Posted on 02/08/2005 6:11:52 PM PST by quidnunc
There is no law against writing twaddle. Just as well, comes the joyful cry, otherwise many journalists would be out of a job and newspapers would have acres of white space.
No, no, not newspapers … books. There is no law against writing several hundred pages of twaddle with no basis in fact and finding success with a bestseller.
Good news, then, and good luck to him, for Dan Brown, whose The Da Vinci Code has now sold more than 1.8 million copies and rising.
To whom? Conspiracy theorists who believe Brown’s assertions that secret organisations such as the Priory of Sion existed, that there is a secret code, that there is a Holy Grail of any kind, including the "secret" divulged in this book? To the gullible ditto? To those who get caught up in the swelling hype of any bestseller and buy it to see what the fuss is about? Or to all of these and many more?
Quite probably, and who cares? Certainly not Dan Brown. He doesn’t write well, but there is no more of a law against that than there is against the content being twaddle. Readers want to find out what happens next and, as Jeffrey Archer has proved before him, a good editor can work wonders.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at thescotsman.scotsman.com ...
Far fetched and unbelievable but I enjoyed it.
I'm not sure any serious historian doubts that the Priory of Sion existed, at least at some point.
"Is there no hope for The Widow's Son?"
Spoiler alert: There's all types of twists and turns, the Catholic Church, an albino and other stuff figure in it. On the last page, you discover OJ did it.
Everyone does know this book is a work of fiction right?
[There is no law against writing twaddle.]
If there were, I would be in FReeper prison on death row by now.
Sorta. I think a frightening large number of people view it as accurate historical fiction, like Jeff Shaara's novels (Gods and Generals, The Glorious Cause).
The book is nothing more than heracy based on lies. I watched the history channel rip it apart. Although I must say that even the History channel ASSuMEd quite a bit and didnt even challenge the basis. Their experts were all hard core left wing.
"...but there must be something to it...!"
That is the catchcry of so many people I know! My main complaint is that he took so many lazy short-cuts, factual errors, etc. when he could have advanced the same thesis without being so sloppy. I never thought I'd praise Baigent & Co but their Holy Blood, Holy Grail almost seems like a genuine academic tome beside this.
Awfully written book, poor research, badly edited. That said it is highly readable and difficult to put down...
He certainly hasn't got the wit or the depth of an Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum (Related topic) but he's easier to read. Eco deliberately made the foirst hundred pages horrible to read to deter all but the true seekers after truth according to literary legend as a bit of a joke about the pseudoscience followers, Templar nuts and so forth....
Has anybody actually read "The Da Vinci Code"?
I haven't talked with any religious people who actually have read the thing to see what they thought. I've heard it's rubbish, but only from people who know what it's about, not those who have actually read it.
Is it as bad as I have heard?
Taken as a work of fiction, repeat, FICTION, it's an enjoyable whodunit. Not a book, mind you, that people will be reading 100 years from now.
I read it and regret wasting the time and money. It is a ridiculous book; I should have known better. It's worse than you've heard.
Ditto. It is not only an old heresy but is gory, violent, and pedantic, and insults the intelligence of anybody who can read. "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" featured a bunch of crazy men called the Knights of the Cruciform Sword, and comic books feature the Rosicrucians. and these are the mythical people who populate the imagination of Dan Brown.
I would not recommend it to anybody. Claptrap and twaddle on the half shell.
Yeah, right. Next you're going to be telling me that there really is no Hogwart school for witches.
The book is as bad or worse than you have heard. I was about half way through it and took a break. I couldn't figure out where I had seen writing that bad, but I knew I had seen it before.
Turned put I had seen such bad writing in the Tom Swift novels for 10 year old boys. The writing is awful.
Basically, the whole book is a series of wordgames. At various points I expected a duck to drop out of the clear blue and quack.
Here look at this. The first thrty pages or so are involved in presenting a compassionate portrait of the main antagonist (The murderer) who is:
1. A monk
2. Tall. Like 6"4"
3. Into self flagellation with nails and such.
4. Is a part-time assassin.
5. Is a pink eyed albino!
The book goes downhill from this point.
Yes. Believe me---I've read everything. Even for trash it's trashy.
Sounds awful. Thanks for the warning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.