*whistle* *stamp* *applaud*

[fleetfootmike]

Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code get the savaging they so richly deserve. (Syndicated at makinglight, well worth a read generally.)

Comments

[shannachie.livejournal.com]

AFter reading that thing with the rather too obvious murderer/pope I never wanted to read another one. Mind you, all my colleagues think it's hot stuff and ahve trouble believing me that one can in fact look right through the plot from very early on.

[qb-fox.livejournal.com]

Its a nice piece of cheap, pointless, light fiction.
It uses some wonderful truths and conspiracy theories to make an acceptably entertaining story. I had it read to me as an audio book while I was driving long distance, and it was perfect for that.

Then I heard Dan Brown say on TV that it was all based on fact. Oh dear, Dan. The central premise is fraud committed by 3 Frenchman in the 1970s and 80s and exposed by one of them over ten years ago. Silly, silly boy.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

History Channel (US) has several times run a documentary examining the historicity of Brown's claims. They weren't very impressed -- and this is a network that isn't above running UFOric claims.

[occams_pyramid]

I read one of those loony conspiracy books once. Can't remember what it was called or who lent it to me.

It destroyed its own case on its own internal evidence.

It was waffling on about, of course, the Templars, and all the usual weird whatevers that they were supposed to be mixed up in. And it made the mistake of describing the background to the destruction of the Templars.

So on its own description the Templars were extremely wealthy with a lot of land and money, and had lent out that money to various rulers. So a lot of very powerful people were very heavily in debt to them. Then they suddenly lost their power base in the Holy Land.

And their leaders were arrested by the people who owed them vast amounts of money, and were tortured.

Of course they confessed to having Weapons of Magical Destruction. It would have been weird if they hadn't so confessed!

So the book itself made it quite clear that the whole thing was a complete load of blair.

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

Be very careful or the Illuminati will ...

AAAAAAARRRRGHGHGHGHG!!

[thisnthat.livejournal.com]

Well, considering that I never took it seriously and would have to be very damning of anyone that wanted to say this piece of fiction was based on anything like a fact....

I really enjoyed the book. But then again, I often like fluff, and I'm known to watch really bad Sci-Fi when it comes on TV. I mean.. REALLY BAD. Like "They Are Among Us" with Bruce Boxleitner and Nana Visitor. I mean, it was BAD (bad bad bad). But I couldn't stop watching.

I even read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. I've read much worse. At least these were enjoyable.

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

My favorite comment is John Ford's, but that didn't surprise me one bit.

[stevedix.livejournal.com]

Ah, so someone else has noticed that Dan Brown writes his books to a template. I gave (well, dumped) "DaVinci Code" to my father. He hated it as well. As for "Digital Fortress". It's crap. It's worth reading for all the basic computer science mistakes, for a laugh. I gave that one to the bin.

Now, I don't normally get rid of books. I am a hoarder, particularly when it comes to books. But I couldn't get rid of these two fast enough. My excuse for having two? They were bought as a two for one offer.

Expect a Dan Brown spoof on my blog any day now.