A review by danteo
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
1.0
As with most people who ended up hating this book, I picked up the Da Vinci code based on other people’s recommendations. This is supposedly an intelligent book, while doubling as a fast paced thriller. I should have known better of course, as the above description often equates to pseudo-intellectual trite.
One complaint I frequently hear is that Brown tends to get his facts wrong. I’ll admit I’m not really in a position to judge that, as I’m not familiar with the actual facts. Although I trust the opinion of the many reviewers out there more than Brown’s research, I’ll let this one pass.
What is unforgivable however is, well, just about everything else in this book. The writing is simplistic, the dialogues are horrible, the characters are no more than cardboard figures and the plot is ridiculously inept. The plot twists are so predictable, that I feel embarrassed for Brown the way he tries to make everything seem like a mystery. And don’t get me started on those numerous flashbacks. Sophie’s flashbacks about her grandfather is still understandable to a degree, but what about the ones of Langdon lecturing in front of a class, or talking to his publisher? These scenes are nothing more than convenient information dumps and is a case study for lazy writing if ever I saw one.
However, the puzzles in the book are mildly entertaining for the casual reader, although you’d expect Langdon and Teabing to have less trouble with them. Another problem is that there is little logical sequence in the solving of those puzzles. They just suddenly come up with the solution or by coincidence, and as a result, you often feel cheated as a reader.
It’s bad enough that this terrible book managed to sell millions of copies, but it’s even worse that for years I had to endure listening to my friends, most of whose opinion I normally trust and respect, gushing about how amazing this book is, and how it was the most intelligent thing they’ve ever read (with the possible exception of Angels and Demons, which I’m never going to read now). This is nothing short of an insult for literature as a whole.
One complaint I frequently hear is that Brown tends to get his facts wrong. I’ll admit I’m not really in a position to judge that, as I’m not familiar with the actual facts. Although I trust the opinion of the many reviewers out there more than Brown’s research, I’ll let this one pass.
What is unforgivable however is, well, just about everything else in this book. The writing is simplistic, the dialogues are horrible, the characters are no more than cardboard figures and the plot is ridiculously inept. The plot twists are so predictable, that I feel embarrassed for Brown the way he tries to make everything seem like a mystery. And don’t get me started on those numerous flashbacks. Sophie’s flashbacks about her grandfather is still understandable to a degree, but what about the ones of Langdon lecturing in front of a class, or talking to his publisher? These scenes are nothing more than convenient information dumps and is a case study for lazy writing if ever I saw one.
However, the puzzles in the book are mildly entertaining for the casual reader, although you’d expect Langdon and Teabing to have less trouble with them. Another problem is that there is little logical sequence in the solving of those puzzles. They just suddenly come up with the solution or by coincidence, and as a result, you often feel cheated as a reader.
It’s bad enough that this terrible book managed to sell millions of copies, but it’s even worse that for years I had to endure listening to my friends, most of whose opinion I normally trust and respect, gushing about how amazing this book is, and how it was the most intelligent thing they’ve ever read (with the possible exception of Angels and Demons, which I’m never going to read now). This is nothing short of an insult for literature as a whole.