Friday, October 28, 2005

Shock Horror! Da Vinci Code was not an original idea

Well darn me... and here was me thinking that the world was right to go bananas for the excellent original fiction writing of Mr Brown.

That's irony folks... just in case you cannot tell. And I actually quite enjoyed the damn book. [Both the history - hee hee hee - and the fiction... can you tell them apart?]

5 comments:

Skuds said...

Am I the only person who has not read this book??

David Duff said...

Just for one brief nanosecond, Lisa, I thought we were going to agree on something, but then you went and spoilt the magic moment. Sometimes I wonder if our relationship is going to last! I am not very expert on anything very much, but when it comes to American 'pulp fiction', let me tell you, I devour it by weight not number of books. Thus, I can stand tall on this subject and tell you that the first twenty percent of Brown's book is so awful as to defy anyone of taste and discernment, with the exception of those suffering from imsomnia, to finish the remaining eighty percent.

'Skuds', do yourself a favour, don't bother!

Lisa Rullsenberg said...

The Da Vinci Code is trash: but it turns pages, has an appropriately nonsensical plot, geographic meanderings, and gets people to look at the details of churches and other signiificant architectural works.

You're missing nothing by not reading Brown's tome, and though the original 'historians' books have more holes than Swiss cheese, you might be better reading those.

What's wrong with glorious nonsense?

David Duff said...

"What's wrong with glorious nonsense?"

Nothing! But Brown's book lacks the "glorious". There are some terrific books out there which come under the general heading of 'pulp fiction'. At their best they are a mixture of thrilling, witty, sage, complex, layered ... and so on. Actually, by coincidence, I have just finished one that might, just, interest you, Lisa. "The Colour of Night" by David Lindsey. It's an absolute corker with a really crafty plot, part of which is based on art history and the art market. Knocks Brown's tosh for six!

Rob said...

I read Baigent & Leigh years ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it, dodgy though it is. Over the years I've read plenty of books by nutters, and THBATHG is one of the better ones. (I loved John Michell's "Eccentric Lives and Peculiar Notions" as well, especially the section on "The People Who Drilled Holes In Their Heads" - guys who drilled holes in their crania to allow space for their brains to expand. I forget the main bloke's name but he wrote a book "Bore Hole" which I shall read if I ever renew my National Library of Scotland membership, it being long out of print and v. rare. Julie Felix - remember her? -made an album of songs plugging their ideas. Personally I need that like....no. No, I can't say it.)

I leafed through "The Da Vinci Code" in a shop, recognised it as rehashed Baigent & Leigh and felt I wouldn't get anything more from it than from any other iffy thriller. It struck me as less badly-written than some best-sellers, but didn't tempt me to read it all.