some of those close to me have heard or read my tirades on this novel. but as this is a new blog and new year, i'm coming back with it. this time i'm not sticking to an, "it sucks" argument. it does suck. and here's why...
first, the concept of the story. how is this at all new? how has anyone lived more than 18 years of his or her life and not heard of any other work that suggests the key points of this trite and overdone story? cryptology and conspiracy theory aside, who hasn't heard or even come up with, completely on their own, the possibility of mary magdalene having been jesus' wife and bearing his children? even if you do consider the conspiracy theory side of it - the involvement of secret societies guarding the "truth" about jesus christ's lineage - it is not new. if it were new, it is not still not that original. any person can come up with such a plot. the expression of it would be where it counts. it would be what sets this apart from any work that touches on similar ideas. so let's explore that.
it's so difficult to know where to start and what to end on: the tired prose; the exhausting repetition of the same descriptive words; the horrendous dialogue; this suspense drama that impossibly some how comes off as a harlequin romance without the sweaty sex in a barnyard or some hidden cape; the attempts at suspense and cliff hangers that any well read person can see right through; the claims of factual evidence before and after the actual story when those things have been proven to be hoaxes by the very people who invented them; the attempts at dynamic characters that are actually quite boring and bland as though brown intended them to come off as a pig in a dress; and the very worst part being a claim that this isn't some big, blockbuster, hollywood movie when it is completely executed as one (and subsequently turned into one).
fans love to come up with the "IT'S FICTION!!!" argument against those of us who find this book to be nothing more than a horrible waste of environmental agents to mass produce such a ridiculous novel. please read this and understand it: there are a great deal of people out there who don't care at all about its religious connotations. so take that argument completely out of the picture. this is not about offense over a sensitive subject. this is about a book that was not good from conceptualization to execution. but even without the religious debate surrounding it, there are still TDVC lovers who argue that brown's complete disregard for historical fact is still okay because it is fiction. sorry, no. that's not how it works. this was not a fantasy or science fiction novel taking place in a made up world. this is, whether you realize it or not, reality based fiction. dan brown intended it to be so. and the man did not do his research. that's the thing with reality based fiction, one needs to do his or her research or be able to depict life accurately and believably. you can create a made up town in alaska. you cannot describe alaska as a tropical island. you almost have to come up with completely fictional people. you cannot give them hooves instead of feet or purple polka dots on their hot pink third and fourth arms. you can give an alternate explanation to historical events. you cannot depict them as not happening at all or happening differently.
now, though i admit to being a literary elitist, fond mostly of the classics who would love to be able to absorb much more fantasy and science fiction novels if i didn't believe that most of them were so poorly written (and worse, in a collection of 600+ pages), i absolutely have my guilty pleasures. i read old favorites i appreciated as a teenager and am fully aware of how poorly they are written. there are things i pick up now and instantly love despite the lame execution. so i understand the ignorant appreciation of this book. and i call it ignorant because those who read this and love it are likely to have not been exposed to the works that came before it that far surpass the artistic merit of TDVC. but it should not be regarded as an incredibly written work of art that deserves any of the accolades it has garnered.
I enjoyed reading "The Da Vinci code", but I was ignorant to the works that came before it. I also agree that it got more praise than it deserved. I think I liked it because of the cryptology. I read Dan Brown's "Digital Fortress" first and thought that one was better because it had more cryptology references. I'll read almost anything though.
ReplyDelete