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

The Da Vinci Code is a suspenseful and mysterious kind of book. I highly suggest reading it and keeping a copy for yourself.

This was a fantastic read. Was it Chaucer? No. Was it Edgar Allen Poe? Nope. But give me a break, it was a fun book to read. Now about the criticisms I have seen...
I live in South Carolina, pretty near the heart of the Bible Belt. I read a scathing review on the book in the local paper yesterday. At first I was surprised, but then, I realized where I was. If the paper endorsed this book, the majority of its readers would lash against it almost certainly. And then I thought of how the country might react as well, and yeah, surpemely controversial were the words coming to mind.
I do not recommend this book to everyone. If you love chocolate cake with all your heart, and have for all your life, and anyone who might say "Hey, you know, strawberry cake can be just as good" really makes you want to strangle them, then well, this book is not for you. Now if you are more "open", and enjoy hearing another unusual point of view, then get this book right away. I have been a devout Christian all my life, and I loved how this book made me think, period. Some people have said Brown's ideas are unfounded and sorely supported. Unfounded, hmm...And one more thing - I would really like to never see again someone exclaim that they cannot believe good Christians would come on here and say how they enjoyed this book. Firstly, enjoying this book has nothing whatsoever to do with being a good Christian, a good Muslim, a good Hindu, or a giraffe. Secondly, you grossly confuse the word "Christian" as the word "intolerant." If I must be so intolerant or exclusive as to be offended and offset to a rage by a book in the fiction section, then I will gladly choose to be no Christian at all rather than meet [that] definition of the word. I mean come on, I thought witch burnings and inquisitions were outta style by now.
Its about time someone like Brown challenged us all to think more, open our minds. Things arent always about who is right and who's wrong, black and white. An overwhelming majority of the world is not Christian at all. Are they wrong? No, there is no such thing, that is a fruitless argument. Everyone has their own beliefs, and derives something from them. Brown is not trying to crush Christianity, he is simply presenting an argument that is intriguing, controversial, and not usually voiced. More power to him, that took courage.
The story: nothing spectacular, pulp fiction.
Characters: see above
Background (subplot): excellent, loved hearing about the proposed history. Not only religion, but Da Vinci, symbology, past cultures. This is what made the book to me.

The Da Vinci Code is the best book I have ever read. I got chills practically every page!!!

This was a great book, it was full of surprises but it didn't really reveal who the "teacher" was I rate this book 5/5 and i recomend it to anyone above the age of 10.

I very much enjoyed this book. While it was not the most sophisticated writing, I have come across I still found it difficult to put down.

I found the religous content intrigueing. I, however, as a Catholic had no problem with the theory of Jesus and Mary Magdeline, but any strict christians probably would. I thought the theory was interesting and would be even more interesting if it turns out true. I have been given no proof as to either belief, but continue to search for it.

The setting I enjoyed. The art history content was interesting as well.

Overall, I loved this book.

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 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.