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

I had to use a large piece of lined paper as a bookmark. I made a list of all of the words and phrases I did not know and looked up in dictionary or internet.
It was a book requiring a lot of concentration. It did hold my interest throughout, however I felt let down by the ending. The point of view is just as plausible as any other. Since I am an agnostic, I did delight in most of the contradictions with existing Christian belief.

I enjoyed this book so much, because it discussed a topic that I was unfamiliar with. It was never slow moving or boring. The mystery was not so difficult to understand that it took away from the story, but was just out of reach so it wasnt instantly decipherable. Even if it is not historically accurate, its interesting, and mindblowing to think that it is possible. As a Catholic, I was not offended by this book, because it is fiction! It's is important to remember that it might not be historically accurate. Even if a book may disagree with ones religion, it shouldnt hinder one from enjoying the story.

Fabulous! Brown mixes history with fiction with a creativity similar to Michener. This book should have all the Bible thumpers scratching their heads!! I am a new fan of DaVinci and certainly of Dan Brown.

I am a first reader of Dan Brown's books. It was magnificently written. It kept me wanting to read until the end was reached and the mystery solved. I loved learning more about the history of religion and facts before not know to me. I hope that Mr. Brown keeps writing as I will continue reading his works. In fact I intend to purchase several of his older books. Much of the history in this book, was told to me before by a religious person in the know.

I liked the book purely as a story-teller's story. It matters not whether the history in it is purely accurate. After all, it is on the fiction shelves! It reminded me on a smaller scale of Umberto Eco's Foucoult's Pendulum. As for the outrage of those of the Church, everyone knows that every organization has it's deep secrets and scandulous goings-on. All the author does is use real things in the world to propel his story; the Jesus/Magda-lene thing is pure poetic license, and has been speculated on for centuries. Lighten up, have a good read, and go back to Mass on Sunday!

Well written, but very disappointed on the author's take on historical facts, what a let down.

Simply as a page-turner, this book is fairly effective. Most readers agree that it is engrossing and will keep your attention to the end. However, I am completely amazed that so many are taking this author's premises seriously. To those who are so inclined, I challenge you to do the research for yourself and see just how accurate, or inaccurate, this book really is.

Brown quotes the old saying that the victor gets to write the history; apparently, the novelist is supposed to have the same prerogative. This book sounds as if it's been exhaustively researched, but it is entirely without historical basis. In fact, in many places Brown's claims are in direct opposition to historical fact.

Symbology: Brown writes elaborate meanings for many symbols. Where did he get this information? I can't find any support for his explanation of the pentacle, for example, even from pagan sources! The rest of his symbology is just as problematic.

Leonardo da Vinci: Brown's "facts" about Leonardo are based on rumor and speculation. Where he does use history, he usually gets it wrong. I suggest you check out Bruce Boucher's article in the NY Times (8/3/03), "Does 'The Da Vinci Code' Crack Leonardo?" He asks the question, "How much does this murder mystery have to do with the real Leonardo? The short answer is not much, and the author's grasp of the historical Leonardo is shaky." He says there is "more sangria than sangreal" here.

Secret societies: Here again, his "research" consists of speculation and myth. For another view, take a look at "The Priory of Sion Hoax" by Robert Richardson.

History of Christianity: Here his work is absolutely appalling. Brown seeks to entirely rewrite history to fit his plot. Christianity existed for almost 300 years before Constantine came to power. The beliefs of the early church are very well-documented. To claim that Constantine was responsible for the church worshipping Christ as God is historically laughable. Whether you believe Jesus Christ is God or not, it is historically incontrovertible that the early church believed just that.

Here again, the author often reverses known historical facts. The NT gospels, which Brown depicts as later revisions, were actually written in the 1st century---three of them fairly soon after the death of Christ. The Nag Hammadi gospels, which Brown refers to as the "earlier gospels," were written hundreds of years later and obviously lack the historical integrity of the NT gospels. Check them out for yourself.

Brown claims that the Nicene Council voted on the deity of Christ. They actually voted to determine whether Arius was a heretic. Arius was teaching that Christ was God, but not in the same way that the Father was God. Out of over 300 bishops, only 2 supported Arius. Brown refers to this as a "relatively close vote."

As I read this book, I began to compile a list of the author's blatant inaccuracies. It quickly became dizzying. Practically every historical claim either contains inaccuracies or is outright false. Dan Brown is either completely ignorant regarding the history of which he writes, or he is counting on the ignorance of his readers. I find it difficult to believe that his research was really this shoddy. To produce even a work of fiction that uses such blatantly inaccurate claims of historical fact is arrogant and dishonest. That this book is being hailed the way it is should be a concern to all who love and seek truth.

The Da Vinci Code is one of the worst written books that I have had the misfortune of reading (and I only finished it because it was highly recommended by a good friend).

As has been mentioned by some reviewers, much of the plot can be easily anticipated by readers with a generally good (but not expert) knowledge of religion and European history. The book contains long sections with characters who are experts in the fields of cryptology and art history who are stumped by matters that are typically covered in any good art history survey course. The dialogue is awful.

As for Jesus' "true" message or meaning and his supposed relations with Mary Magdelene -- these are open for anyone to ponder and speculate about and The Da Vinci Code presents no decent information about either. For those interested in serious but generally accesible work on the gospels and early Christianity, I recommend the books of Elaine Pagels (particularly "The Gnostic Gospels") as an excellent strating point.

For anyone interested in a good historical mystery, I recommend "An Instance of the Fingerpost" by Iain Pears -- very well written and researched.

That a book as poor as The Da Vinci Code has achieved bestseller status and has received generally good reviews is a very sad commentary on the present state of reading habits and general overall knowledge.