The DaVinci Code
Jan. 29th, 2005 12:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
inulroSeeing as I'm still awake:
I finally started to read it this week. It's bad - the prose is awful & very amateurish (except I know lots of amateurs who can structure much nicer sentences). I could write a book on the factual inaccuracies[1]. It is almost funny, but not quite. It is definitely the version for people who couldn't get through either Foucault's Pendulum (which actually *is* funny, and is making fun of people who believe this stuff) or Holy Blood & the Holy Grail (which is tosh, but has the advantage of being very well written tosh).
Yet I can't stop reading it. It's very compelling crap.
[1] The truly offensive one is the "Fact" about the Priory of Sion in the introduction. The document is indeed in the Bibliotheque Nationale, but scholars agree it's a hoax.
I finally started to read it this week. It's bad - the prose is awful & very amateurish (except I know lots of amateurs who can structure much nicer sentences). I could write a book on the factual inaccuracies[1]. It is almost funny, but not quite. It is definitely the version for people who couldn't get through either Foucault's Pendulum (which actually *is* funny, and is making fun of people who believe this stuff) or Holy Blood & the Holy Grail (which is tosh, but has the advantage of being very well written tosh).
Yet I can't stop reading it. It's very compelling crap.
[1] The truly offensive one is the "Fact" about the Priory of Sion in the introduction. The document is indeed in the Bibliotheque Nationale, but scholars agree it's a hoax.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 01:14 pm (UTC)