The Da Vinci Code: Groundbreaking book or drivel?

I'm truly scared after reading the following news article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12815760/?GT1=8199

It seems thousands of people feel the Da Vinci Code has completely changed their life and outlook on religion.

Ok, I'll admit I'm reading the Da Vinci Code right now. Quite frankly, I can't put it down.

And not because it's good - oh no. I keep reading because this book is such a beautifully orchestrated train wreck by the most successful hack in history.
Sure the book has some great storytelling elements - buried under a ton of cliches and horrible writing. I would bet a million dollars that a frat boy trying to finish an assignment for Creative Writing 101 after downing a case of Coors could still come up with more original characters.

And that's before I even comment on how the book is as demeaning and patronizing to Catholics as the Mohammed cartoons were to Muslims. I wonder what the world would say about a book discussing how those evil "Jews" rule the world with their Mossad assassins.

As an underpaid professional writer, I now know how my musician friends feel when Britney Spears gets paid millions for being a no-talent hooker.

But hey, I'm interested to know if anyone else has read the book and feels the same way I do.

I have read the book and think that it is really intriguing and interesting....
I read it as a novel and not as a "historically accurate" book, which most dont seem to appreciate... I mean it makes you think about the Church and perhaps even about religion itself...

I cant remember if Dan Brown claims that it is historically accurate or not but it is a good book nonetheless..
Kinda like Valerio Massimi Malfredi, forgive my spelling....

edit: I mean there are always two-sides of things right? How can we always claim to know the truth if we just bother about one side?

I, too quite enjoyed the book, but seemed to despite the quality of the writing. I think I had just finished Umberto Eco's Baudolino, so the experience was something like pouring a big bowl of fruit loops after some perfectly marinated flank steak.

And sure, there are bound to be people who don't realize this is a novel, but it's gotten many people to ask questions that they never would have asked before. Whether or not this results in a greater general understanding of the various origins of Christianity, or just makes for a series of new 'coffee table gnostic gospels' remains to be seen

CoM, thank you so much. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who thought it was an average story written very averagely!

I'm no elitist and I love reading the epic (in size anyway!) efforts of Tom Clancy and Clive Cussler (I can't help feeling that Dirk Pitt would have re-energised the Holy bloodline and seeded a new messiah - lol) but how this book has become one of the world's best sellers beggars belief.

Are people so gullible that they actually believe this stuff? It reminds me of all that fuss and nonsense over the film Alexander, because Oliver Stone had the temerity to suggest that Megas Alexandros liked having his fancy tickled by another guy!

Watch out for Brown's next earth-shattering conspiracy theory expose "The Way of the Sun". It proves conclusively that Princess Diana was assassinated by Opus Pocus (a sect of ninja-turtle warrior monks funded by the Church of England) because they discovered, from a prophecy found on ancient papyrus hidden in a Guiness bottle, that she was the reincarnation of Nefertiti. Her relationship with Dodi Fayed, a direct descendant of Akhnaten, threatened the very fabric of British society.

Dan shows, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Diana and Dodi were plotting to overthrow the House of Windsor and make the worship of the Aten the new state religion!

Well, she just had to go, didn't she?

Watch out for Brown's next earth-shattering conspiracy theory expose "The Way of the Sun". It proves conclusively that Princess Diana was assassinated by Opus Pocus (a sect of ninja-turtle warrior monks funded by the Church of England) because they discovered, from a prophecy found on ancient papyrus hidden in a Guiness bottle, that she was the reincarnation of Nefertiti. Her relationship with Dodi Fayed, a direct descendant of Akhnaten, threatened the very fabric of British society.

Yeah, i've heard that theory before. Didnt realise that Brown was writing a novel on it though. Maybe this will open the publics eyes and we might get a decent independant investigation.

As for the Da Vinci Code. It was good toilet reading material, about about as well written as something by Andy Mcnab or Chris Ryan, but still entertaining nonetheless. (preferred Angels and Demons though)
And the movie has Audrey Tattou in it, which is more than enough reason to see it.

Originally Posted by Rhah

. It was good toilet reading material

I think that's the perfect description of the book

Originally Posted by Valus

I mean it makes you think about the Church and perhaps even about religion itself.

It's a pity the 'information' it gives on those subjects is so wildly and ridiculously wrong, however.

I cant remember if Dan Brown claims that it is historically accurate or not ...

He has. Many times.

but it is a good book nonetheless..

That's a matter of taste. Personally, I found it so badly written it was painful to read and so poorly researched it was actually laugh-out-loud funny in many places. The main enjoyment I got from it was wondering what bit of history Danny Brown was going to savagely mangle next.

Originally Posted by Tony83

Are people so gullible that they actually believe this stuff?

Yep - thousands and thousands of them. This silly novel has created a whole generation of people who think Jesus was voted into Godhood at the Council of Nicea and that the Emperor Constantine edited the Bible. That's a bit like believing JFK ended WWII by personally flying to the moon and having a zero-gravity fist fight with Joseph Stalin.

The book was poorly written to start out with. The idea it was trying to pass off was rediculous to say in the least, and he claims the Priory of Sion were real (which they were...as a hoax).

The book was terrible in every aspect. If you have to believe this crap then I fear for your mental health. Angels in Demons was much better (not saying much) than this, if you want Dan Brown

yes it most certainly is changing my mind on religion, i almost believe the book now...

Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg

Yep - thousands and thousands of them. This silly novel has created a whole generation of people who think Jesus was voted into Godhood at the Council of Nicea and that the Emperor Constantine edited the Bible. That's a bit like believing JFK ended WWII by personally flying to the moon and having a zero-gravity fist fight with Joseph Stalin.

My understanding is that the first council of Nicaea was convoked by Constantine to resolve disagreements in the Church, which included the nature of Jesus in relationship to God: in particular whether Jesus was of the same or of similar substance as God.

The council was the first effort to attain consensus within the Christian Church, through an assembly representing all of Christendom. Furthermore, Constantine, in convoking and presiding over the council, signalled a measure of imperial control over the church.

So I suppose you could say that Nicaea was responsible for the acceptance, within the Church, of Jesus as being the son of God; and it was the first major instance of the church being manipulated by the state to serve secular needs.

Frankly, I'm going to reread the Cussler novel where Dirk Pitt discovers a long lost treaty whereby the UK sold Canada to the US to pay off it's war debt - it's much more believeable!

I think that the reason why so many dont like this book is because it is discussin religion in a way which most feel uncomfortable with, as it might even questions whether all things is true...
Religion is a very personal thing and when someone presents "facts" or a "theory" that is rather different from the usuall they will defend their religion...
I mean for christ sake! It is a book! A novel! It must be one of the most most critisised books ever and while most people dont care for "accuracy" in other books they become pedantic over this one!

Read it for fun and not for facts if you so wish....

It is hardly surprising that DB might question the church motives or their long history, I mean history is always revised and perhaps rewritten so why not do it about religion?

Originally Posted by Tony83

My understanding is that the first council of Nicaea was convoked by Constantine to resolve disagreements in the Church, which included the nature of Jesus in relationship to God: in particular whether Jesus was of the same or of similar substance as God.

Quite right. But that's not what the novel claims.

So I suppose you could say that Nicaea was responsible for the acceptance, within the Church, of Jesus as being the son of God;

Umm, no - that consensus had been reached about 200 years (at least) before Nicea.

... and it was the first major instance of the church being manipulated by the state to serve secular needs.

Well, sort of. Constantine was something of a theological doofus who really couldn't get his head around what he called 'these trifling differences' of theology. But he did pride himself on being able to engineer consensus, which was his aim at Nicea. His desire for this was, in a broad sense, semi-political - because a united Church was more useful to him than a divided one. But the novel's image of him as a Machiavellian schemer, manipulating the Nicean bishops like puppets for his own evil ends is plain silly.

He actually got bored with the discussions at Nicea after the first day and didn't bother showing up to the later sessions. The idea that he enforced anything on the bishops is nonsense and the idea that he somehow reshaped Christianity in one fell swoop is total and absolute nonsense. Many of those bishops had seen their compatriots executed in the recent persecutions and had themselves been imprisoned and tortured. Several of them had to be carried into the Council in litters because they had been mutilated and crippled by torture. The idea that these tough old guys would let some scheming Emperor change the fundamentals of their faith without so much as a squeak is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Valus

I think that the reason why so many dont like this book is because it is discussin religion in a way which most feel uncomfortable with, as it might even questions whether all things is true...

Religion is a very personal thing and when someone presents "facts" or a "theory" that is rather different from the usuall they will defend their religion...

True. But if that attack is as baseless as Brown's claims (and yes, he does believe them) then there is an extra incentive for them to object.

I mean for christ sake! It is a book! A novel! It must be one of the most most critisised books ever and while most people dont care for "accuracy" in other books they become pedantic over this one!

Probably because most other novels aren't marketed with an aggressive multi-million dollar publicity campaign based squarely on claiming that the background history to the novel is 'all true' and 'totally factual' and because most novels don't tangle with such sensitive subject matter.

A novel based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which was marketed as being 'all true' probably would stir up similar passions, for example. Ditto for one that peddled the Holocaust deniers' theories.

As long as there is good stories, there will always be some people that will flame them.

In my opinion this story is well writtin (at least the danish version of it) and have some good characters. It is a good mixture of action/history/conspiricies, etc. And I am really looking forward to the movie version.

I think that this is a bad story written even worse. i've read 3-4 books of Brown one week when i was in my grandmothers village and besides those books the only other thing to read were the labels on the bottles. even mineral water had better story in it. not to mention the suspence of the wine etiquettes

I think now its become 'cool' to bash the Da Vinci Code. That said, I think it is a bit overrated. As Tom Hanks said - "Its just a novel, why is it any different?"

The most entertaining is the BBC Documentary based on book Brown based Da Vinci Code on: Holy Blood Holy Grail.

its a good potboiler, brilliant for reading on the train or in the plane. Apart from that, it's ok. Actually, I think its the best one of all his books

I liked it, as a work of fiction. Even though Dan Brown lied about the books historical acuracy, it is good fiction. I prefered Angel and Demons tho. But why is there such a fuss about the 'revalations' in the book? Those ideas have been around for some time, including another book called Holy Blood Holy Grail (which Mr. Brown seems to have gotten a lot of his research from) which was published in the 80's and caused just a big of stire as the Da Vinci Code is. If I remember corectly, it was the Anglicans (the book was forst published in the UK) who made a huge fuss over HB-HG, despite the fact that the book was attacking the Roman Catholic Church (who didn't do much of anything is response to HB-HG I might add).

You know what I think is the funniest thing about all the reviews and the heated discussions all over the internet?

Religious people are falling over eachother denouncing the book and demanding that a big disclaimer must be added to the book as well as the movie that it is fiction and there is no proof whatsoever that any of it is true. Now, I seem to remember there being another certain kind of book that is touted as being true, but there being no actual proof of any of it and it is filled with contradictions...

Anyone care to take a guess?

@ZaPPa- Fair enough. While I will find inspiration in the Bible I do not base my entire faith system off one book. And I'm a bit skeptical when people tell me that everything in the Bible literally happened instead of understanding some of the parables and allegories behind many of the stories.

@Valus - You have a good point that it's healthy to look at how religion evolved and to not be offended. But I still can't shake the feeling that the book contains a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment that wouldn't fly if Brown decided to write instead about Judaism or Islam or even Scientology (though I'd read a book where Tom Cruise secretly assassinated people who tried to prove L. Ron Hubbard was not divine). I'm not saying the Catholic church is perfect - I just want the same level of respect afforded most other religions in today's politically correct climate. I think there are plenty of charismatic Christians and fundamentalist Protestants in America that secretly hate Catholicism as much as they hate Judaism, and this book taps into that sentiment.

@Thiudareiks - I'm glad to see our resident medieval expert calls total ******** on this book. As an avid history reader I knew this book's facts stunk to high heaven but I couldn't exactly point out what was real, what was sort of real and what was total distortion. I also agree that the main problem is the story is absolutely silly told in a cold sober style. I like Clive Cussler and Stephen King not because they are masters of literature BUT because they can at least write a fun story and know not to take themselves too seriously.