The Da Vinci Code - What did you think? - Page 5 - WritingForums.com - Writing Forums, Writing Challenges, Critiques and Help for Writers

THE JESUS STRANGLER · 03-10-2006, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_MacLaren

Man, I've seen some petty discussions on these forums (I've even been in a few myself), but this is a real killer. This thing degenerated into spite and malice exactly three posts in.
Now, I've never read Dan Brown, so I'm not defending or attacking him. I haven't read him because airport fiction isn't really my cup of tea. I might see the movie, because it sounds to me like The Da Vinci Code might be a better movie than book, but that's neither here nor there.

I just want to comment on some things because I'm nosy. Here we go.

This is just being anal. The word 'renowned' doesn't mean that everybody knows about it. You can be renowned in a field, if I'm not mistaken. This guy could very well be famous among museum curators, but not among the general public.

Yes. Peering down. The gun doesn't have to be pointed down for you to peer down the barrel. 'Peer along' would be just as good, but this isn't a mistake.

Apart from that...

You've all just been dumb. We've got some fanboys raving maniacally with the age-old 'If you can't do it you can't hate it' logic, and we've got a group of elitist jerks being cruel about peoples choices because they wouldn't deign to read Brown (and I might point out the blademasterzzz started the King thread defending someone people find to be equally vapid).

Stop being such a bunch of pissants and write some decent criticism.

(Incidentally, props go out to mike c for being a reasonable human being)

Heeeey tough guy how about you write some decent criticism. Right now you sound nothing more than a whining broad.

Stewart · 03-10-2006, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE JESUS STRANGLER

I don't have enough interest to "pick it [all] apart," I just wanted a hint of his credentials to size up with those bold words.

Just reading over this again, I am forced to laugh. You are basing my "credentials" as a writer on a piece explicitly placed on this forum for workshopping. The whole purpose of it being here is to guage others' feelings to it and to mop up any errors I may be oblivious to. This is, after all, the purpose of this forum.

That you seem to think I - and others - are in no way permitted to comment upon how we view Dan Brown's ability to write just because we are no published is a joke. Nothing more, nothing less.

But what really annoys me about your feeble points is that supposed errors are being pointed out in my piece (which was only in the drafting phase when posted) and these somehow invalidate my ability to comment upon the finished piece of something that is in print and retailing.

Mike C · 03-10-2006, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_MacLaren

(Incidentally, props go out to mike c for being a reasonable human being)

Sorry, that was unintentional.

THE JESUS STRANGLER · 03-10-2006, 06:02 PM

I was just joking John Connor don't let it get you down.

Stewart · 03-10-2006, 11:34 PM

You missed a comma.

Epiffany · 04-01-2006, 10:12 PM

I was more of an Angels and Demons fan than Da Vinci Code. I mean, its not being taken to court for plagerism like Code, right? Just kidding. I think Da Vinci code was well-written, somewhat well researched, but a good time-filler kind of book overall. Angels and Demons was much better. I've also read Deception Point, which I found to be very similar to his other books, but it was all right.

blademasterzzz · 04-04-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

they wouldn't deign to read Brown (and I might point out the blademasterzzz started the King thread defending someone people find to be equally vapid).

Well, if you can't tell the difference between what King write and what Brown writes: Possibly equally contrived plots, but ridiculous, paper characters on Brown's side, and pretty well developed characters on King's side. King may have written quite a bit of crap, but at least his books AREN'T from the same template, and at least he puts effort into his characters, which is far more than what I can say for Brown, whos only way of developing characters is retelling past events, usually through a flashback.(And it doesn't get more contrived than that.)

And stop with the elitist, snobby remarks, everyone. The saying "Nobody's Perfect" seems to have been forgotten. Although some people are less perfect than others. :-P

G. Palmer · 04-09-2006, 05:46 AM

I voted it boring.

I hate the 'commercial thriller' for the typical reasons.

imrhati · 04-17-2006, 08:19 PM

I really loved the book. the fact that it is a fiction novel ok's the fact that he was off on a some facts. I personally have done extensive research on the freemason's so i thinik i understood things that Brown failed to explain that most reader's wouldn't know making my experience more enjoyable. It also explained things i didin't know very well too.

am i the only one who spotted the "secret message"?

dwellerofthedeep · 04-19-2006, 06:06 PM

I didn't like this book (or any Brown book I have read) because of it's lack of depth, irritating characters (incompetent villains really get to me, and the "good" guys were just dull. Also, as some previous poster have mentioned, the book is fomulaic. I think that statement is very true as the other Brown books I have read appear to have been built on the same template (they all have incompetent assassins as well).

Stewart · 04-20-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imrhati

I personally have done extensive research on the freemason's so i thinik i understood things that Brown failed to explain that most reader's wouldn't know making my experience more enjoyable.

Why would you need to? Knowledge of Freemasonry isn't going to help much with this book given that it's Brown's next "novel" that deals with such content.

Quote:

am i the only one who spotted the "secret message"?

Which one?

Anarkos · 04-20-2006, 04:56 PM

Dan Brown is an illiterate idiot.

Wolfeyes · 04-21-2006, 09:01 PM

It was okay but not rememorable. I thought the author did a good job of tying things in but in the words of a friend "the theology's crap". Still, it really is one of those books that make you think. I was interested enough after reading it to look up the deep sea scrolls. Being truthful though, I recently read Angels and Demons and it was a lot more interesting.
As for the matter of it being "offensive"? I really don't see how. It's a book, a book that's for entertainment, I doubt everything inside the book is meant to be taken seriously.

Spark · 04-21-2006, 09:21 PM

He treated us like morons. It was abrupt, and I felt like I was being jerked all over the place. Thumbs down from me.

Stewart · 04-22-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfeyes

I was interested enough after reading it to look up the deep sea scrolls.

But not interested enough to get their name right?

Quote:

As for the matter of it being "offensive"? I really don't see how.

Offensive not to Catholicism but to users of the English language.

Quote:

It's a book, a book that's for entertainment.

What else is a novel - any novel - for but entertainment? It just happens that there are more literate entertainments out there but they go unnoticed in favour of this weak effort. It just seems, to make an analogy, that many people would rather chew on beef dripping instead of foie gras, which is a sad state of affairs and one that affects all those who would be writers in the future.