The Da Vinci Code: Stylish or Rubbish?

"All the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret society, all of that is a historical fact." --- Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code

That is what the author of the above-mentioned book said about his best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code.

Very well, I admit that I'm a bit slower than the rest of you who had read the book long ago, but I have my reasons of doing so. Anyway, now I shall be playing the role of a critic.

Many of us do not realise about the warning that is displayed at the beginning of the book: "In this work of fiction, the characters, places and events are either the product of the author's imagination or they are used entirely fictitiously." This could but offer one meaning, that the novel is a work of fiction and therefore nothing (as in not everything) can be trusted in the novel.

The story-line is indeed interesting and intriguing whereby readers would soon enjoy such an adventurous, thrilling and exciting novel, not to mention the suspense. The novel was so good and the way Mr. Brown approached his readers was so great that many were convinced that his claims were true, which are in fact, the other way round.

You see, the whole story revolves around a secret society called the Priory of Sion and a bunch of documents called Les Dossiers Secrets which allegedly contained a certain truth that the Catholic Church has struggled to suppress for over two millenia. Apparently, upon inspection by historians and further investigation, the French authorities and the historians found that the Priory of Sion was not a secret society found in 1099 AD, nor did Les Dossiers Secrets existed. All of this was, in fact, an elaborate hoax created by three men (whose names I've forgotten, except the name of Plantard). Plantard is the mastermind behind the hoax.

There is a documentary that I would dearly like to share with you readers, however as the documentary is 688 MB big but only lasts for one hour and forty minutes, I figure that there is only one way I can send the file to any one of you: through YouSendIt.

Anyway, apart from the Priory of Sion and Les Dossiers Secrets, there were a few facts here and there but generally, Dan Brown had chosen to write his novel based on so-called historical facts that had long been rejected by historians. Obviously, Mr. Brown intended to make his novel as provoking as possible, and as convincing as possible, too.

From the technical point of view, the novel is quite good in the sense that it would capture the attention of the reader from the beginning till the end. Unfortunately, although the development from the exposition to the middle part of the novel is interesting enough, it becomes weary somewhere in the middle of the novel. Nevertheless, the author compensated the dullness by introducing more interesting sections in the last sections of his novel.

The way Dan Brown laid out his novel is interesting. A new scene appears at every chapter. And then at the next new scene, the scene before the last repeats (but not the story-line). And every time before each chapter ends, a sense of suspense is often instilled in the readers' hearts. However, the author overdid it. He used the element of suspense so often as the ending of his chapters that readers could soon anticipate which scene follows, and the whole novel becomes anti-climatic.

Generally, the story-line is one of the best story-lines I've ever seen, but the writing isn't what I would expect. The claim that this book is factual truly diminishes the fact that it is actually a work of fiction. When a work is branded as fiction, it is fiction. Fortunately, being a work of fiction, nobody really cares about the accuracy of its facts, except for a few parties. Had it been a historical work, it would have been thrown into the garbage cans of every house.

I do not discourage those who have not read The Da Vinci Code to read it. Trust me, it will get you hooked up to it. But be careful about the claims it is said to be factual.

It is bosh and rubbish!