Write your own review!
Considering that I am a biography buff I enjoyed the book a great deal. At some point I didn't understand what Brown was implying about Mary Magdelene was she the wife of Jesus or the mother of Jesus. I also found Robert Langdon's character a bit too mild and not quite as intelligent as he should be considering his background. The end for me was too contrived. All in all however, I did enjoy the book and highly recommend it.
Ree
I loved the Da Vinci Code - anything that can get the "good old boys" I work with to forget about football, basketball, baseball, golf, etc... at lunch - and carry on a conversation - well, hey! "I appreciate!"
River Ackerman
Okay, this book has been floating about our school, (I'm 16, by the way) and I myself recently picked up a friend's copy and turned to the inside jacket cover of her hardback copy. I then noticed something strange. Some of the letters are bolded, and the idea popped into my head "Why couldn't there be a code inside a book about a code?" So, I wrote down the letters I found, but the middle makes no sense. Maybe someone else has figured out what it means, or maybe someone can point out that I missed a letter or something. I got this : "Is the rehohlp for the widow" The "reholp" doesn't make sense to me, but maybe someone else can figure it out. "hlp" could be "help". Anyway, if anyone has any ideas or have already figured out what it means, please email me. My email is
River's email so if anyone can help, that would be greatly appreciated. Maybe someone else has already figured it out, but if not, you might want to go back and check. I should probably note that I have yet to actually READ the book, so maybe this clue will help figure out the book. Who knows?!? Anyway, any help would be great!
~River~
I rarely ever post things on sights like this, mostly because I respect the right for others to share their opinions without wanting to argue about my own. However, I am very frustrated reading some of these posts. I just read a comment that said the book was inaccurate because in one chapter Langdon couldn't drive a stick shift and later he drove an armored truck. Goodness!! Personally I read quickly and often miss details but if you are going to be critical then make sure your facts are straight. Langdon did NOT drive an armored car, the bank owner did. There are many other such statements on these pages. I'm sure there are mistakes here and there, most things have them. I'm sure the book did not get through the publishing process without meeting some kind of standard of accuracy. For Pete's sake this is a fictional novel and the reader is expected to suspend their disbelief in order to enjoy the book. If the topic of the story weren’t so controversial no one would be arguing this.
Everyone has a right to have, and post, their thoughts on this book. That is one of the great things about the great WWW. My opinion is that too many out there are assuming this book is more than it is. It is a work of fiction. No one involved in the creating of the book has claimed that it is any more. However, it is true that the church has minimized the role of women in the church, most history has done that. It is true that Mary was said to be a prostitute that Jesus felt pity for, which has been proven false. The things told in The Da Vince Code about Leonardo's paintings all appeared when I looked for them. While I don't think that this is by any means a map to the final resting place of the Holy Grail, obviously lots of research and hard work has gone into this book. For those of you who are so sure you are right and Dan Brown is wrong, I encourage you to do your own research and write your own book.
Yes, it seems everyone has gone mad; I agree with Marie Smith. The characterization in this book has all the depth of a mediocre adventure comic book from the 1950's and there are too many easy escapes and short, choppy chapters. Isn't the author capable of sustaining action and dialogue? Clotted cream in tea? How bizarre; the clotted cream is served with scones or other pastries, not dumped into tea itself.
On a more serious level I was appalled by the acceptance by readers of Brown's version of "history" in terms of the Catholic church. His scholarship consists of a mishmash of legend, half-truths, stories from the apochrypha and bald statements (for example his allusions to the existence of gospels in the Dead Sea Scrolls) that have no basis in scientifically research. Mary Magdalene, considered a holy saint by Catholics since the earliest time, is the author's symbol of "the sacred feminine," supposedly suppressed by the Church, in its relentless effort to subjugate women. Practicing Catholics will be mystified by this, since our most powerful source of comfort and understanding, beyond the Trinity, is the Virgin Mary, a deeply venerated and definitely feminine figure of the Church. How many other Christian churches are as devoted to a woman? I was disappointed in this book and saddened to find so many of the old superstitions about the Church perpetuated for the sake of a best-selling potboiler. A Minority Reporter
