![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This book is crap. I haven't seen such horrible writing since ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mctabby's last bad summary post. I'm not sure what to address first. The sucky writing, the bland characterizations, the inaccuracy of the entire novel? First, I'll do what I always do when I review which is find something I liked... Uhm... I liked that in a 454 page book there were 105 chapters because then he never stayed on one of his scenes long enough for me to want to throw it out the window (okay, so I only wanted to throw it out the window twice...).
The writing was juvenile. Like someone had learnt to write by reading old comic books and watching cliched action movies. I lost count of how many cliches this man used before the book was complete, especially the ones he used as 'profound wisdom'. His segues into flashbacks were clumsy and repetitive, not to mention the flashbacks were so bland I promptly forgot what happened in them. Information was continually thrown at the reader, but instead of treating them with some intelligence and interweaving it with the story, it just barely held together with the plot and was in fact repeated ad nauseum. Of course, his worst fault, which covers almost everything I've complained about, was too much telling and very little showing.
Speaking of information, his method of drawing out tension, instead of you know, creating tension, was to withhold crucial information from the reader so they'd have to read onward, only you don't really care about the secrets of the grail or whether or not any of the characters survive, so there's really no reason to read onwards. The plot is supposed to be complex and cryptic when really it was just complex and dull. There were many unnecessary characters who were supposed to confuse you I guess. No idea really. The clues were occasionally cryptic - if you aren't into anagrams. Everything else was obvious from who "the Teacher" was to the location of the "Grail".
The main characters were... well, badly characterized. For someone who we get a lot of information about, the main guy is as dull as they come. He seems to live in a simplistic world where students are amazed by his lectures on symbolism (where in reality they'd mostly be sleeping) and where everyone else is an idiot since he can't seem to tell anyone anything straight out, but must draw it out to keep people reading. The main woman is even worse with her ridiculous backplot of leaving her only relative after she witnessed him having sex with a woman in a secret sex ritual (god, I wish I was making this up). Repressed much? Her only purpose seems to be to be there and occasionally come up with another clue when it's not the main guy's turn. The author seemed to think he was building up some romance between the two of them, but I was impressed by how little sexual tension the two actually had. The kiss at the end, and her agreement to a week of sex in Florence came right out of the blue. Gee, wonder why?
Supporting characters were cliches of themselves. Sir Leigh was a very badly done cliche of an eccentric English gentleman, and his attempts to be funny weren't, which is the real crime, I suspect. Albino guy was funny with his angst and obsessiveness and devotion, but I sincerly doubt the author wanted me to giggle upon reading he had died (of a bullet of angst or something like that). The bishop or cardinal or whatever could have been interesting except he had nothing to do with anything and literally spent the entire book flying from one major city in the world to another and making phone calls. His only real purpose was to serve as the obvious villian which of course was a red herring. French Police inspector was a caricature of a hard nosed police chief in the beginning, but then the author seems to have been unable to figure out what to do with him once his time as potential conspirator had been served.
Dan Brown also needs a much better editor. There were tons of little continuity problems. Little things like people being in the wrong place at the wrong time to overhear what they had, or just people acting really really stupidly in order for the plot to work.
Accuracy wise... where to start. I think I'd have enjoyed the book a lot more if the author had at least put a note at the front stating that he had done his research on the internet and he really didn't know what he was talking about. Granted, the book is fiction, but it really would have been better titled a fantasy. His descriptions of places and architecture were bad enough, but I started wincing every time he discussed past history. Da Vinci, the Templars, early Church history. His summaries of events left me wincing in horror that people would believe anything in the book. And things like claiming that the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra books of the New Testament had my jaw dropping open at his utter stupidity. In fairness, he was only weaving together all the bunk that people have thought up as conspiracies and secret societies throughout the years, but he certainly could have done a better job of it.
Random problems from the first hundred pages (since I gave up writing them down after that):
-for some reason, the main character can see the Louvre (head on) but not the Pyramid in front of it (and he's not that far away). Obviously, the author has never visited the Louvre.
-use of metaphors he doesn't understand, like being trapped in a Salvador Dali painting. Dali paintings are heavy with symbolism, but bulls, sphinxes and pyramids aren't one of them. Now if a man with his dick out approached you while wearing a duck hat then you'd be stuck in a Salvador Dali painting.
-"Fache's ebony eyes locked on." 'Nuff said.
- all.the.dramatic.pauses.
- improper use of French! How bloody hard is it to get a proper French speaker to go through the seven or so sentences in French in the entire book?!
- references to 'woman's intuition' (excuse me while I go laugh myself silly)
-his complete mangling of careful historical research on Da Vinci
-use of the word 'loins' in all seriousness
-unrealistic lectures - have you ever been to a lecture where someone 'cried out', "This is amazing!"? (and if you have, please tell me what drug they were on 'cause I want some)
-using Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land as a basis for said lecture. I'd swear that was what he was doing.
There's not really much more to say about this book other then don't read it. In fact, use what I've told you here if you haven't read it to point out how bad it is to Dan Brown's fans. You know you want to;)
mctabby's last bad summary post. I'm not sure what to address first. The sucky writing, the bland characterizations, the inaccuracy of the entire novel? First, I'll do what I always do when I review which is find something I liked... Uhm... I liked that in a 454 page book there were 105 chapters because then he never stayed on one of his scenes long enough for me to want to throw it out the window (okay, so I only wanted to throw it out the window twice...). The writing was juvenile. Like someone had learnt to write by reading old comic books and watching cliched action movies. I lost count of how many cliches this man used before the book was complete, especially the ones he used as 'profound wisdom'. His segues into flashbacks were clumsy and repetitive, not to mention the flashbacks were so bland I promptly forgot what happened in them. Information was continually thrown at the reader, but instead of treating them with some intelligence and interweaving it with the story, it just barely held together with the plot and was in fact repeated ad nauseum. Of course, his worst fault, which covers almost everything I've complained about, was too much telling and very little showing.
Speaking of information, his method of drawing out tension, instead of you know, creating tension, was to withhold crucial information from the reader so they'd have to read onward, only you don't really care about the secrets of the grail or whether or not any of the characters survive, so there's really no reason to read onwards. The plot is supposed to be complex and cryptic when really it was just complex and dull. There were many unnecessary characters who were supposed to confuse you I guess. No idea really. The clues were occasionally cryptic - if you aren't into anagrams. Everything else was obvious from who "the Teacher" was to the location of the "Grail".
The main characters were... well, badly characterized. For someone who we get a lot of information about, the main guy is as dull as they come. He seems to live in a simplistic world where students are amazed by his lectures on symbolism (where in reality they'd mostly be sleeping) and where everyone else is an idiot since he can't seem to tell anyone anything straight out, but must draw it out to keep people reading. The main woman is even worse with her ridiculous backplot of leaving her only relative after she witnessed him having sex with a woman in a secret sex ritual (god, I wish I was making this up). Repressed much? Her only purpose seems to be to be there and occasionally come up with another clue when it's not the main guy's turn. The author seemed to think he was building up some romance between the two of them, but I was impressed by how little sexual tension the two actually had. The kiss at the end, and her agreement to a week of sex in Florence came right out of the blue. Gee, wonder why?
Supporting characters were cliches of themselves. Sir Leigh was a very badly done cliche of an eccentric English gentleman, and his attempts to be funny weren't, which is the real crime, I suspect. Albino guy was funny with his angst and obsessiveness and devotion, but I sincerly doubt the author wanted me to giggle upon reading he had died (of a bullet of angst or something like that). The bishop or cardinal or whatever could have been interesting except he had nothing to do with anything and literally spent the entire book flying from one major city in the world to another and making phone calls. His only real purpose was to serve as the obvious villian which of course was a red herring. French Police inspector was a caricature of a hard nosed police chief in the beginning, but then the author seems to have been unable to figure out what to do with him once his time as potential conspirator had been served.
Dan Brown also needs a much better editor. There were tons of little continuity problems. Little things like people being in the wrong place at the wrong time to overhear what they had, or just people acting really really stupidly in order for the plot to work.
Accuracy wise... where to start. I think I'd have enjoyed the book a lot more if the author had at least put a note at the front stating that he had done his research on the internet and he really didn't know what he was talking about. Granted, the book is fiction, but it really would have been better titled a fantasy. His descriptions of places and architecture were bad enough, but I started wincing every time he discussed past history. Da Vinci, the Templars, early Church history. His summaries of events left me wincing in horror that people would believe anything in the book. And things like claiming that the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra books of the New Testament had my jaw dropping open at his utter stupidity. In fairness, he was only weaving together all the bunk that people have thought up as conspiracies and secret societies throughout the years, but he certainly could have done a better job of it.
Random problems from the first hundred pages (since I gave up writing them down after that):
-for some reason, the main character can see the Louvre (head on) but not the Pyramid in front of it (and he's not that far away). Obviously, the author has never visited the Louvre.
-use of metaphors he doesn't understand, like being trapped in a Salvador Dali painting. Dali paintings are heavy with symbolism, but bulls, sphinxes and pyramids aren't one of them. Now if a man with his dick out approached you while wearing a duck hat then you'd be stuck in a Salvador Dali painting.
-"Fache's ebony eyes locked on." 'Nuff said.
- all.the.dramatic.pauses.
- improper use of French! How bloody hard is it to get a proper French speaker to go through the seven or so sentences in French in the entire book?!
- references to 'woman's intuition' (excuse me while I go laugh myself silly)
-his complete mangling of careful historical research on Da Vinci
-use of the word 'loins' in all seriousness
-unrealistic lectures - have you ever been to a lecture where someone 'cried out', "This is amazing!"? (and if you have, please tell me what drug they were on 'cause I want some)
-using Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land as a basis for said lecture. I'd swear that was what he was doing.
There's not really much more to say about this book other then don't read it. In fact, use what I've told you here if you haven't read it to point out how bad it is to Dan Brown's fans. You know you want to;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Besides, it's obviously Foul Ol' Ron/Gaspode;P
From:
no subject
"Buggrit."
From:
no subject