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

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.

i am 21 years old, and i have read this book over 5 times now, and each time i read it..i always discover something new which i have never noticed before. this amazing quality was quite absent in all the others books i ve read.all through the book, the way brown has woven such a beautiful work, with all the peices falling in place at the right time. the suspense, the anagrams, the puzzles, and the greatest mystery which is unleashed at the end.. sure keeps the reader at the edge of his seat. i ve no doubt, leaving all religious stuff aside, one will truly enjoy the book for its breath-taking mystery and am sure that this book is going to make history...

A good read, but many of the assertions of FACT are suspect or previously disproved.
It draws quite heavily for these "facts" on 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' - a book published some years ago.
Without giving away too many details, the conclusion is that the Holy Grail is not a cup/chalice with
miraculous powers, but a closely guarded secret about a bloodline.
This assertion is challenged head on by The Ultimate Quest, published before The Da Vinci Code.
The book is much more than it at first seems. You can find details and review extracts at
www.rolandoliver.co.uk

Charles,
You note the discrepency in the length of the driveway but you have failed to take note of the owner's problems with the French government and bureaucracy. Brown has amplified this in a spectacular way in that in this short time they have resumed half his land.

Whether or not "The Da Vinci Code" is a good book is, of course, a matter of opinion. What amazes me, as well as many others, judging from reviews posted here, is how badly written it is. I am not here writing about errors of fact, of which I could care less. Or whether or not it is suspenseful (which I found it not to be) or interesting (which I found it mildly to be). I'm writing about how BADLY written the book is. Bad grammar, terrible syntax, blocked metaphors, absurd similes, etc. etc. etc. For those of us for whom part of the pleasure of reading is in the author's use of language, this is a TERRIBLE book. I do not demand that every book I read be a timeless work of elegant and graceful prose, but there ARE minimum standards. And this book, time and again, failed to meet them.

I enjoyed this book. I felt like it contained enough information to convey a sense of conspiracy within a generally traditional and reputable institution such as the Catholic church. Any false information that Brown prints in this book should be forgiven since the genre of the novel is FICTION. Fiction meaning not fact, but fake.

I enjoyed it thoroughly without having to analyze every meticulous detail about it. It's fiction. Get over it.

An afterthought on the development of Christianity - Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' provides a great account of the varying reasons Constantine converted Rome to Christianity. Almost none of Dan Brown's 'scholarship' in this area or around the Council of Nicea stands up to even 15 minutes research. Still could have been an interesting theme for a thriller, however - but this is not it.