauniere. After deciphering a coded message, Sauniere’s granddaughter, Sophie Neveu, is convinced Langdon is innocent, and together they discover Sauniere’s secret identity as protector of the Holy Grail. The pair embark upon a journey to discover the secret of the Grail while being pursued by the police and the shadowy forces behind the Frenchman’s death.

So why all the controversy?

First sin: The Da Vinci Code has accused the Catholic Church of corruption and deceit – it tells us that the Vatican was aware of, and concealed the fact that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute but the wife of Christ and mother of their child. The book also portrays one of the Catholic Church’s most infamous branches – Opus Dei – of being little more than a trumped up cult with members who will kill in the name of religion. Can you believe that? Killing? In the name of religion? Never…

Second sin: The guy just don’t write good. He has been torn apart by many critics for his unsophisticated, over-the-top, romanticised style, his characterless characters and the sheer lunacy of his plot. Many ordinary (and therefore unimportant) readers – the book has sold over 40 million – beg to differ but let’s face it, it’s harder to get heard if you don’t write for a national newspaper, and even then there are no guarantees.

Third sin: A crime students are continually warned against: plagiarism. Two of the three authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail – Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh – have recently lost a court case against Dan Brown’s (and strangely their own) publishers, Random House, in which they accused the author of not only stealing their ideas, but of taking the “whole architecture” of their work and twisting it into his “fictional thriller.” Dan Brown and The Da Vinci Code won the case ; it was dismissed, leaving the The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail authors with a £1 million legal bill, greatly increased sales of their book and Dan Brown innocent in the eyes of the law. But not necessarily of the world at large.

Fourth sin: Dan Brown states in his book that “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”. Unfortunately for our novelist, many historians and academics in the field deny this and Brown has been accused of twisting or even completely fabricating history. The above statement does not cover all the controversial aspects of his work – Opus Dei for example – so the public is left hugely confused over what, if anything, they can take as gospel.

Despite these heinous offences, it is my nature to champion things that the snobs denigrate, totally ignoring public and popular opinion. Salman Rushdie has informed us that this book is so bad “it makes bad look good” and the great Stephen Fry claims it is “complete arse dribble”. Now I don’t like Salman Rushdie (apparently dull and self-important) and I do like Stephen Fry (the biggest luvvie Britain has ever produced) but I don’t agree with either of them.

The Da Vinci Code is a naughty little pleasure, like watching Dirty Dancing, or smoking that secret cigarette: you love it, but you don’t want anyone to know you love it. Especially those sneering, pompous wankers who would look down their nose at you for doing so.

“But I love Shakespeare too!” you could cry piteously, “I’ve read Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky! I can recite Tennyson’s The Lady of Shallot andI am half way through Ulysses!” Still they would regard you with disgust: “But you enjoyed The Da Vinci Code?” they would drawl before moving swiftly on to regale the rest of the Disdainful Dickheads Club with their horrendous encounter with the Foolish Philistine who liked Dan Brown.

What’s that you say? Something about a chip and a shoulder? Can’t quite hear you… never mind eh, I’m talking now.

The Da Vinci Code is a pacey and exciting read, a blatant and unabashed page-turner where you can happily skim the worst dialogue and descriptions and head straight for the action, and action it has in spades. It’s formulaic (if you have read any of his other novels it quickly becomes obvious who is the true villain of this piece), unmemorable – indeed, I have had to remind myself of the details for this article, but it will keep you pleasantly entertained for a day or two.

Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum has been called “the thinking man’s The Da Vinci Code”, but I know many a thinker who enjoys a bit of Dan Brown on the side. Granted, few would admit it. I, on the other hand, having gotten my dirty little secret off my chest on the pages of Veritas, am free to place my small but significant Dan Brown collection proudly on my bookshelves (having previously consigned them to my chest of shameful fiction) and if Stephen Fry and Salman Rushdie pop in for a glass of Chablis and raise a scornful brow at my little display, I shall in virtuous tones ask, “Who made thee a prince and a judge over us?”(Exodus, 2:14) Ah ha ha. Ha. HA.

__________________

It is, as someone said, at least useful in getting people to read about art and history. Though the history is fiction passed off as fact, which i think is as bad as plagiarism and he should be sued for it, because people actually believe it! The art is misinterpreted to prove a point also.

It is just a best seller, very badly written, a book for people who don't usually read. I myself couldn't sit through one of his books, try alternating from Dostoyevsky to Brown, it's impossible. Nonetheless i guess it gets people reading, but its such a shame that books which are bestsellers are so often of terrible quality. It's the same as music and the rest of the arts i suppose.

ooops, yesyes, my mistake with the keyboard. Pray-worthy, of course.
Recommending a piece BY Foucault would just be weird.

My point was I wouldn't recommend the book to someone who love's Da Vinci Code for Dan Brown's writing. I only say that because I read Name of the Rose too young to appreciate the writing style as well as the plot. But silly was an overstatement for the general public.

yep, same. Except I'm not getting very far.. exam revision. I refuse to watch the movie before I read the book.

i really enjoyed the da vinci code. it was a good, page turning, pulpy paperback novel... and that's not a put down at all. there is definately a place for pulpy paperbacks in this world (on my bookshelf!). i haven't enjoyed the hype around it though, & i think it's absolutely retarded how much ppl have bought into it all.

im looking forward to seeing the movie too... i wouldn't be suprised if it was really entertaining. and at any rate... audrey is hot enough to convince me to see just about anything

__________________

I enjoyed it for all the conspiracy stuff, but I agree that the writing in itself is just really really bad.

...and I hate that most of the people who read it seem to reagard themselves as pros on religion, secret societies and art now when half of it is just made up by dan brown himself.

LOVED AND ADORED the book, loved the movie.. Will go see it again, planning a related tattoo

__________________
first impressions are cheap auditions
situations are long goodbyes

I read it just to see what all the fuss was about and to be honest I didn't think much of it, a lot of it seems to be based on the theory that authority figures throughout history have played down the importance of women, do we really need Dan Brown to tell us that?

If anyone saw the Channel 4 documentary The Real Da Vinci Code with Tony Robinson, I thought that was a lot more interesting than the book itself! The point was raised that there was absolutely no evidence anywhere that Jesus had a child and even the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail admitted to that. Wether he did or didn't makes no difference to me but I just hate the thought that people would take a book like The Da Vinci Code so seriously!

i enjoyed it, but i read it as a break from alot of other reading i had to do.
i finished it in a day i believe. but i was avoiding other stuff, so it makes sense.

I really enjoyed the book, it was good light reading and being an art historian it brought out the geek in me because it was based around an artist (well sort of) it might not be the most accurate or original ideas ever, but it's a good book and was a needed break from all the heavy texts I've had to read this year.

Although I REALLY enjoyed Angels and Demons alot more. I think it would have made a better story for a film, so lets hope they make that one soon.

They are. I thought the film was a bit bland. Everyone besides Ian McKellen seemed to phone in their performances.