The Da Vinci Code . . . Tempted to Revisit It

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Ever since becoming an active member of the forums, The Da Vinci Code has haunted me. I like to think I have good taste in literature (at least, better than your average layman). At the same time, I don't feel I am (too much) a literary snob. I like mindless books every now and then. I love Stephen King, and love fantasy. And I really, really enjoyed The Da Vinci Code.

Now, I didn't "love" it, but I do recall it being one of the most captivating reads I ever picked up. I loved the history and conspiracy theory, and I thought it moved with an excellent, quick pace. I found it a very fun and interesting read.

But, I must say, this has become troubling to me. So many on here consider it to be one of the worst books ever written, a dsigrace to literature. It is a book that seems to make people angry because they feel it is so bad. I admit I read TDVC when I was not as "literarily educated" as I am now, so maybe that factors into it. But, still, I like to think I would have been smart enough at the time to recognize its flaws.

So, I have thought, should I give it another read? There could be two possible outcomes. One, I would read it again and enjoy it again, not seeing why it is so hated, which would lead me back to my present quandary (do I have poor taste?). I could read it, enjoy it still, but now recognize its flaws. I feel this would be the ideal outcome. Or, I could read it and hate it, and see why it is so bad. But, if this happens, I wonder if I wouldn't only come to this opinion because I feel I must come to this opinion, to maintain my intellectual clout, as it were.

Or, maybe I should just say **** it to all other opinions. I liked it. Others didn't. BFD. But, I just seem unable to do this.

[billl]

I think that, if you are like me, a lot of what you enjoyed about the book is probably stuff that is accomplished via skills that "literature" enthusiasts typically don't value, at least not when they exist as the sole skills exhibited in a book. Efficiency and directness, along with surprises and titillation (e.g. conspiracy theories, in DVC) are what make that sort of book work (and they also make the movie work too, I imagine, although I haven't seen it.)

I've been reading thriller/adventure stuff from the 50's-70's recently, and some of these paperbacks have an amazing amount of misspellings, to give a strong example--in one of these books (which I particularly enjoyed), the spelling of the protagonist's name changed about a third of the way through. So, obviously, the main point isn't the care with which the thing was written (or published). But the action, and just enough other things to provide some emotional backstory and the foundation for a surprise, are well-delivered, nonetheless. (And when they aren't, it's sort of charming--it's fun to read a bit of 'pulp' or whatever this sort of book might be called.) The idea that the book might be re-read for the purpose of finding depths to be discovered and debated is ridiculous. But these sorts of books can be a pleasure to read.

I have to say, though, that, while I read the DaVinci Code and found it fun and fast-moving, I did sort of think it was crap BECAUSE I was familiar with the basic outlines of the sort of conspiracy stuff it was covering (it wasn't a shocking revelatory OMFG experience, like it might've been to many millions of other readers) and I've also gotten at least as much entertainment out of far more structurally and thematically complex books (perhaps I should call them 'texts'!)--and I couldn't help but negatively judge the writer of The DaVinci Code and even my society over the fact that such 'crap writing' had become such a contemporary sensation at such an unfashionably late hour. But still, reading it was like watching a fun movie, with the direction and effects largely accomplished by me. The stuff that makes action movies good (pacing, a plot that can be followed at high speed, and timely tension and surprise, with the shackles of realism loosened as necessary) is what makes something like The DaVincini Code work, I think.

But (besides delving into conspiracy theories that can go almost anywhere, if one likes playing on the powerful and lengthy ropes that we might sometimes use to tie what we know to what we don't) what is there to discuss in it?

[Haunted]

Dan Brown is a symbolist and conceptualist. He never pretended to be a literary writer. In his interview with Matt Lauer on Dateline NBC, all he talked about is symbols. So those who are critical of his writing are either ignorant of a book about symbolisms, or simply jealous of an author who is an international runaway success.

I got the illustrated version with glossy photos of the different landmarks, I would love to read the book again.

[JCamilo]

Tsc, He is a symbolist? Do you mean a person who use symbols in the book? Or do you mean like an entire literary movement named symbolism?
Literary snobs are not angry with those things. They laugh. He is not a literary writer? What he is? A musician writer? A dancing writer? He use symbols? Because using symbols (which he borrowed from early literature) is not something used by literature since day one?? Yes, they are ignorant or jealous...

Anyways, Mutatis, read watever you like. At any time. Anyone who is going to make a critical analyse of a text, must re-read it. First base is not sex. And finally, enjoyment of a book does not necessarily relate to the quality of the text. You may like reading a book because you had to sit 3 hours in the airport and that was the only thing you could do. Reading is not necessarily a critical action.

[TacoButt]

I disagree with those who turn their noses up at "popular literature" because it isn't highbrow or critically acclaimed or because some committee in Brussels did not declare it "great literature."

My approach is that there are two kinds of books - books that I like and books that I don't.

What I didn't care for in the DaVinci code is that I could FEEL the literary mechanisms creaking, grinding and scraping away. There wasn't anything particularly artful about how the story unfolded, nor how the characters revealed themselves.

I believe readers are engaged participants in literature, not passive receivers. As such, they know when something is dishonest. They KNOW when they are being lied to. I felt that Mr. Brown did not respect me as a reader. When that relationship fails, it's all over, baby!

But I think you should read it, then come back to this board and post what YOU thought. If you find something artful and living and mirrors real life in some way, I promise to listen to you and to try to learn something new about the book.

[Haunted]

Tsc, He is a symbolist? Do you mean a person who use symbols in the book? Or do you mean like an entire literary movement named symbolism?
Literary snobs are not angry with those things. They laugh. He is not a literary writer? What he is? A musician writer? A dancing writer? He use symbols? Because using symbols (which he borrowed from early literature) is not something used by literature since day one?? Yes, they are ignorant or jealous...

Symbolist as someone who delves into ancient archetypes. It's a whole different line of study, not to be narrowly defined as symbolism used in literature.

[JCamilo]

Please, a whole different line of study of what? Use of archetypes study dates from Plato.

[Haunted]

More ancient than Plato. It's stems from the unconscious, more like Jungian.

[JCamilo]

Not more ancient, Plato coined the term, Jung took it from Plato (he afirms it).
Of course, there was already studies of drama using archetypical personas before Plato, but like I said that is not new at all. And Dan Brown is not junginian and symbolism is not use of archetypes.

[Haunted]

I don't mean Jungian in terms of dates and centuries. I mean the ancient archetypes the Jung explored, the symbols in the unconscious. That's like going back to the beginning of time.

Robert Langdon is a symbolist professor (not a creative writing professor) and Dan Brown speaks through him. The Lost Symbol is the most intellectual and conceptual of the series.

[billl]

With Wikipedia, there can sometimes be something a little fishy going on, but here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbology_(disambiguation)


EDIT: Also, it might be worth noting that Umberto Eco (a professor of semiotics) wrote a book dealing with some similar DaVinci Code stuff, if I remember correctly. Not sure if I finished it, but did like it, at least for a while, quite a few years ago.

[Haunted]

Following your link I found this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol

[JCamilo]

Jung obviously do not define symbolism neither about literature (or art) but about representations. As such, the symbolism used in CDV is not related to arquetypes. If anyone wants to see an example of it, go for Finnegans Wake.

Anyways, Shylock is jewish, therefore Shakespeare wrote jewish literature?

What Brown do is saying there is some detective, who deciphers stuff. Those symbolism are historical and part of literature for centuries, Brown barelly rubs the surface and his work is not symbolistic at all.

[Haunted]

yes it is. The study of signs and symbols is most evident in The Lost Symbol. Perhaps you should read it if you haven't, just so we can actually have an intelligent discussion.

[JCamilo]

Psst, Inteligent discussion: The fact a character is a lawyer, does not make romance about a lawyer legal literature.

Name of the Rose has a hundred time more symbolism studied, but it is not a Symbolistic Literature, Eco does not use it except as device of his work, just like Brown.

And please, inteligence is not suggesting it is something new and then claiming it is old as human kind like you did.

[Haunted]

why do you sound so hostile? You reaction to Dan Brown's work borders hatred and it sounds very personal. What in the world has he done to you?

There must be other ways to convey one's thoughts without all that Tsc and Psst, I just can't take it seriously.

[JCamilo]

Are you joking? You are the one suggesting that you need inteligent conversation in some defensive way. I just pointed:

1- Dan Brown text is not symbolist just because one character is a semioticist.
2 - This is not new, it is old.

[Mr.lucifer]

The hype of the Davinci code has died and dan brown will be forgotten in the next 5 years. So stop talking about him. There are books out there that deserve more hatred than the davinci code and make it look like a masterpiece.

[Emil Miller]

The hype of the Davinci code has died and dan brown will be forgotten in the next 5 years. So stop talking about him. There are books out there that deserve more hatred than the davinci code and make it look like a masterpiece.

Yep. Harry Potter, the retarded adult's favourite except for Beatrix Potter, ( no relation, except in human gullibility), but Dan Brown runs them close.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have to say, though, that, while I read the DaVinci Code and found it fun and fast-moving, I did sort of think it was crap BECAUSE I was familiar with the basic outlines of the sort of conspiracy stuff it was covering (it wasn't a shocking revelatory OMFG experience, like it might've been to many millions of other readers) and I've also gotten at least as much entertainment out of far more structurally and thematically complex books (perhaps I should call them 'texts'!)--and I couldn't help but negatively judge the writer of The DaVinci Code and even my society over the fact that such 'crap writing' had become such a contemporary sensation at such an unfashionably late hour. But still, reading it was like watching a fun movie, with the direction and effects largely accomplished by me. The stuff that makes action movies good (pacing, a plot that can be followed at high speed, and timely tension and surprise, with the shackles of realism loosened as necessary) is what makes something like The DaVincini Code work, I think.



I didn't, and the history the book involved was a very large factor that contributed to my enjoyment of the book.


Dan Brown is a symbolist and conceptualist. He never pretended to be a literary writer. In his interview with Matt Lauer on Dateline NBC, all he talked about is symbols. So those who are critical of his writing are either ignorant of a book about symbolisms, or simply jealous of an author who is an international runaway success.

I think this is quite a lazy excuse. He claimed to be a literary writer when he created a completely fictional narrative. Plus, to claim there are no problems with the book and that people are just jealous is absurd.



EDIT: Also, it might be worth noting that Umberto Eco (a professor of semiotics) wrote a book dealing with some similar DaVinci Code stuff, if I remember correctly. Not sure if I finished it, but did like it, at least for a while, quite a few years ago.

Yes. It is called Foucault's Pendulum, and is an excellent read. I just made a thread about it, actually.


The hype of the Davinci code has died and dan brown will be forgotten in the next 5 years. So stop talking about him. There are books out there that deserve more hatred than the davinci code and make it look like a masterpiece.

Dictating to me, or anyone, what can and can't be talked about seems rather rude, really.

[tomt]

I read The DaVinci Code for a book club I belonged to at the time. I couldn't put it down. I guess you could say it was a fun read for me.

Then I listened to Brown talk about it and that's when I became turned off by it. He sold millions of copies of his book by appealing to sensationalism developed by absurd conspiracy theories only the laziest book fans could believe. Mary Magdalene in DaVinci's Last Supper? Any art historian or theologian worth their salt could refute the claim before Brown could turn the page for us. He proved to be a charlatan of "biblical" proportions during the publicity maelstrom roused by the book's popularity just by claiming to believe what he "uncovered" in his research for the book. I was horribly insulted at how stupid he thought we were.