The Da Vinci Code (2006)

[j d worthington]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

That might be overreacting just a little, don't you think? (Then again, not having read the book myself ... maybe not.)

 

[roddglenn]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

As i've said before, I think it is a good read. It's certainly not the best book ever written - it's a long way off that, but I still think that it is a good yarn. The film was very faithful to the book, apart from minor changes. The ending was completely faithful to the book (back at the Ritz then follows the markers to the upturned pyramid - exactly as the book. They did change the meeting at Roselyn somewhat with lots of characters turning up instead of just the Granmother and brother - I didn't understand why they changed that bit, but it was only a minor change).

 

[Marky Lazer]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I would like to stress once more that it isn't the worst book written ever, and I also don't hold a grief against Dan Brown.

It's just, when people call it the best written book ever, I start to wonder what they read beside the Code. To be honest, I think they never made it through a whole book since reading Rub-a-Dub-Dub by Nancy Parent.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

They did change the meeting at Roselyn somewhat with lots of characters turning up instead of just the Granmother and brother - I didn't understand why they changed that bit, but it was only a minor change).

Apart from the fact that in the novel the church curator is her long-lost brother? Which is why the grandmother was there in the first place.

 

[iansales]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Reasons why The Da Vinci Code is *not* a good book:

1. appalling prose

2. bad plotting - the characters spend the entire book being chased from A to B; and, IIRC, there are even some moments of idiot plotting in there too--where the plot only advances because Langdon et al can't figure something out that's blindingly obvious

3. Brown hijacking his premise from The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail and insisting, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the premise is historical "fact"

 

[roddglenn]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Apart from the fact that in the novel the church curator is her long-lost brother? Which is why the grandmother was there in the first place.

If I remember rightly they didn't change that bit, they just didn't mention it. As I said that scene was changed, but overall the film was exceptionally close to the book - the closest film adaption of a book that I have seen to date.

I disagree the the prose is appalling. True, it's not great by any means, but overall the book is easy to read and fast-paced and it is a good fictional story with some elements of fact, some elements of supposed fact and plenty of fiction.

 

[Paradox 99]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Ok, some good answers there about why people think the book isn't so hot.
I certainly wouldn't say that it's THE best book ever written either, and I have to admit that the opening piece was so cliched I had to smile and show it to my wife when I saw it.

I suppose, like everything, people judge things by different standards and personally, if a book keeps me glued to the pages, it isn't badly written, whatever technique is used.

It took me a while before I got around to reading Dune, and although I like the concept, I'm almost ashamed to admit I found it quite a dull read actually, but this is a book that's hailed as a benchmark - a classic.

I'd rate the diVinci code above Dune any day - simply because I found it a more exciting read. That's how I define well written - a book that keeps you reading.

I don't consider the plotting to be bad either, I rather liked the twists and the way the story unfolded.

And having a background with Theology and Christianity myself, I can see that there's more content in there that can be considered sound than not. So what if he nicked stuff from THB&THG, there's a plethora of novels that base their stories on research like that (The Left Behind series for example). The court case was probably trumped up as a neat bit of publicity more than anything else.

 

[Marky Lazer]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I found some very nice critiques on the Code by Craig Clevenger:

http://www.welcometothevelvet.com/showpost.php?p=4413&postcount=6 and http://www.welcometothevelvet.com/showpost.php?p=17418&postcount=75

Even if you loved the book to pieces, it's still very enjoyable to read.

 

[iansales]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Paradox, I think you've missed the point. There are certain criteria which distinguish good writing. A facility with language is one. Good characterisation is another. A plot that doesn't rely on characters making stupid decisions or acting out of character.

Keeping a reader "glued to the pages" is not one. Readers of Hello! magazine are kept glued to pages; likewise readers of the National Enquirer...

Having said that, it's clear Brown did some research. Whether that stretched beyond reading The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail is open to question. If I remember rightly, he wholly misidentified one of the cathedrals that features in the book.

Dune, on the hand... Its plot is several orders of magnitude more complex than that of The Da Vinci Code, yet it's handled so well readers rarely get lost. Despite the fact that the universe of the book is wholly invented, there is more research obvious in it than in Brown's novel. And while Herbert's style seems somewhat confusing to modern sensibilities (we are now more used to a limited PoV), it's handled consistently throughout the novel.

Dune is not a science fiction "benchmark" by any criteria. It *is* a classic. It was the first epic science fiction novel focused at the level of its characters, and displayed a level and consistency of world-building that had not been seen before. It was, if you like, the Star Wars of written SF, pretty much creating a new spin on the genre--as Lucas did when he created the "summer blockbuster" movie.

Dan Brown, however, has merely created an industry... dedicated to debunking his books

 

[Paradox 99]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Paradox, I think you've missed the point. There are certain criteria which distinguish good writing. A facility with language is one. Good characterisation is another. A plot that doesn't rely on characters making stupid decisions or acting out of character.

Keeping a reader "glued to the pages" is not one. Readers of Hello! magazine are kept glued to pages; likewise readers of the National Enquirer...

I chose my words poorly in my previous post. My original questions and observations were around why people thought the bood was "bad", not whether it was badly written.
As a general standard in comparrison with other works, I'd agree with you concerning its standard of writing, but it's still a great book - simply because it does what says on the tin.
I couldn't care less if a book is written so stunningly well that it amazes the socks off literary geniuses - I might still find it boring (e.g. Dune).
Dan Brown's book, though not technically brilliant, was not boring to me at all.

On that basis, the bigger picture says to me - Is it really that baddly written? Surely it depends on the objective. Dan Brown's objective was to sell a lot of books and write something that people found exciting. Did he? Yes.
Did it fit the criteria of what "experts" believe to be technically brilliant writing? No. But at the end of the day, he achieved what he set out to do when he put pen to paper - in my book that's great writing. Certainly better that any of us aspiring to be authors have achieved so far (though I hope some of the writers who come here prove me wrong there one day. )

 

[iansales]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Yes, Brown's novel does what it says on the tin. But writing is a hygiene factor: good writing is seldom noticed, but bad writing can spoil a book. People's thresholds on what constitutes "bad" differs. Myself, I thought The Da Vinci Code poor and entirely unmemorable--I'd read The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail 20 years before, so I thought the premise was nothing new. I also gave up on Clive Cussler because the writing had devolved to a point where I couldn't actually read it.

As to Brown's objectives... Well, anyone who sets out to write a best-selling novel is a fool. The one thing you can't guarantee is that your book will sell. Judging by his previous novels--the only one I've read is Digital Fortress, and the computing in that is bollocks from start to finish--Brown set out to write another no-frills thriller based a round a "neat idea" he'd stumbled across. And that's what he did. I wouldn't be surprised learn he was as astonished as everyone else when The Da Vinci Code became a rampaging best-seller and spawned an industry of its own.

Btw, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who claims Dune is a work of literary genius. Well, other than a complete fan-boy Some of its prose is horrible and clunky, and Herbert's ear for dialogue also failed him on several occasions. I enjoyed the book a great deal when I first read it 25 years ago, and still do on the odd occasion when I reread it. I very much doubt The Da Vinci Code will bear rereading...

 

[Paradox 99]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Yes, Brown's novel does what it says on the tin. But writing is a hygiene factor: good writing is seldom noticed, but bad writing can spoil a book. People's thresholds on what constitutes "bad" differs. Myself, I thought The Da Vinci Code poor and entirely unmemorable--I'd read The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail 20 years before, so I thought the premise was nothing new. I also gave up on Clive Cussler because the writing had devolved to a point where I couldn't actually read it.

Yes, the premise is nothing new (I read HN&HG too, and a number of other books investigating the early church and paganism etc). Oddly, it might've been that which actually drew me into the book so much rather than disliking it - I do have a fondness for that kind of stuff.

As for bad writing spoiling a book, yes, I agree with that too. I gave up on Eddings because of that. You've got me thinking now - I wonder what the book could have turned out like if a more adept writer had a go at this instead.

As to Brown's objectives... Well, anyone who sets out to write a best-selling novel is a fool.

Surely not! Anyone who sets out expecting their work to be a bestseller is a fool, yes. But surely every writer aspires for that and dreams of that achievement. What writer wouldn't? Maybe Dan Brown didn't expect it, but I'll bet, as a writer, he was aiming for it.

 

[Quokka]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Personally I enjoyed the book well enough, mind you I was stuck in Spain at the time with nothing else to read, still as with any fiction I read, I was not really too fussed with any supposed links to reality and on that basis it passed a few hours.

Of course to those now spending a fortune travelling to the sites mentioned in the book, just to pray at the final resting place etc, I'll be rude enough to say that's just sad and they're missing out on what the sites really could offer.

I did make the mistake of reading Deception point afterwards and reading that I felt like I could actually see Dan Brown's publisher sitting on his shoulder saying "forget thinking, forget editing, you need to publish this NOW, NOW, NOW!"

For me kinda in the same class as Dean Koontz etc, pick up one book in between other things and it's ok, try reading a couple in a row and you get bored of the same tricks trying to carry a story.

But back to the thread.... The movie was better than I was expecting, of course I was expecting it to be pretty bad. I enjoyed watching it, wouldn't want to see it again . As others have said its one of the fewer times I thought a movie actually used special effects well and it kept fairly much honest to the book. They always have to drop some parts and I just felt that the two priests were simplified much more as the 'baddies' in the movie whereas the book was able to give them atleast some depth.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Marky Lazer]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

THE good thing about the movie was Bettany's performance, which was really good. Especially the despair on his face, you could really smell it.

 

[iansales]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Surely not! Anyone who sets out expecting their work to be a bestseller is a fool, yes. But surely every writer aspires for that and dreams of that achievement. What writer wouldn't? Maybe Dan Brown didn't expect it, but I'll bet, as a writer, he was aiming for it.

Ha ha Point taken. Yes, we can all hope our books become best-sellers, but realistically expect them to vanish into remaindered hell. But I still think you'd have difficulty trying to write a best-seller--I mean, what is it that makes a book a best-seller? What do you have to put into a book for it to become a best-seller? Crack that, and you'll be living next-door JK Rowling...

 

[Paradox 99]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

what is it that makes a book a best-seller? What do you have to put into a book for it to become a best-seller? Crack that, and you'll be living next-door JK Rowling...

Now there's a question - worthy of another thread I think.
There must be a whole host of ingredients that go to creating a bestseller that will be remembered. Wow! If we could only bottle them.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

The main ingredient, and the one that no one is likely to be able to define, is something that is likely to catch the reading public at that particular time and place. Look at The Professor and the Madman, for example. Who would ever have expected book about the Oxford English Dictionary to take off like that? Certainly he didn't; he just found the background to the tale interesting.

 

[Marky Lazer]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

If one plans to write a best-seller, that one is a threat to the entire profession.

 

[Aeris]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

I really enjoyed the movie, even though it DID make some changes from the book that I don't altogether approve of. Though the scene with Silas at the end was still touching (mainly because of Paul Bettany's performance), in the book there was just more....I can't think of the word....emotional turmoil from Silas. I don't want to give anything away, so I'll just say that what Silas did to the Bishop after...well...said more of his character than what he did in the movie after....again. I felt the book did better with Sophie's character, too. The story about her family was a lot cooler in the book, and her relationship with Jacques was better.

Overall, the movie was excellent, though, and I would recommend it to anyone if only to see Paul Bettany's and Ian McKellen's performances. Both are stunning actors.

 

[Aeris]

Re: The Di Vinci Code.

Welcome to the Forums, BladeCreator! I hope to see you around.