The Da Vinci Code

[HelenM]

Does this qualify as literature? At least it's Italian sounding - perhaps it'll fit in here...

Anyway, I just read it. :read: Has anyone else read it? What did you think? I don't usually read thrillers but the enormous popularity of this book made me curious.

(Maybe I shouldn't even admit I read it... :hidecomp: )

Helen

[viscousmemories]

Strange, I just got in touch with an old friend for the first time in a year, and she told me she's about to read that book. I'd heard of it, but couldn't remember where.

I haven't read it though. I don't read from paper much anymore. :paperbag:

[Lauri D]

Howdy Helen! :wave:

I just read this night before last at my boss' insistence. I think he thought I'd like it on account of his being aware of my heretical leanings ;)

I did enjoy it as a mystery/thriller type genre and some of the historical/art info within was very intriguing. Well written, I thought.

What were your thoughts?

[livius drusus]

I admit I haven't read it just because the name annoys me a little and because a co-worker who has lent me some truly horrendous books recommends it highly. To tell the truth, I'm not even sure what all it's about. I'd like to hear your impressions though, Helen.

(P.S. - Lauri, that avatar looks absolutely beautiful on you, particularly next to your real name. :))

[Lauri D]

Thanks liv! :)

[Godot]

I haven't read it and I don't particularly intend to. My sources tell me that while it may be an entertaining read, it certainly doesn't bother with minor things like getting facts right. But then again, who really likes accurate details to clutter up the books they read? :read: :lasergun:

[HelenM]

Howdy Helen! :wave:

Hi Lauri! :hiya:

I just read this night before last at my boss' insistence. I think he thought I'd like it on account of his being aware of my heretical leanings ;)

I'm fairly sure that was what first caused me to hear of it - my current pastor mentioned in passing that the pastor of my previous church was preaching a response to what The Da Vinci Code claims. His response has now been published as a book and joins a few other books by Christians responding to the premise of The Da Vinci Code.

I did enjoy it as a mystery/thriller type genre and some of the historical/art info within was very intriguing. Well written, I thought.

As I said, I'm not used to the thriller genre, so I don't have anything to compare it with - but my impression was that it had a good plot with interesting twists and turns that held my interest throughout. And I thought the puzzles/riddles were fun. And I find the idea of ancient hidden mysteries very romantic, so I enjoyed that aspect of the book too. As best I know it's all fictional, even though the author says otherwise in the book; I see that as part of the plot and atmosphere setting rather than being an outright 'lie'.

It was a welcome contrast for me to the book I finished right before it because I could read it in a detached way; it was clearly fantasy. I had just finished The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy, which I found devastatingly sad; it ripped my heart out, basically. Her writing style is beautiful, poetic, very evocative, but I have a hard time with novels that sad, even though they may be brilliant. What it described was very believable, although it's a novel, and I think that made it worse. Anyway, if you can handle stories about unhappy families and enjoy beautiful use of language you'd probably appreciate that book a lot. But for me, it was depressing and I was glad to read a book after it which was a complete contrast.

I admit I haven't read it just because the name annoys me a little and because a co-worker who has lent me some truly horrendous books recommends it highly. [/url]

I hear ya. :eek:

[quote]To tell the truth, I'm not even sure what all it's about. I'd like to hear your impressions though, Helen.

Hopefully what I just wrote gives you an idea. I don't expect I'll read a lot of thrillers because they really aren't my usual fare. But I was curious enough to read this one to see a) whether I liked thrillers and b) what Christians are complaining about ;).

If you do want to read a thriller, my guess is that this is one of the better-written ones out there and the context - I think - does add interest. However, if thrillers aren't your thing, I don't see a compelling reason to read it.

Helen

[Hugo Holbling]

My sources tell me that while it may be an entertaining read, it certainly doesn't bother with minor things like getting facts right.

Your sources are on the money. Here (http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm), here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E0DD103AF931A15751C0A9629C8B63) and here (http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:-uNp_73ApqoJ:www.antiochian.org/assets/asset.php%3Ftype%3DassetLink%26id%3D97+da+vinci+code+debunked&hl=en) you can find brief reviews taking apart the claims made in the book. Several pamphlets were published in France debunking the Priory of Sion, along with an English one called The Unknown Treasure: The Priory of Sion Fraud and the Spiritual Treasure of Rennes-le-Château that i have in my library. Here (http://home.graffiti.net/prioryofsion/) and here (http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html) you can find some detail on why the "facts" behind Brown's work are not taken seriously. Miesel has written the Da Vinci Hoax, going into more depth.

These factors aside, there is little character development in the book and indeed so few characters that it is an easy matter to guess whodunnit. My advice, should anyone actually care to hear it, is to read Eco's Foucault's Pendulum (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099287153/qid=1090048873/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-9452629-9092629) instead, a book so labyrinthine that it will suck you in and leave your head spinning.

[HelenM]

I haven't read it and I don't particularly intend to. My sources tell me that while it may be an entertaining read, it certainly doesn't bother with minor things like getting facts right. But then again, who really likes accurate details to clutter up the books they read? :read: :lasergun:

Well, exactly ;)

Seriously, I don't choose my novels based on accuracy of facts. But I suppose it's unnecessarily dishonest of Dan Brown to assert in the beginning of the book that various things are true, which aren't true. He could have just left the assertions out.

Helen

[HelenM]

Your sources are on the money. Here (http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm), here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E0DD103AF931A15751C0A9629C8B63) and here (http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:-uNp_73ApqoJ:www.antiochian.org/assets/asset.php%3Ftype%3DassetLink%26id%3D97+da+vinci+code+debunked&hl=en) you can find brief reviews taking apart the claims made in the book. Several pamphlets were published in France debunking the Priory of Sion, along with an English one called The Unknown Treasure: The Priory of Sion Fraud and the Spiritual Treasure of Rennes-le-Château that i have in my library. Here (http://home.graffiti.net/prioryofsion/) and here (http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html) you can find some detail on why the "facts" behind Brown's work are not taken seriously. Miesel has written the Da Vinci Hoax, going into more depth.

There are also a number of conservative Christian objections (http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/special/davincicode.html) to what the book states as fact.

These factors aside, there is little character development in the book and indeed so few characters that it is an easy matter to guess whodunnit. My advice, should anyone actually care to hear it, is to read Eco's Foucault's Pendulum (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099287153/qid=1090048873/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-9452629-9092629) instead, a book so labyrinthine that it will suck you in and leave your head spinning.

Interesting. Maybe I'll read that sometime. I noticed the lack of character development in The Da Vinci Code but thought maybe that was how thrillers always are.

Helen

[livius drusus]

Thank you for the description, Helen, and for the links, Hugo. Somewhere around the "mad albino Opus Dei monk" part my eyes seem to have gotten permanently stuck staring at my own forehead. I'm actually not a huge thriller fan - people running around breathlessly narrowly avoiding whatever direness tend to bore me to tears - and I have to say, this one sounds pretty ludicrous.

So is the author serious when he claims this pablum is based on fact, or is it a post-modern book-within-a-book The Princess Bride kind of thing? Judging from the critiques Brown seems to be taking it seriously, but are we sure about that?

[Lauri D]

So is the author serious when he claims this pablum is based on fact, or is it a post-modern book-within-a-book The Princess Bride kind of thing? Judging from the critiques Brown seems to be taking it seriously, but are we sure about that? I can't be certain of course, but my gut impression is that he is using it as a ploy of sorts (while playing it straight of course, which seems to be working as many people are taking it seriously)... I can't think of an analogy right now (it's earrrllyyy! :snore: )

[Lauri D]

Interesting. Maybe I'll read that sometime. I noticed the lack of character development in The Da Vinci Code but thought maybe that was how thrillers always are. Helen Howdy Helen,
I'd say it was a fair assumption as most of this type of thrillers are indeed that way (mass market/"bestseller" types).


P.S. I love your avatar!!!

[Adam]

Most of the opinions posted thus far are pretty much on target, IMO. I read it because my roommate's sister claimed it was wonderful and made him read it, so it was just lying around the apartment, and I was bored one Saturday afternoon. Once you get past Brown's hook, the premise that the book is based on (an extremely liberal interpretation of) actual history, it's a pretty mediocre thriller. As Hugo notes, the main problem is that the story isn't complex enough to maintain any sense of mystery. Whodunnit? Well, who's not in the room right now? I wouldn't say it's an awful book, but it's not something I'd read again, and the fact that it's a quick lightweight read is one of its stronger points.

And, liv, I don't have any evidence but, if I had to guess, I'd agree with Lauri. The author himself likely doesn't believe the line he's feeding his readers about the truth of his back story, but he's playing it straight to generate buzz and sell books.

[MinorityReport]

I read it and liked it, although at first I thought it was going to turn out like a pale imitation of Foucault's Pendulum. It is a lovely thriller, and I recommend it highly. I don't think it is likely to challenge anybody's faith (the author clearly doesn't expect it to) though it may prompt some people to think a little more kindly on those whose faith is not as mainstream as their own.

[JoeP]

It's a highly enjoyable thriller. I've no issue with him posing it as factual. Especially if it causes ire among established religion. At a mythic level, there's probably some truth in the idea of the early Catholic Church suppressing women's power and the worship of the female (I say mythic because surely not one body or one point in time is responsible for this).

In fact I enjoyed this aspect of the book - mythic, fantastic, larger-than-life stuff - in addition to the thriller aspect.

[livius drusus]

It's a highly enjoyable thriller. I've no issue with him posing it as factual. Especially if it causes ire among established religion.

Ugh. I think that's icky. Posing as some kind of scholar just to piss people off and score publicity seems pretty low to me.

At a mythic level, there's probably some truth in the idea of the early Catholic Church suppressing women's power and the worship of the female (I say mythic because surely not one body or one point in time is responsible for this).

You know, I've heard people say things like this before, but it doesn't really jibe with the history I've read. In the Roman Empire, for instance, women were just a tiny step above slaves in terms of legal rights. In many ways, Christianity was actually empowering for them; but that's another thread.

In fact I enjoyed this aspect of the book - mythic, fantastic, larger-than-life stuff - in addition to the thriller aspect.

Mythic, fantastic, larger-than-life shouldn't be sold as scholarly research though, imo. :twocents:

[JoeP]

My advice, should anyone actually care to hear it, is to read Eco's Foucault's Pendulum (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099287153/qid=1090048873/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-9452629-9092629) instead, a book so labyrinthine that it will suck you in and leave your head spinning.
You're not wrong there! :eek:

[HelenM]

it may prompt some people to think a little more kindly on those whose faith is not as mainstream as their own.

Call me skeptical but, I doubt that, people being the way they are. I think that getting to know people who are different in some way or other can undo prejudices but I doubt that reading a book will help.

Helen

[HelenM]

Ugh. I think that's icky. Posing as some kind of scholar just to piss people off and score publicity seems pretty low to me.

I didn't think he was posing as a scholar, simply that he was claiming things to be true which aren't true. I agree in thinking that's unnecessary; I would rather the author hadn't done that.

Helen

[livius drusus]

I didn't think he was posing as a scholar, simply that he was claiming things to be true which aren't true. I agree in thinking that's unnecessary; I would rather the author hadn't done that.

In the reviews I read, Brown's so-called scholarly research is given very high billing. It could very well just be the critics nattering, but it does seem to me that he has presented himself as a genuine researcher as well as a novelist.

Hmmm... I'm thinking I might actually have to crack the book before I natter about it any more myself. ;)

[HelenM]

I suppose if it's true it's provocative because it significantly challenges established Christian beliefs. And provocative reviews/news/books sell better. So I can see why everyone might hype that aspect of the book. And I suppose the implication is that if it's true, he did some scholarly research. And - well, no wonder there's an outcry from some Christian conservative leaders. Maybe I failed to see the full extent of that connection.

Helen

[dave_a]

Didn't read the book, but I saw the movie adaptation of it. I think it was called "Dogma" or something like that :innocent:

[HelenM]

Didn't read the book, but I saw the movie adaptation of it. I think it was called "Dogma" or something like that :innocent:

I'm fairly sure there's no movie of The Da Vinci Code yet. It hasn't even come out in paperback yet. Perhaps you're thinking of some other book.

Helen

[dave_a]

I'm fairly sure there's no movie of The Da Vinci Code yet. It hasn't even come out in paperback yet. Perhaps you're thinking of some other book.

Helen

It was meant as a joke; I must work on my delivery. Seems the only one who laughs at my humor is myself :yup:

[viscousmemories]

Seems the only one who laughs at my humor is myself :yup:
That's not true, I laugh when it's funny. :P

[pzmyers]

I tried reading The Da Vinci Code because, well, I read anything that appears in front of my face. I couldn't finish it. I couldn't get past the first few chapters.

Hackneyed writing. Clumsy exposition. Sentence structure that might have worked in 3rd grade, but is a bit repetitive now. An infuriatingly patronizing habit of ending every chapter with a pseudo-cliffhanger. An utterly nonsensical plot. Idiotic mysticism.

The first chapter was agonizing. The first sentence was telling--I could see right away that Dan Brown is a graduate summa cum laude of the Clive Cussler School of Bad Thriller Writing. I think the whole book is the product of a conspiracy by the Masons: they're drumming up lots of business mending pocked walls all across the country where disgusted readers have thrown this bloated pile of crap across the room.

[livius drusus]

You so need to post that review on Amazon, pz.

[Götterdämmerung]

Warning: Already posted elsewhere...

As a latecomer to this ubiquitous phenomena, I had been reading (mowing through) a completely different genre (postmetaphysical theory) and that is how I became conditioned or acclimated as in perceiving through a lens of active analysis, far removed from a more passive perspective. That's why I had some trouble adjusting myself to the different mode of reading, but Dan Brown's constant mini-lectures kept my appetite for scholarly yarns satiated for the time being. After all I used to consume those kind of books in the distant past.

Initial reactions recalled Crichton's best selling thrillers of which consisted in extremely well-researched, cutting edge topics of technology and society. Dan Brown has chosen to wrap the contents of Holy Blood, Holy Grail in a fictional thriller wherein the subject matter is a conspiracy plot involving the players of the Church, the academia, and the police, who are all trying to compete for the solution to a 2000 year old cover-up, and it is a slam-bam roller coaster ride to the finish. The premise revolves around a shadow society of prominent intellectuals, but I should refrain from spoilers n focus on whether the book suceeds on its own aesthetic.

Due to contemporary taste, great pacing makes for great pop culture literature, and this is where Da Vinci Code succeeds, at least at the pragmatic level of staying power on the best selling list. However its actual material, derided as 'airport thriller' by some impossible to please critics, does leaves a lot to be desired. Since I was able to complete the book in half a day I could afford a speed read, due to the relatively shallow level of raison d'etre of the characters. The entire time I was reading it I felt a far superior book of the genre has already been published, but overlooked: Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. Unlike the 'symbologist' [sic] protagonist in DVC, Eco is a genuine polymath who, by the way, happens to be a semiotician. if someone ever asked me what conspiracy fiction thriller I would recommend, I have my answer. And it's definitely not Brown's splashy, but ultimately derivative DVC.

I tried my best not to read anything incriminating (such as amazon reviews) since it came out, to avoid from making potentially fatal presumptions. But the more it infiltrated, the greater the reason I had to read it and form my own take grew.

Bottom line, DvC is a good yarn, but its success at the marketplace reflects the taste of the marketplace, not of its own aesthetic. And the tastes of the average consumer, the masses, sustains little more than superfluous kitsch.

My sister joined a book club which led her to reading that book several months ago. Of course the reception was near unanimous, a collective shitting in the pants. On a positive note, I think the book contains enough scandalous information to jar most of the laypeople, shake their confidence in superficial orthodoxies they may have been spoon-fed from birth. Provocative, but ultimately empty.

My next book should have more of the same, but delivered by a superior talent: Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver.

[Scotty]

I tried reading The Da Vinci Code because, well, I read anything that appears in front of my face. I couldn't finish it. I couldn't get past the first few chapters.

Hackneyed writing. Clumsy exposition. Sentence structure that might have worked in 3rd grade, but is a bit repetitive now. An infuriatingly patronizing habit of ending every chapter with a pseudo-cliffhanger. An utterly nonsensical plot. Idiotic mysticism.

The first chapter was agonizing. The first sentence was telling--I could see right away that Dan Brown is a graduate summa cum laude of the Clive Cussler School of Bad Thriller Writing. I think the whole book is the product of a conspiracy by the Masons: they're drumming up lots of business mending pocked walls all across the country where disgusted readers have thrown this bloated pile of crap across the room.

Come _ON_ pzmyers tells us what you REALLY think!

-Scott

[Albion]

I thought it was very entertaining but rather superficial. He doesn't seem to believe in developing his characters, and the plots and situations are somewhat the other side of believable. I made the mistake of reading all four of his books one after the other, and it's basically the same cast of characters, even though Robert Langdon only appeared in two of them. And as far as I could gather, Deception Point and Digital Fortress are basically the same book.

Mind you, the Da Vinci Code has made me move Holy Blood, Holy Grail closer to the top of my reading list.

[HelenM]

It was meant as a joke; I must work on my delivery. Seems the only one who laughs at my humor is myself :yup:

Sorry, I didn't realize. Sometimes I'm slow on the uptake... :?

Helen

[Beth]

I bought the book for myself for my birthday. I had wanted to read it since it came out. I can say I was not disappointed. I took what was said as pure fiction. The puzzles in the book, well, I thought them a little annoying, but they worked with the book. I suppose they were there to make the characters actually look smart. I did guess the villian from the beginning when he was first introduced. I have read thrillers and whodunnits since seven or eight and it is hard not to figure out a movie or book. ...So, I went along with the book for a ride. It is the first bit of fiction I had read in ages and really enjoyed the pace of it. It was stready and constant enough as not to bore me. The mistakes I found in the book were ignored because I took the book as pure fiction and as far as the others, well, my education is limited enough for me not to recognise the errors. :p

All in all, I thought it was a very good book. I did not walk away feeling heavy or depressed afterward and it met my goal: it entertained me and offered escapism for a few hours. :popcorn:

[godfry n. glad]

Your sources are on the money. Here (http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm), here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E0DD103AF931A15751C0A9629C8B63) and here (http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:-uNp_73ApqoJ:www.antiochian.org/assets/asset.php%3Ftype%3DassetLink%26id%3D97+da+vinci+code+debunked&hl=en) you can find brief reviews taking apart the claims made in the book. Several pamphlets were published in France debunking the Priory of Sion, along with an English one called The Unknown Treasure: The Priory of Sion Fraud and the Spiritual Treasure of Rennes-le-Château that i have in my library. Here (http://home.graffiti.net/prioryofsion/) and here (http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html) you can find some detail on why the "facts" behind Brown's work are not taken seriously. Miesel has written the Da Vinci Hoax, going into more depth.

These factors aside, there is little character development in the book and indeed so few characters that it is an easy matter to guess whodunnit. My advice, should anyone actually care to hear it, is to read Eco's Foucault's Pendulum (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099287153/qid=1090048873/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-9452629-9092629) instead, a book so labyrinthine that it will suck you in and leave your head spinning.

Agreed. _Foucault's Pendulum_ is superb. I recommend it regularly, but warn that it's "difficult". Heh...understatement.

I found a couple of comments by the critics you linked to be curious. Sandra Miesel, evidently the Roman Catholic apologist on this, claims that "Analysis of textual families, comparison with fragments and quotations, plus historical correlations securely date the orthodox Gospels to the first century..." Ahem... "securely date"? How's that? Perhaps "to the late first or early second century," but I'm not so sure that all, if any, of the orthodox gospels can be "securely dated" to the first century.

Then, Laura Miller's _New York Times_ book review comments on the development of the _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ conspiracy theory with, "... Lincoln et al. concoct an argument that is not so much factual as fact-ish. Dozens of credible details are heaped up in order to provide a legitimizing cushion for rank nonsense." I heartily agree. The thing is, that places it in the same genre with much of the "history" contained in what we refer to as the _Holy Bible_.

So, thanks for all the input. I don't read much fiction and anything which consumes the public interest to the degree with TdVC has arouses some misgivings. Given the other reading I have awaiting, I doubt I'll even try TdVC.

I just finished Umberto Eco's _How to Travel with a Salmon_, an hugely delightful book of tongue-in-cheek essays. I recommend it for those who might have trepidations about plunging into _Foucault's Pendulum_ without an introduction to the author's work.

For other fiction, I recommend that those who have not discovered him, Robertson Davies has several loosely connected trilogies which I found utterly engaging.

godfry n. glad

[godfry n. glad]

That's not true, I laugh when it's funny. :P

Me, too. That one got a smile out of me, but I didn't laugh. Keep trying, dantonac.

(Maybe you should hunt down a graphic of Foghorn Leghorn for your avatar?)

godfry

[MinorityReport]

Hackneyed writing. Clumsy exposition. Sentence structure that might have worked in 3rd grade, but is a bit repetitive now. An infuriatingly patronizing habit of ending every chapter with a pseudo-cliffhanger. An utterly nonsensical plot. Idiotic mysticism.

So, PZ, how much do you reckon they'll pay you for that script of Finding Nemo 2 you have in your bottom drawer?


:innocent: :popcorn: :popcorn: :doh: :fuming: :fuming: :wink: :cool: :cool: :bow: :bow: :yup: :yup: :glare: :fuming: :fuming: :popcorn: :doh: :eek:

[HelenM]

Question for those recommending Foucault's Pendulum: how does it compare with The Name of the Rose, if you've read both?

I'm asking because we already own The Name of the Rose - my husband bought it a while - but neither of us has read it.

Helen

[godfry n. glad]

Question for those recommending Foucault's Pendulum: how does it compare with The Name of the Rose, if you've read both?

I'm asking because we already own The Name of the Rose - my husband bought it a while - but neither of us has read it.

Helen

I'd say that _The Name of the Rose_ is an easier read by far. It's not as filled with arcane references. The plot line is easier to follow. It's still an excellent read, in my book.

godfry

[HelenM]

Thanks for the info. Maybe I'll give it a go.

Helen

[maddog]

Sorry to resurrect this old thread (gee, the resurrection!) but I've only just finished The Da Vinci Code in "books on tape/CD." I do like mysteries and have read them for years, but I guess I'm just not a very good thinker, because I have only ever guessed the "whodunnit" twice in the bazillions of books I've ever read. I thought this was entertaining, and I liked the exposition of all the grail legend stuff and art analysis, but the story itself, with all the puzzles, and plot twists, was just lame, lame, lame. It got stupider and more ludicrous by the minute. I recommend it as a great airplane or travel book; the crazy plot was obviously just a vehicle for the author to show off various bits of arcane knowledge/speculation. Those bits were fun. It was a good roller-coaster ride if you're not expecting too much.

#382

[godfry n. glad]

I thought this was entertaining, and I liked the exposition of all the grail legend stuff and art analysis, but the story itself, with all the puzzles, and plot twists, was just lame, lame, lame. It got stupider and more ludicrous by the minute. I recommend it as a great airplane or travel book; the crazy plot was obviously just a vehicle for the author to show off various bits of arcane knowledge/speculation.
#382

I suggest that you not...I repeat, do NOT...read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Penduleum.

[maddog]

I thought this was entertaining, and I liked the exposition of all the grail legend stuff and art analysis, but the story itself, with all the puzzles, and plot twists, was just lame, lame, lame. It got stupider and more ludicrous by the minute. I recommend it as a great airplane or travel book; the crazy plot was obviously just a vehicle for the author to show off various bits of arcane knowledge/speculation.
#382
I suggest that you not...I repeat, do NOT...read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum.
godfry, are you joshing me? are you seriously dis-recommending that book to me? It's hard to tell.

I read The Name of the Rose, and thought it was very good, except for the end. It was a much better story than The Da Vinci Code.

It's probably too much the same as TDVC to read right now, but I respect Eco as an author much more than Dan Brown.

#386

[godfry n. glad]

I thought this was entertaining, and I liked the exposition of all the grail legend stuff and art analysis, but the story itself, with all the puzzles, and plot twists, was just lame, lame, lame. It got stupider and more ludicrous by the minute. I recommend it as a great airplane or travel book; the crazy plot was obviously just a vehicle for the author to show off various bits of arcane knowledge/speculation.
#382
I suggest that you not...I repeat, do NOT...read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum.
godfry, are you joshing me? are you seriously dis-recommending that book to me? It's hard to tell.

I read The Name of the Rose, and thought it was very good, except for the end. It was a much better story than The Da Vinci Code.

It's probably too much the same as TDVC to read right now, but I respect Eco as an author much more than Dan Brown.

#386

When it comes to arcane references to obscure materials, Eco makes Brown look like a kindergartener. You will need to make regular runs to various reference sources just to understand the plot line in FP. I think Eco is a genius, but reading him requires either encyclopedic knowledge or access to encyclopedias. I loved it, but it took me months to finish it.

[Farren]

Its funny reading all the comments on this thread. I found Foucalt's Pendulum a real page-turning thriller. The kind you race through in a few days and then wish there was more.

Before anyone thinks I'm blowing my own trumpet or anything (in light of the difficulty some apparently had and the implied superiority of comprehension), I should point out the following. Some authors mentioned here, like Roy (The God of Small Things) I find profoundly difficult. Roy's writing keeps me feeling like I'm missing some essential quality, the "point" of the whole thing really. I'm sure there is one but I'm mystified as to what it is.

Even authors that I like can be exhausting. I absolutely love Salman Rushdie but find his books incredibly difficult to read. The Moors Last Sigh took me months. They're too rich, too dense and too poetic in phrasing for me to forget I'm staring at the printed page, reading words, and just sit back and watch the show in the mental cinema that seems to just happen with other books. That said, the sheer beauty of language keeps me reading Rushdie. I get a physical reaction from some of his prose, a shiver up the spine.

I find lots of authors "difficult", but Eco isn't one of them. Perhaps its the manner in which I read. I race through most books at breakneck speed and am not too concerned with the details. I recall reading something (I think it was Tolstoy) where he takes two fucking pages to describe a wedding dress. I recall reading the first two paras of the description, realising he was going to wax lyrical for a while, then scanning over the text till I found the end of the annoying bloody effusion and continuing from that point. I feel no compulsion to watch the author having a self-indulgent and public word-wank, for the same reason I terminate songs in winamp when it gets to the guitar-, drum- or whatever wank.

I mean, some wanks are beautiful, like the one I quoted in Lisa's thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=50351&postcount=10) while drunk (forgive the spelling errors), but a lot of them are just gross manifestations of the author's vanity or misguided flourishes of an otherwise competent hand.

Foucalt's Pendulum, in my estimation, is perfectly understandable if you don't worry about "getting" every detail. In fact, such meticulous care will serve more to confuse than to enable understanding.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and the novel is full of hidden cues which my particular life renders me pre-primed to, hence the sense of easy comprehension - like the example I once saw in a little book of logic about a few scant paras of a story where little is said but much is automatically inferred, to demonstrate an inherent problem in building a machine intelligence that would comprehend human communication in all its subtlety.

p.s. Gotterdammerungs recommendation of Quicksilver is enthusiastically seconded. Its the main novel being endorsed in the link above. Neil Stephenson is a master writer.

[viscousmemories]

Based on those comments I wonder if you like Tom Robbins or find him too flowery, Farren. Because until now I would've thought you'd love his books as much as I do.

[Farren]

Based on those comments I wonder if you like Tom Robbins or find him too flowery, Farren. Because until now I would've thought you'd love his books as much as I do.

He's defnitely got an extraordinary imagination but has a scattershot style of writing that feels like it needs more glue to hold it all altogether. I base this entirely on a single reading of Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates which is immediatedly admirable for its title and certainly entertaining. The kind of novel you find yourself using to illustrate concepts despite not considering a masterwork.

Other than that I can't offer much comment.

[viscousmemories]

He's defnitely got an extraordinary imagination but has a scattershot style of writing that feels like it needs more glue to hold it all altogether. I base this entirely on a single reading of Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates which is immediatedly admirable for its title and certainly entertaining. The kind of novel you find yourself using to illustrate concepts despite not considering a masterwork.

Other than that I can't offer much comment.
That's interesting. I have a copy of that book he autographed the last time I went to a book signing of his, but I had a hard time getting into it and hence haven't finished it. I very strongly recommend Skinny Legs and All. It's not my favorite of his (that's a toss-up between Jitterbug Perfume and Still Life with Woodpecker), but it's the most political of them - which I think you'd appreciate.

[Farren]

That's interesting. I have a copy of that book he autographed the last time I went to a book signing of his, but I had a hard time getting into it and hence haven't finished it. I very strongly recommend Skinny Legs and All. It's not my favorite of his (that's a toss-up between Jitterbug Perfume and Still Life with Woodpecker), but it's the most political of them - which I think you'd appreciate.

I'lll certainly consider either if the three next time I'm bookstored in light of your praise. Jesus, I'm, drunk again, sorry. This para took a while to type with all the grammar and spelling checking going on. Gotta get that demon wrestled to the ground right now.

[godfry n. glad]

Thanks for your musings, Farren....

I've only tried one Arundhati Roy, but that work tends to bore me, largely because she voices many opinions which I've already arrived at. Reading her stuff is like talking to myself.

I absolutely loved Eco's How to Travel with a Salmon, which is a collection of "how to" essays, most very tongue-in-cheek. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested. It was a page-turner for me. FP, however, was heavy for me, perhaps because I knew just enough to get me into trouble and when I felt as though I didn't know enough, I'd research whatever term he'd raised. I've not read The Name of the Rose, although I loved the film (which was probably far from his intent). I tried starting Baudolino, but got bogged down with the intial narrator development.

[viscousmemories]

I have a book of his on my shelf... Misreadings. Maybe I should read it.

[Godless Dave]

So is the author serious when he claims this pablum is based on fact, or is it a post-modern book-within-a-book The Princess Bride kind of thing? Judging from the critiques Brown seems to be taking it seriously, but are we sure about that? I can't be certain of course, but my gut impression is that he is using it as a ploy of sorts (while playing it straight of course, which seems to be working as many people are taking it seriously)... I can't think of an analogy right now (it's earrrllyyy! :snore: )

Analogy: The Amityville Horror (which someone has actually remade and is marketing, again, as "based on a true story")

[JoeP]

The Name of the Rose was Eco's most accessible book as a novel. I read it before seeing the film, and I thought the film a good effort. I too found FP hard going, and The Island of the Day Before just unsatisfying (maybe I didn't read enough reference books beforehand).

Casually picking books mentioned in this thread ... The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is easy and fun to read, but quite annoying (from memory: I read it long long ago) ... the authors can't let go of their "this was so unbelievable we had to write a few more chapters before letting you know what we found" style.

[Ensign Steve]

So is the author serious when he claims this pablum is based on fact, or is it a post-modern book-within-a-book The Princess Bride kind of thing? Judging from the critiques Brown seems to be taking it seriously, but are we sure about that? I can't be certain of course, but my gut impression is that he is using it as a ploy of sorts (while playing it straight of course, which seems to be working as many people are taking it seriously)... I can't think of an analogy right now (it's earrrllyyy! :snore: )

Analogy: The Amityville Horror (which someone has actually remade and is marketing, again, as "based on a true story")

Texas Chainsaw Massacre, too. I heard a theory about this on the radio. The radio guys said that you can take any movie from the 70s and re-do it now as a historical account. The reasoning behind it is that everybody was so fucking wasted in the seventies, the lines between fiction and reality are either blurred or completely wiped out.

[Penni]

As maddog did, I am going to resurrect this thread and apologize for being late to the ball as usual. I have just finished the book myself. I'll start by saying that I read Angels & Demons about six months ago and kind of enjoyed it. Like other posters have experessed, secrets, mysteries and conspiracies are fun to read about, and I like to feel as if I am about to discover something not a lot of people know about. I read Deception Point last week and pretty much hated it with a passion. Da Vinci Code I place in between. Angels and Demons had a better, more tight, plot and the characters were possibly more strongly developed (I definitely felt more for them than the motley group in DVC). Overall, I agree with the poster that said Dan Brown knows how to pace his books, which seems like the only thing you need to be able to do to have a hit movie or book nowadays. One flaw was definitely his crappy end-of-chapter cliffhangers.

So, I didn't resurrect this thread just to reiterate what a bunch of people have already said, but on the subject of Dan Brown and fact vs. fiction, I think it is important to note that he DOESN'T state that the whole book is fact upfront. He says that documents, architecture, art and rituals portrayed are, well...true as portrayed. Now, clearly there are SOME problems with even that, but it's a lot better, for instance, than him stating that the Magdalene bloodline thing is absolute fact. Also, he makes very blurry lines. For instance, he states that the artwork is fact....and to my knowledge, what he states about, for example, the Mona Lisa painting are all facts, but in the same paragraph, he'll start talking about da Vinci's motivations for painting it or how it is a tribute to the goddess and some such, and this clearly strays from facts about the physical nature of the art to theories about the artist and etc. So, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, for most of it, that he started with some bare bones facts, added some fun and crazt theories that are highly controversial, embeds it all in a terrible fiction story, and gets everyone all upset by calling parts of it fact in such a way that many readers think he's trying to claim the entire thing is fact.

Overall, I like the Jurassic Park analogy. It starts with a few interesting threads, and spins off into something wild. As far as the writing, it isn't exactly brilliant, but it seems I'm somewhat of a masochist in some of my reading choices, and I apparently enjoy getting all disgusted with poorly written books. The overall experience is what I call a "potato chip book": tasty, but lacking any nutritional value.

Talk about masochism....I am now off to read the last 3 books of the Dark Tower Series by Stephen King. Sometimes I love him (From a Buick 8 is a recent good one) and sometimes I hate him (Dreamcatcher), but I'm compelled to finish the series. I have so many great books on my list, but they are all unavailable at my library, so I'm stuck with potato chips for a while longer, even though I could really use some leafy greens ;)

[Veritas]

I tried to read the book when it first came out, before all the hype happened, and couldn't get more than a chapter or two into it; it's so badly written. Everyone in the book is 'world-renowned' - we know this because we are told on every page. There is a man and a woman, so obviously they must get it on, even as her eyes "shine with promise". I mean...ugh. Eventually about a year after publication I forced myself to read it (because of the hype) and was shocked at the amount of people raving about a book full of codes and cyphers that a retarded three year old could solve. Did the author really think he was setting difficult puzzles? Or perhaps he reasoned it would be better to set easy ones so the reader could solve them before the characters and feel all smug about it (like I do)! The characters are wooden, the dialogue as laughable as the film Alexander and the storyline is just a rehashed The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the authors of which admitted was partly based on a hoax regarding the Priory of Sion, which never existed...

I wouldn't mind so much if it was declared to be fiction, but the frontispiece which alleges it's all fact gets on my...nerves. Catholics are portrayed as Bible thumping conspirators and the Priory never existed, nor did the whole Merovingian (sp?) bloodline, as is claimed in these books anyway.

Better watch my blod pressure. Rant over.

[freemonkey]

Is it OK for me to chime in here, even though I refuse to read the book, because I already found Angels & Demons to be the Worst. Book. Ever. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2810&highlight=angels)?

The thing is, I agree that its icky that he appears to represent the bullshit as FACT. Yeah, it sells books....

.....and WMD's sold a war.

[Penni]

Is it OK for me to chime in here, even though I refuse to read the book, because I already found Angels & Demons to be the Worst. Book. Ever. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2810&highlight=angels)?

The thing is, I agree that its icky that he appears to represent the bullshit as FACT. Yeah, it sells books....

.....and WMD's sold a war.

Definitely don't read DVC, then, it's far worse. The characters are more poorly developed and the story is all over the place. And the part about knowing whodunnit right away because...well, who''s not in the room? It's right on. Angels & Demons was about a notch and a half better on all counts, if you ask me.