Thread: The Da Vinci Code (spoiler-ish)

Originally Posted by Connor Wolf

If people spent less time griping about his success and more time learning why people want to read his books despite his short-comings as a writer they might learn something useful.

Do you think the fact it's taking him a number of years to provide a new book, apart from sales, is that because he has decided to set The Solomon Key in America he has to actually get his facts straight lest he be found out for being full of crap?

Haven't read that one but he doesn't strike me as a writer who lets facts get in the way of a good story. Personally I don't really care if he bends the truth for story-telling sake. If some geographical changes are needed, make 'em I'd say. Who among his readership, cares. James Bond books are full of ludicrous holes, I still enjoyed them though.

IMO the only obligation regarding facts an author has is to make them plausibly fit his story. Whatever works, works. If he wants to invent historical documents, put words into people's mouths or whatever that's fine by me so long as i enjoy the story. If he moved NYC to Alaska I'd probably raise an eyebrow or two though.

But the Gospels were written by people with no knowledge of Palestine geography, misplacing whole cities and mountains and no-one seemed to mind.

Originally Posted by tagos

Haven't read that one

It's not out until, supposedly, late next year.

Personally I don't really care if he bends the truth for story-telling sake. If some geographical changes are needed, make 'em I'd say.

It's not about making changes for storytelling's sake. The geography of France error appears when it states, near the end, that Langdon walked north to a certain building that, if you were to take that same walk, you'd see that he would actually have had to walk south. In passing conversation he states that I, in Scotland, drive on the right side of the road (in addition to the Cypriots, Maltese, Northern Irish, Irish, and Welsh) which is just not true. Dan Brown, at the start of the book, states that all descriptions of locations are accurate. If he's going to make such a claim then he should get it right.

Who among his readership, cares.

The French, the Brits, and anyone with an ounce of sense in their head.

If he wants to invent historical documents, put words into people's mouths or whatever that's fine by me so long as i enjoy the story. If he moved NYC to Alaska I'd probably raise an eyebrow or two though.

Documents is fine. But, your NYC to Alaska is effectively what he has done with Europe.

the Gospels were written by people with no knowledge of Palestine geography, misplacing whole cities and mountains and no-one seemed to mind.

People still mind today. Are you shrouded from what goes on in Palestine?

Well, as a Brit I don't care (and you're just inferring the Scottish road thing from his typical foreigner equating of England with all the UK If i remember correctly, does he actually state you drive on the right in Scotland?).

And no - I really don't care about the details of French geography in the slightest, so long as it serves the story. Just like the fact that in 24 Jack can't possibly get from A to B without a flying rocket car or teleport in the time it takes in the story doesn't mean I turn it off in disgust.

And i don't mind peter jackson's liberties with middle earth geography either.

And I assume any 'this is true' thing in a fiction novel is part of the fiction.

None of these details spoil my enjoyment of the novel and as I have no idea whether the geography of Paris is correct or not it doesn't affect me.

Nor did the long list of 'we made these bits up about Princeton for the sake of the story' disclaimer at the end of the Rule of Four (?) have me reaching for my revolver.

It's fiction, it's the illusion that's important.

In the reaction of writers and commentators in general to the huge success of Brown there really is a nit-picking and petty minded spirit as if there's never been a mediocre novel with some details wrong, written before.

I say, good luck to him.

I've been thinking a lot about this book and why I should immediately forget about it. It's schlock and isn't the first best seller I've not found to be intelligent reading. Good for him for finding the formula of success and more power to him. I have a substantial list of best selling authors that I enjoy and only read this because of the raves. I'm happy that I got one well written book out of the bargain. Michael Crichton's book doesn't make me change my mind about global warming but it's well crafted.

Finished it while I was in Paris over the summer - I liked the way it showed modern religion for what it is - bullshit: a money making scam designed to control life, not save it. However, I felt the author backed off with his commitment to the truth halfway through the story, probably so he didn't offend too many people (pious people can be so annoying, especially when something or someone contradicts their blinkered view of the world).

As far as the story itself - I enjoyed it. It wasn't amazing; the light linear plot had little depth but it was an easy-to-read novel that was great to read on the road. I did think the last chapter ruined the book though - why tell us where the Grail is (and in such an unlikely place to) instead of leaving it to our imagination and wonder.

Like a lot of books - great beginning, shit ending.

I haven't heard anything but good statements about "The DiVinci Code", then again most of the people I know only read when the book in question is popular. I don't think I'll ever give this book a read though....well, maybe someday.

Originally Posted by casperthesheet

I haven't heard anything but good statements about "The DiVinci Code", then again most of the people I know only read when the book in question is popular. I don't think I'll ever give this book a read though....well, maybe someday.

If you have any aspirations of being a writer then treat it as a 'how not to write' guide.