What readers think of The Da Vinci Code, plus links to write your own review.

I enjoyed this book for what it is, an intriguing story of fiction. I am a Christian, though I am no historian by any account. I didn't mind the assumptions about Christ's life and the place of Mary Magdelene in it. One obvious facet of The Da Vinci Code is that it does lead to much heated discussion, which actually prompts people to look more deeply into the life of Jesus Christ on their own. As a Christian, I feel that this is a good thing.

I did think Langdon, the protagonist, was a bit...droll. However, I do not know how one would give this type of cerebral character a sharper edge, without pushing the believability too far.

I thought the wealthy, eccentric British chap was a touch more than mildly cliche. I kept getting the feeling of "been there, read that".

As far as the inaccuracies pointed out by others involving the streets of Paris - I'd go so far as to say that I really don't care about that. Even if I went to Paris, I wouldn't make a point of personal verification of these trivialities. The atmosphere of Paris, as a backdrop, seemed appropriate and added to my enjoyment of the story.

I did like the story's pace. I loved the way each section seemed to give a satisfying bit of answer, while posing more ticklish questions. My curiosity went for a joyride in that respect. I realize that most novels these days strive for this balance, but in The Da Vinci Code, I felt is was well achieved.

Overall, thumbs up. Don't take a novel too seriously. You can always do your own research.

I just finished reading the 'Da Vinci Code' by Dan Brown and I'm going to disagree with those who found the novel an insignificant, trivial read without merit. If you're not into art history or figurative & literal symbolism in literature then this is not the book for you. This novel is full of symbols and subliminal messages that invite the reader to take a closer look at the works of one of our most famous & influential artists in history, Leonardo Da Vinci, and that's the central focal point of this story. Before you read this novel, did you ever examine Da Vinci's works closely and wonder why he painted the things he did? What society he was living in back then and the moral fiber they followed? During his time, the Catholic church was the most powerful organization in Europe and if you know anything about European history you know that it was also corrupt and archaic in its methods to force non-Christians to convert to Catholicism. Christians has had a history of subjugating non-Christians to their will. People back then could not openly resist the Church or face dire consequences. Da Vinci was a man ahead of his time not only in terms of art but also in science & engineering. It would not be inconceivable to think that he might have his own ideas & questions about the Church but smart enough to keep his ideas subtle & puzzling. Dan Brown's focus on Da Vinci's paintings & the subliminal messages in them was ingenious and unforgettable. That's the most exciting part about this novel. The religious conclusions made about the Church & the line of Christ is debatable and always will be as long as this subject keeps coming up in books, movies, & threater. There is a paragraph or two in 'The Da Vinci Code' conveying the true meaning of history and man's involvement with it. Those who dominate & win can write history as they see fit. Those who lose will cease to exist in history. Don't get me wrong, I was raised Catholic but I also have my own questions and ideas about the history of Christianity. We can criticize Dan Brown's ideas about Christian history & research forever but the fact of the matter is do you believe the history you know as an undeniable truth or do you question it. Is history all black & white or are there shades of gray that need to be examined further? Critics can find fault with Dan Brown's research & conclusions but you have to respect the guy for having the guts to question history & going further than most people to explore those shades of gray.

I have been reading the Da Vinci Code after much recommendation from my friends and all the Internet hype. I have no problem with the secret information that Dan Brown's heros put together in the book. It doesn't upset my faith. And I have to remember it's just a novel. It is a very clever and intriguing plot. The problem I have with the book is the claim on the frontspeice and Dan Brown's web site about how extensive was the research and how accurate the description of the architecture and buildings. I know this is just fiction, but Dan Brown's sloppy writing makes it difficult for me to keep interested in the book. He obviously didn't do any research about the layout of Paris--his trip from the Ritz to the Louvre past the opera house and through the Place Vendome is almost the old joke ' you can't get there from here.' In one chapter he can't drive a standard transmission on a 4-cylinder car. In the next chapter he's an expert driver in a 10- ton armored car. They just don't put automatic transmissions in vehicles that heavy. He has the trains in Gare St. Lazare wheezing and puffing when French trains hum because they are electric and make no noise whatsoever when they are idle. His use of terms like "nowadays" that would get a freshman a failing grade on a term paper are all through the book. All the lack of accuracy on things that are simple to research makes me suspect that he did any research at all on the complex things that make up the mystery. The "suprise" left in code in by Da Vinci has been available to anyone capable of reading the Gnostic gospels which have been in print since atleast the 1920's . I think this could have been a really great novel if a little more effort were put into the writing. I think the only reason so many people see this as a must read book is its connection with religion.

This is a brilliant book that is great because it makes people think and examine more closely what they believe. The only thing is that this book is missing a couple key ideas. First if the priory indeed worship mary magdelene and she is seen by so many through history as being "saintly" for carying on the bloodline, why are these people not also worshiping Jesus the "provider of the seed"? If she is indeed so important shouldn't the man who chose her and impregnated her recieve some admiration from these groups? NO, he just seems pushed to the side.
And most improtantly, and what classifies this book as fiction, is that no mention is made to Jesus' true purpose on earth; to die for our sins. Something he did do and his cruxifiction and rising from the dead is his proof that he was the son of God, FULLY MAN and FULLY GOD. His resurection, also recorded, recieves no mention is this book. So whether Jesus is married or not and even father or not is not relevent, he died and rose that we might live forever. That was his purpose and without that there would be no reason for any of the early believers to start the church. Even if he was just a man to them he would be recieved as a failure for not doing what he constantly promised and no one would want to spread the name of a failure even if he was a "great man". There were plently of great men in those days if they were looking for the "flavour of the week" to worship.
So not only did Jesus die and rise again he made an impact after his death, not appearing to a handful of people but to over 500 over a month period. For those who see this as troubling it's interesting how the starters of the early church were willing to die for something if their lives had not been changed forever. No one dies for a lie, it's just not worth it.

I am a 17 year old high school student. My tastes usually run towards sci-fi/fanasty, but this book was excellent in terms of pace, story, etc, and I can honestly say it's my new favorite book. After reading the book, I examined many of Da Vinci's paintings and found all of the details matching Brown's descriptions exactly. As a confirmed history buff, I found the wealth of details fasinating, and I want to travel to many of the places Brown mentioned to see all of the symbols he talks about.
I am not a Christian, I am a follower of the Old Ways, and I know that this exposure on the Goddess and the God will help bring understanding to a way of life that has been demonized for the past 2,000 years. While I think Brown may have spent a bit too much ink on the Goddess by herself, instead of the duality of the God/Godess, She has been too long ignored and deserves the extra attention. I do not believe Brown is trying to destroy the Bible, I think he is pointing out that the Bible was written by MORTAL MEN, who natrually added their own perspective. This bias may not have been totally consious, as any writer is unable to totally be unbiased. Upbringing, philosphy, etc, all contribute to a writer's perspective. I also don't think Brown is trying to set Goddess worship as the one true religion. All religions have an equal voice. No, not all of Brown's facts are totally suportable. This is, after all, an amazing work of fiction. However, his grasp of pagan symbology was nearly dead on. While he only chose to discuss a portion of the many symbols of the pentacle, ignoring the natural conatations and focusing on the more estoric connantations, he was still correct. Those with an open mind and an intrest in hearing a new perspective on history will love this book, and I totally recommend reading it.

As far as Fiction goes, this novel was as good as it gets. The plot line was interesting, intelligent and moved quickly. The style if writing was compelling. As a Christian with a strong spiritual interest in Jesus, I can tolerate the potential ramifications that Jesus was a human being with a wife and child. It matters not to me that Jesus has human traits, nor does it matter to Leigh Teabing, who is seemingly the voice of controversy in this book.

It seems to me that Dan Brown is not demonizing religion or the church, but is noting that Christianity is a faith that works towards becoming closer to God, love, compassion and hope, and does not survive on the notion that everything written in the Bible is literally true. There are so many contradictions in the Bible, that anyone with the remotest interest or knowledge of the Bible realizes that much of the text is intended to be allegorical or spiritually motivated. One can believe in God without believing that the Universe was literally created in 6 days, or that Father, Son and Holy spirit literally are one and separate at the same time.

In addition, anyone who spent one minute with his/her head out of the sand knows that many awful things have been done in the name of the Christian churches in the world. From the Crusades in the Middle Ages, to the Reformation in the 1500s, to the sale of indulgences and purchase of Holy offices by powerful men, we know that many a churchman has done evil and/or selfish deeds to either propagate his wealth or further the power of the church. To deny that the church has been immune to the lure of power and wealth would be ridiculous. So why would it be so surprising that members of the Holy Church would kill or lie or destroy information to perpetuate some lies to maintain themselves as the most powerful organization the world has ever known?

Dan Brown's premise is that in the 400s A.D. until today, the church lied, manipulated information and killed to preserve its chosen path. That path was that Jesus IS God, not just the son of God or a prophet of God. They chose this belief, as it would best propagate the myth that the only path to righteousness would be through the Catholic Church. They then joined a battle against all the other beliefs in the world, to ensure that Christianity would gain victory and obtain the pinnacle of human power. He then claims that many Christians believed that women had an equally important part in the mix, and this belief was related to beliefs in earthly balance, masculine and feminine, etc. However, to the Catholic Church, to believe that Jesus was married, had children and a human life would destroy their premise that Jesus was God. Therefore, to discredit the notion that Jesus was a human being, they strove to demonize all that related to the Goddess. They turned the Pentacle into a devil sign, changed words to demonize women, created the myth of Eve and the Apple, Mary Magdelene as a prostitute, etc. They threw out any gospel that might not suit their purposes, burned documents, destroyed information, and killed any who did not subscribe to their narrow set of beliefs.

If Jesus had a wife and child, and the church wanted to assure that nobody would ever take the place of their prophet as the most important religious figure in history, of course they would do anything in their power to prevent those facts from becoming public.

In my opinion, those like Fran are so entrenched in their own beliefs, that they look for inaccuracies to discredit what scares them. If you are a dogmatic Christian, you will feel like Curt Parton and Fran. If you are open-minded, you will realize that although Dan Brown's evidence is certainly not conclusive, it is every bit as reasonable a theory as those perpetuated in the Bible. This argument cannot be won or lost. The inherent simplicity is that the Church was able to destroy most evidence that Jesus was married to Mary and had children. Therefore it would be difficult to prove anything considering the preponderence of evidence to the contrary. So I will not tr to convince most people that their closely held beliefs are based upon conjured facts.

Fran talks about prejudices. She claims that Benjamin's line was not royal, so therefore Dan Brown cannot assert that Benjamin's line had offspring? Fran simply misinterpreted the sentence. Dan was saying that Benjamin's once royal line could have had offspring in Jesus. Fran totally misrepresents the way Dan Brown was using the Holy Grail as a term. Fran would have you believe that because the bible does not say much about the Holy Grail, it somehow discredits the theory that the Sangreal (Holy Grail) is actually the blood line of Jesus. This argument makes me believe that Fran did not even finish the book. With 200 pages to go, we understand that the Holy Grail is not an object, but a spiritual idea. Fran would have you believe that because the Gospel of Phillip uses Greek instead of Aramaic, he can dismiss Brown's theory that the relationship between Mary and Jesus was human.

This strikes me as a prejudicial argument. Fran and others cannot conceive that they are wrong, and that their closely held beliefs are the only path to God. Fran would label us all heretics, if we do not believe every literal word of the Bible. Fran believes Mary Magdelene was a prostitue, and cannot be convinced otherwise, regardless of factual evidence presented. I hope that this makes her feel closer to God, because I cannot for the life of me understand why it is important.

I will say this, I do not necessarily believe Dan Brown's theory. However, I will also say that many Christians view the Bible as an allegorical tool to bring us closer to God. I can find the space in my mind and heart to believe that the Bible is metaphorically true, while at the same time I can believe in the Big Bang theory. I can find the space in my mind and heart to believe that even if the Virgin Mary was really a married woman, Jesus is still my inspiration and my gospel. Finally, as an amateur historian, I can easily believe that the church manipulated the Bible to suit their purposes. Men are flawed, and power corrupts. Men wrote the gospels, and men edited the gospels, and men decided which gospels to include in the bible. However, we were all told that the Bible was written by God, despite the obvious contridictions in that statement. So, you can be like Fran, and dismiss all ideas outright. OR, you can open you mind, enjoy a good read, and stretch your boundaries a little bit.

If your faith is strong enough, it won't matter a bit. :)

I agree with Curt Parton. Brown's research is stunning in it's shoddiness. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Bible can find many errors. The kingly line of Benjamin? Sorry Dan, that would have been Judah. The only king in Benjamin's line was Saul-and he was elected by the people and dethroned by God. The Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus' birth, so obviously don't mention him except prophetically as the coming messiah. They certainly don't refer to him by name. Brown contends that the idea of "the holy grail" being a cup is from the Bible. The fact is that the cup at the Passover meal (Da Vinci's Last Supper) is mentioned only in passing and never venerated as something holy. Brown claims that in the Gospel of Phillip, Mary Magdalene is called Jesus' companion and "as any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse." Maybe so, but unless Brown's character was speaking to Phillip personnally, it doesn't matter what it means in Aramaic. The gospels were written in Koinonia Greek; Aramaic was the commonly spokenlanguage of Jesus' day.

Sadly, many people will take this book as historically accurate when it apparently is just Brown advancing his prejudices.

Curt Parton has said it best so far. Read below.

And for my 2 cents: I'm a lazy reader and yet blaming CHRISTIANS for (so he seems to imply??) writing GENESIS (pp. 238) -- huh?

Also did anyone get the sense this guy was using a computer to help him write it? 'Clambering excitedly' , 'unnerving pause', 'feeling a shiver of anticipation'...

enough of that PRAC! give me something to worthy of readers.