Saturday, January 22, 2005

The Davinci Code Sucks

This has been bugging me for a while, but I keep hearing about this book all the time, so I figure it's still valid. And yes, you're all going to say, "But Dave, you're just jealous of Dan Brown's fabulous success, because you in your twenty-seventh year have yet to publish so much as a preposition of your own worthless scribbling." Weeeelll, some a dat's true. I herby applaud Dan Brown for his ability to read the market like that and inflame the world to buy his book. Good for you Dan! (you lucky SOB). All that said, it still doesn't make it a good book.

Top Ten Lies You’ve Probably Heard About The Davinci Code

10. It's really well written.
It sure as hell isn’t. This is one of the worst written pieces of trash I’ve ever read. I could give you a hundred examples if I had the book here in front of me... which I don't.

9. You Can’t Put it Down.
There’s a simple reason for this. It’s because every chapter ends like this: “And what he saw, was the most amazing thing he had ever seen, perhaps in his entire life, and he knew in his heart, that he would never see anything so incredible ever again… And then the movie music goes “da da Daaa.”… and then... break for commercial.

8. The book is well researched.
There are a lot of facts in this book, that is true, but it’s a far cry from well researched. Half of these facts don’t fit into the writing; they are facts for the sake of facts. When we’re talking about the Louvre, who cares how many security cameras there are. These little factoids jar at you like flat notes in a symphony.

7. You’ll never read anything like it.
Sorry, no. Not really. Once you peel back a few layers, it’s nothing special. I have 35 books at home with the same plot. They’re blue hard-covers about Frank and Joe Hardy.

6. It’s a quick read.
This one is true. But it’s not a good thing. The reason it’s a quick read is that the prose is so simplistic. You could probably read your grade four reader in one sitting too.

5. The ultimate who dunnit.
Not to spoil it for anyone, but here’s a tip: Take out the two protagonists, cancel out anyone that you’re “supposed” to think is the bad guy, and then pick the one person who seems least likely to have done it. Good work Agatha Christie.

4. It’s really controversial.
This one really bugs me. People seem to forget that this is a work of fiction. Anything controversial is basically plagiarized from other “Holy Grail Scholars” anyway. People just love a conspiracy theory. What’s irritating is that for such a “well researched” book, Brown skews history and fact to his liking, and people think, “Well Gee Whiz, it must be true, it’s in a book.” Just one example of many: Brown states that at the Nicean Council the bishops got together and decided, by a slim majority, that Christ was divine. Well, not really. They did get together, but what they were deciding was HOW he was divine… you know, like all that complicated trinity stuff.

3. The plot is so intricate.
Hardly. All you’ve got is two people running around for twenty-four hours solving word games. Remember Silence of the Lambs? Back then anagrams were cool.

2. You’re hooked from the start.
The start is one of the least plausible parts of the book. Ok, you’ve got a seventy year old museum curator, supposedly the last living guardian of an Earth Shattering Secret (gasp!). Instead of running, or dodging, or even moving at all, he lets some guy twenty feet away, behind security bars, shoot him in the stomach. Then, with one of the most painful of fatal wounds, he decides to set a series of clues that only his estranged granddaughter and a renowned Harvard Symbologist, he knows is in town, can decipher. Because even though he has never met this guy, he knows he can trust him and the granddaughter he hasn’t spoken to in ten years with this incredible secret. Oh yes, then he uses his own naked body and blood as the opening clue, and dies spread eagled on the floor. Oh yeah, one last thing. The guy is French, and he does all of this in English.

1. It’s one of the best books you’ll ever read.
No it isn’t. Take a step back from the hype. It sucks.

3 Comments:

At 4:08 PM, Blogger The Artsaypunk said...

Yeah, well, there's no doubt that the Catholic church designed itself in a mysonginistic image. I also don't doubt that Jesus was married, it would have made sense for a man of his standing at that time. What bothers me is the way the book melds facts and half-facts into this quasi-history that people think is true. The average reader won't actually look into the debate.
But no, I lie, what really bothers me is how badly written the book is. I could forgive a lot if it were half decent.

 
At 12:05 PM, Blogger mark said...

I'd add that for a book that hinges on anti-Catholic misogyny the rote and well trod "male hero has to save female in distress while simultaneously explaining the basic plot elements to her" is kind of counteractive. I fully believe Dan Brown is a misogynist jackass.

 
At 12:06 PM, Blogger The Artsaypunk said...

Another good point from Mark. That's the good thing about mark. You can always count on him to have the good points.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


eXTReMe Tracker