The Da Vinci Code

Rating:
Summary: Jesus was of the Royal House of David
Review: In reply to 'A reader from St. Louis MO United States '- Even if you do not except that Jesus was the Son of God- he was of the house of David (KING david) and therefore of a "Royal" lineage

Rating:
Summary: Wafer thin
Review: In school I was told that every book should at least have one round character for it to be interesting. In The Da Vinci Code, all the characters are as flat and unappealing as roadkill. No character development whatsoever is present, and the motivations of both protagonists and antagonists are wafer thin (pun intended).

What's worse, although the plot starts off sort of promising, it soon starts te develop along the lines of the Hollywood Assembly Line. The fact that each and every character turns out to be connected one way or another is not only not credible, but annoying as well. The same goes for the (little) cliffhangers at the end of every chapter.

The pieces of the plot fit together to easily to make this book a captivating read - all the interesting facts on religion and Da Vinci notwithstanding, and the way the plot is resolved at the end of the book left me feeling cheated.

For me, the letdown started approximately two-third trough the book, in a scene where the identity of The Teacher is revealed because of Dan Brown trying to hard not to. To add insult to injury, near the end of the book Mr. Brown, evidently feeling the need to show to the reader just how clever he has been, once more returns to this scene to explain what "really happened".

If you're looking for an easy to digest holiday read for those hung over mornings on the beach, and you're easy to please, maybe The Da Vinci Code does fit your bill.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book!
Review: In settling on a title for this review, I was at a loss to find the right adjective. Compelling? Intriguing? Informative? Gripping? All of the above, actually. I settled on "great," because I truly believe this book will be read as a classic of this era.

The book is an amazing learning experience, opening my mind to realms of thought and beliefs I never knew anyone espoused. As one who has always loathed history books, the education garnered from Brown's writing was assimilated without a fuss. Indeed, I absorbed willingly.

I enjoyed a similar experience from James Goldman's brilliant play, "The Lion In Winter." It's apparently useful to have the characters brought to life and given dimesion, not some dry account of their actions and their relevance to history.

The plot, stripped of its embellishments, is basic enough. Even trite. A man is accused of a crime he didn't commit, and with the aid of his brilliant, charming lady cryptographer, struggles to prove his innocence. But fiction readers of all stripes will find something to appeal, from mystery to history, and even a love story.

Dan Brown will prove to be recognized as one of the greatest writers of our time.

Rating:
Summary: Horrible tripe of a novel, i Lost IQ points reading it
Review: In short I wish I could give negative stars for this book. For someone who is trying to "expose" things, the author gets several of his so called "facts" wrong. First Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Empire, he merely LEGALIZED it, his successor Theodosius made it the official religion. Second, SOPHIA is spelled with a ph in Greek, attic or otherwise, not with F as it is Latin. Finally, the ending was both predictable and nonsensical. He spends about oh, 300 pages establishing the DCPJ chief as the "Teacher" then about 20 pages near the end decides no wait, i'll make it Teabing because that just seems cooler. He's been watching THE SUBSITUTE and many other movies that have this hackneyed plot device too many times. As a professor of ancient and medieval history, Brown has done a grave disservice to my profession. While one would think that it should end with this, it doesn't. In future I will be forced to teach students who have read this tripe and believe it was real or that the author did any reasearch outside of a 100 level course textbook. One more thing, Saturnalia was the ancient festival of Saturn, one of the Titans who did not die and come back to life after five days, the five days refer to the lag time between the end and the beginning of the Roman political calender. It was also the festival of about every other eastern deity. I hope Catholic bashing goes out of style soon and its very sad that Brown will profit from both this book and the future movie which will be spawned by Satan himself. But im sure WICCA will love this one

Rating:
Summary: The Da Vinci Code
Review: In spite of the sophisticated subject, and the author's apparent exhaustive research of it, I found Mr. Brown's writing style extremely tedious, naive and boring, after the first 100 pages. There were definitely some interesting, thought-provoking passages, but all in all, he was far too heavy on the travel-guide writing style...Did we really need to know exactly where the restrooms were in the Louvre, and be twice-told that the American Embassy was "just a mile away", or "now just under a mile away", etc. Also, did we care that there was an inverted pyramid inside the building, as well as the pyramid-entrance outside the Louvre, and that they were designed by I.M. Pei? That sounds petty, I know, but I found his detailed descriptive asides a bore, after the first several hundred. His constant use of italics was another example of what I call his naive, "high-school writing class" method of handling conversations between the main characters. It was as though he thought we, the readers, might need to be helped to "get" what he was saying. Also, his having the characters too frequently respond to a statement with a question which repeated the statement was not terribly sophisticated, for a writer of his reputation. An example (not from the book, but similar in structure) would be: He: "It's raining now." She: "Do you mean it's raining (italicized) now?" Well, you get the idea. I have never seen so many italicized words and phrases in a book as were in this one...perhaps the author thought the italicized word or phrase added "mystery"?

Rating:
Summary: Okay, I have read the novel and here is what I think...
Review: In the "Poetics," his famous study of Greek dramatic art, Aristotle compares tragedy to such other metrical forms as comedy and epic poetry. He argues that tragedy, like all poetry, is a kind of imitation (mimesis), but adds that it has a serious purpose and uses direct action rather than narrative to achieve its ends. Aristotle holds that poetic mimesis is imitation of things as they could be, not as they are (i.e., of universals and ideals). Consequently, poetry--that is to say, all literature--is a more philosophical and exalted medium than history, which merely records what actually happened. Aristotle was defending poetry as much as explaining it because there were those in ancient Greece who were deeply offended that anyone should create works of fiction.

That would seem to explain some of the reaction to Dan Brown's bestseller, "The Da Vinci Code," that has enraged many theologians who have denounced it as anti-Catholic. Brown takes some credible theories about the early Christians, mines the paintings of Leonardo for helpful symbolism, and creates a series of codes left behind by a dying man, to create a thriller with Biblical implications. However, along the way there is a consistent and compelling critique, not so much of the Catholic Church of today, but of the early history of Christianity. The person who takes the biggest drubbing in the book is not the Pope (either one of them that figure in the story), but the Emperor Constantine. The idea that "The Da Vinci Code" constitutes a revisionist view of Christianity is pretty ironic since it was Paul's transformation of the teachings of Jesus into something more palatable for the Gentiles of the Roman Empire, the history of Christianity has been one of transformation.

The big question then becomes whether or not "The Da Vinci Code" is a theological argument dressed up as a mystery that should have been advanced as a scholarly treatise. The position that Christianity fueled a patriarchal society at the expense of Mother Earth permeates the novel, but ultimately it is part of the rationale for solving the mystery, existing more as a function of narrative than a rhetorical stance. Then again, I have no problem with the idea that Jesus will always be an important historical figure, regardless of what information might be discovered or revealed in the future. By the same token, speculation about a possible marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene does nothing to distract from the power of his ministry. On the other hand, I fully realize that such a position will be regarded by a great many as heresy, so I grant that the very premise of Brown's novel will be considered offensive by a great many people. All I can offer in response is the belief that Brown was not intending to challenge such beliefs, but wanted to take some interesting ideas and creatively filling some gaps to make a compelling mystery. The key supporting evidence for this idea would be that most of the key characters take all of this for granted, so that they are always explaining rather than advocating these various ideas.

Of course, there will be those who are disappointed to find out that everything in this fictional novel is not true and who will be upset that this is indeed a work of fiction. But so what if Leonardo Da Vinci did not hide clues about church secrets in his paintings? All Brown needs is a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of his readers (which may be another reason that true believers are grossly offended by the theological "politics" of this novel); from the perspective of symbolists you can "find" lots of things in any artwork from Da Vinci to Degas to Dali to Dr. Seuss. The idea that that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is a potent one because it speaks to the power of redemption, where even a fallen woman can be saved. Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion are real organizations, but unless you were well vested in such things it would not have mattered if Brown had made up names for the two groups. But clearly Brown wanted to keep his story as close to the real world as possible, for obvious reasons. If you want to separate the truth from fiction with "The Da Vinci Code," then just wait patiently: I am sure several books claiming to do just that will be published in 2004 (and all of them together will probably sell one-tenth as many copies as Brown's novel). It would especially be nice to have a book that collects images of all the works of art and places that are so pivotal in the novel.

"The Da Vinci Code" is a quick and engaging read, where the storytelling matters more than the writing, especially when we are involved in breaking the various codes and making the pieces fit. Actually, I was rather surprised that the cast of characters remained rather small, but the scope of the conspiracy has historical depth rather than contemporary breadth (turning the novel into a screenplay is not going to be difficult: i.e., no characters of subplots have to be eliminated). The characters exist to play the games, solve the riddles, and break the codes because very few readers are going to have a chance to do any of that. I know that Da Vinci wrote backwards in his notebooks and that there are strong similarities between the face of the Mona Lisa and Da Vinci's self portrait, so I was ahead of the curve on a few points, but overall I was just along for the ride (I also knew a bit from playing "Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned"). The ending made sense to me from both a narrative standpoint, especially in terms of what ending you could hope to get away with in the context of keeping the story as "real" as possible. But there is also the attendant irony, given the controversy over the book's "attack" on the Chruch, that the ending constitutes more of a matter of faith.

Rating:
Summary: Don't Take It as Gospel
Review: In the beginning I was intrigued by the premise set down in THE DA VINCI CODE, but my initial interest turned first to annoyance and then by the time I got to the info on Disney I was laughing so hard at the absurdity of the whole novel. First of all, this is a work of fiction, so let's deal with that part. Far from being the taut, fast-paced thriller that the potential reader is lead to believe it is, TDVC is turgid, jerky, and filled with clichés. The characters are characterless and stupid, merely cardboard for the author to push around like pawns on a chessboard. Langford, a Harvard professor, can't distinguish between backwards English and a Semitic language. Sophie, a French police cryptologist, doesn't have the brains to figure out that an armor truck from a Swiss bank might be lo-jacked. These are only two of the many idiotic things the main characters aren't intelligent enough to figure out. The characters ponder clues ad nauseum, which turns a 300-page book into 454 pages. I don't know if the author is writing down to his audience, or if he really thinks that gifted people are idiot savants. Whatever it is, it's exasperating.
Another annoyance is the so-called facts peppered throughout the books, most of which are incorrect. I like to call them fractoids, fractured facts. Venus does not subscribe a perfect pentacle in the sky over an eight-year cycle. This is an occult folklore and does not physically happen. How do we know this? Astronomers have actually looked at Venus over time. If you have astronomy software, you can check it out yourself. Then the author appends the Olympics to this Venus-cycle. Not true. The Olympics had nothing to do with Venus. Zeus, yes. Venus, no. The author thinks the left brain is illogic. Wrong. The right brain is the side that controls the fragmented dream-like images and intuition and the left side of the body. The left brain is the place of logic and mathematics and controls the right side of the body. Latin from which Italian derives sinistra was used by the pagan ancient Romans before the Roman Catholic Church used it. The left became associated with the abnormal, because right-handedness occurs naturally more often than left-handedness. Ancient Greece and Rome were male-dominated cultures so naturally the right would be considered masculine and the left with the female. If the author gets these small things wrong, what else does he get wrong? Everything about Leonardo. Let's take The Madonna on the Rocks. The author thinks Jesus giving John the Baptist his blessing is odd. The angel with the pointing finger is indicating that John precedes Christ and will announce Christ's coming as the Messiah. The Madonna's hand is palm flat and slightly angled, but hardly clawlike. This little vignette is a foreshadowing of St. John recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. In the New Testament, Jesus comes to the river Jordan to be baptized by John. John acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah, the sky opens; the voice of God speaks; the dove (a symbol of the Holy Ghost) comes down. Voila, "This is my son." It also has to do with the Immaculate Conception, which was a very controversial idea at the time. This proves that Brown doesn't understand the iconography of Renaissance paintings. Any of the symbols that Brown, through Langdon, attributes to Mary Magdalene, are actually attributes of Mary, the Mother of God: the rose, the chalice, and the vessel. In fact, if you look at a painting of the Annunciation, where the Archangel Gabriel comes to tell Mary she is to be the Mother of God she is often depicted in a domestic interior with a clear vase nearby and light shining through the vase. This symbolizes Mary, the vase or vessel, which is being penetrated by the light (God). Get it? Neoplatonism, a current philosophy of the time, may have influenced Leonardo, like it did the artist Botticelli (Sandro Fillipi), but Leonardo was an engineer, a science geek. The quotes from Leonardo used by Brown regarding religion only prove this. They do not prove he was a guardian of the feminine divine or a goddess worshipper. Why is Mary Magdalene important? Okay, she could be the right-hand apostle. Women were an important part of the Early Church. Yes, the Christian church changed over time. Even the nature of Jesus was debated. Anyone who reads about the history of Christianity knows this. No, she is not the prostitute in the New Testament. Anyone who actually reads his or her Bible knows this. However, in this book, Mary Magdalene's importance is derived from a man, from Jesus. She is not important independently. She becomes the vessel for Jesus's seed. With all the strong, Pagan independent Goddesses like Athena, Inanna, Ishtar, why are we to be astonished or awestruck at the burial place of human woman whose importance derives solely from being associated with a male? Her significance is only relevant because of his significance. It just doesn't have much punch.
This is a work of fiction. Not a very original one at that. THE DAUGHTER OF GOD came out in 2000. However, because Brown asserts at the beginning of the book that these facts are true, many people will be misled into believing that this work of fiction is true. I would hope that people would read something besides the Starbird books and HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL. Do not take those books or THE DA VINCI CODE as gospel.
Some may find it challenging, others won't. I found it tedious. BTW, I am not a Christian, but as an educated person with a B.A. in the history of art, this book is an affront on so many levels.

Rating:
Summary: Mary Magdalene vs Mary, Mother of Jesus
Review: In the book, Brown does give some interesting artistic information, particularly about da Vinci's "Last Supper" painting that was commissioned for the Dominicans (Order of Preachers). As Brown states, it COULD be Mary Magdalene sitting next to Jesus on the left as one faces the picture. Mary Magdalene happens to be the patroness of the Dominican Order. She is regarded as the first "apostle" since she was the first to see Jesus after His resurrection and go tell the other apostles about it as instructed by Jesus. The face is definitely feminine and not masculine. I do not believe Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married as Brown opines since the Gospels never mention it. In fact, celibacy is praised by the Lord for the "sake of the Kingdom" and St. Paul does the same in his first letter to the Corinthians (7: 25-28), and NOT because human sexuality is "evil"-that would be a very anti-Jewish concept! And Jesus was a Jew. It was also believed that Jesus was going to return imminently so why get married? Jesus said that there was "no marriage or giving in marriage in Heaven": we will be like the "angels" (Matthew 22: 29-32).

In the Gospel of John, Judas left the Last Supper early when it was "night." So there are still 13 persons at the table in da Vinci's painting. This Gospel doesn't record a consecration/communion scene like the other three Gospels, however). Jesus' Body and Blood are discussed in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel. John is actually reclining on Jesus' chest because Peter tells John to ask the Lord who the betrayer is (also in the Gospel of John). In the painting, then, John is close to Jesus' right.

In discussing the "sacred feminine" author Brown completely ignores Mary, the mother of Jesus. Why? She is certainly the most popular woman in the Gospels and in Christianity to this very day! The most popular devotion is the "Rosary" in Catholicism (coming from the word "ROSE") which have "mysteries" recounting certain pivotal events in the lives of Jesus and Mary that one meditates on while praying. Praying the Rosary is a devotion that did not originate with the Dominican Order but subsequently was taken up by the Order as a devotional practice and used in preaching as well.

The Virgin Birth? Why so difficult to believe? God creates all persons: if Jesus was the Son of God (the Father) the egg (of Mary) would have to be fertilized by the "Holy Spirit." God can't do this? This is no more a miracle than each of us are! Does one make one's own body or any part thereof? Jesus had to be divine as well as human in order to effect our salvation.

Rating:
Summary: Murder, art, and relgion: This book has it all
Review: In The Da Vinci Code, author Dan Brown combines murder, intrigue, religion, and the art world and comes up with an exciting read. The story opens in the Louvre, where the curator has just been killed. His granddaughter, Sophie, a police agent, and Robert Langdon, a famous American "symbologist" become involved in the case - at first to help solve the crime, and then, as the prime suspects. The crime is connected to two religious organizations; one's mission is to guard the secret truth about the Holy Grail, and the other's job is to keep that information from ever being told. The action moves from Paris to Rome and on to London in a frantic race to not only solve the murder, but possibly to change the course of Christianity forever.

I loved the first one-third of this book! It was so well-written, I had goosebumps and could not put it down. The characters are interesting and the plot (in the beginning) is dynamite. The middle section - which explains the role of the Grail - got bogged down in the details. The author is exceptionally well-versed in the history of the Opus Dei and Priory of Sion societies. (Members of the later have included such illuminati as Da Vinci, Botticelli, and Newton over the centuries.) The problem is, he spends too much time explaining their theories and the action and suspense that characterized the beginning of the book are lost. The final third, where the story moves to London, regains the original excitement and fast pace and it is, overall, a very good story.

Brown knows his art history, and I couldn't help but look up many paintings and artists as he described their significance to the plot. Those who have been to Paris or London will enjoy revisiting those cities here. I learned a lot about art, religion, history, and even word origins from reading The Da Vinci Code. I think it would make an exciting movie. I heartily recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: An Empty House on Mango Street
Review: In the House on Mango Street, the story of a struggling Mexican American family is told through the perspective of their eldest daughter Esperanza. Esperanza, a name which means hope in Spanish, narrates her life throughout the story as she comments on her growth into a woman and her struggles to break free from her culture's gender roles. Although author Susan Cisneros poetic style adds beauty to the story through rich imagery and style, the novel lacks such richness in plot and character development.
As the story begins, the family moves into a rundown house located on Mango Street. The house is not what Esperanza had expected. Unlike her dream of a large expensive house, she finds herself once again living in a poor house in the Barrio. It is at this point that Esperanza reveals that her greatest dream is to one day have a house of her own which is far different than the one on Mango Street. Unlike what Esperanza has ever know, she decides that one day she will have a nice house with a white fence and flowers in the yard.
Although the story does give perceptions into the people around Esperanza, we are more or less left questioning who these people are and what their relevance is to Esperanza's development. The characters in the novel are colorful and interesting yet often times lack depth and we as readers and not left with a clear sense of what it is that makes them tick. Instead we are given only a brief description of characters with Esperanza's comments as our only clue to understanding them. Without more knowledge or reference to these characters, we cannot understand the dynamic in which Esperanza has to interact with and we are left feeling like the only character we really know is Esperanza.
Unlike a plot with a distinct set of events or interactions with other characters, the story line seemed redundant and lacking excitement. I often founds that the novel would loose my attention in a vast sea of wording and imagery with little else. Although Cisneros style of writing greatly added to the story, there was little else that was substantial enough to keep the reader interested. Also, unlike a plot in which there is a distinct story line, the plot is vaguer and free floating due to the nature of the narration. Rather than following along with a story line, we are following along with the mind of a young child. This style of writing can make the story slow in areas and lacking greatly in others.
Although the story seems at time over simplistic and lacking depth, it is a well written book filled with a sense of poetic writing and strong imagery. The book is a light and easy read that can be finished in the course of the weekend. Although at times the novel seems vague and scattered, the overall messages were well conveyed. Throughout the story, the reader is left with a clear understanding of Esperanza's society and the radical division in gender roles.