Review: The Da Vinci Code
May. 29th, 2006 02:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mishalakActually I quite liked it. Actually no, not true I just wanted to see how many people I would fool with that just because I felt like using a cheap trick to get your attention. That's the level of thought and revelation that goes into this book as well. Maybe the movie is better, but that was some bad writing. All the worst things that people accuse science fiction of like endless information dumps, two dimensional characters, writing with the rhythm of a type writer used by someone hunting and pecking for keys, and none of the upsides like big ideas that make the reader think.
And the info dumps are WRONG. I have more trouble trying to think of what he got right than what he got wrong, but I suppose that's what happens when you steal your plot from bad "non-fiction" books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The only reason he didn't get in trouble for that was because the idiots who wrote the "non-fiction" book still insist that it's true.
Meanwhile Dan Brown is quite a bit nicer to Catholics than you might assume from the outrage by people who've probably never read it who are giving him free publicity. Also the villain is painfully obvious despite the writer's attempt to keep the reader guessing by throwing out lots of broad hints about two different red herrings. Though to be totally fair the plot does work after a fashion if one assumes that the McGuffin thing isn't actually a real secret and that everyone after it or protecting it has been taken in by a con that's grown over the years or something. Which also explains why they don't do simple logical things like freeze the damn secret bike lock thingy so they could just break it open without danger of spilling the vinegar on the papyrus (which would not actually dissolve, I looked that up because it sounded wrong). That's what bothered me about it, the plot was so dependent upon the inability of people to think of ways to solve problems other than the way the problem designer intended.
In the end the book is fairly sympathetic even to the bad guys at Opus Dei as they're more tragic and desperate than evil. They are fall guys for the real big bad so as to provide a "surprise" near the end.
Why do so many people like this book while I did not? Why do so many people go to Mission Impossible movies? This was a popcorn book that works on the same level that a popcorn movie does. Provided he don't know much about real world stuff there isn't much to throw a reader out by making him say, "Yeah right." Simple characters working out NY Times Crossword sort of puzzles that hide a big secret that is a bit scandalous works to get people interested. Actually I should have compared this to National Treasure, an equally silly thriller that I enjoyed much more than this book because it wasn't taking itself so damn seriously.
And my very short rant on Phi and bees. The ratio of male bees to female bees in a hive is not phi; it's more like 20 to 1 because male bees aren't terribly useful to the hive. In fact the workers (females) throw the drones (males) at the start of winter or in times of stress so there are fewer mouths eating the honey stores.
This is not the worst book ever, but I don't know to whom I'd recommend it. I'd rather read Tom Clancy writing yet another a self-insert novel about the presidency than read a book like this again. The only published story I've read (part of) that was worse was The Fifth Sorceress.
And the info dumps are WRONG. I have more trouble trying to think of what he got right than what he got wrong, but I suppose that's what happens when you steal your plot from bad "non-fiction" books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The only reason he didn't get in trouble for that was because the idiots who wrote the "non-fiction" book still insist that it's true.
Meanwhile Dan Brown is quite a bit nicer to Catholics than you might assume from the outrage by people who've probably never read it who are giving him free publicity. Also the villain is painfully obvious despite the writer's attempt to keep the reader guessing by throwing out lots of broad hints about two different red herrings. Though to be totally fair the plot does work after a fashion if one assumes that the McGuffin thing isn't actually a real secret and that everyone after it or protecting it has been taken in by a con that's grown over the years or something. Which also explains why they don't do simple logical things like freeze the damn secret bike lock thingy so they could just break it open without danger of spilling the vinegar on the papyrus (which would not actually dissolve, I looked that up because it sounded wrong). That's what bothered me about it, the plot was so dependent upon the inability of people to think of ways to solve problems other than the way the problem designer intended.
In the end the book is fairly sympathetic even to the bad guys at Opus Dei as they're more tragic and desperate than evil. They are fall guys for the real big bad so as to provide a "surprise" near the end.
Why do so many people like this book while I did not? Why do so many people go to Mission Impossible movies? This was a popcorn book that works on the same level that a popcorn movie does. Provided he don't know much about real world stuff there isn't much to throw a reader out by making him say, "Yeah right." Simple characters working out NY Times Crossword sort of puzzles that hide a big secret that is a bit scandalous works to get people interested. Actually I should have compared this to National Treasure, an equally silly thriller that I enjoyed much more than this book because it wasn't taking itself so damn seriously.
And my very short rant on Phi and bees. The ratio of male bees to female bees in a hive is not phi; it's more like 20 to 1 because male bees aren't terribly useful to the hive. In fact the workers (females) throw the drones (males) at the start of winter or in times of stress so there are fewer mouths eating the honey stores.
This is not the worst book ever, but I don't know to whom I'd recommend it. I'd rather read Tom Clancy writing yet another a self-insert novel about the presidency than read a book like this again. The only published story I've read (part of) that was worse was The Fifth Sorceress.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 09:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 09:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-30 03:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-30 08:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 10:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-31 01:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-30 03:30 pm (UTC)The big church down the road has a huge sign announcing their Da Vinci Code seminars. "Find out the truth!", it says. I'm tempted to go just to get a taste of what they're up to.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-31 01:36 am (UTC)So what does that say about angry Democrats? Not implying anything by that, just sayin' because I don't know that anger has anything to do with if your ideas are a fairy tail.