
they are making a film? Good. I really can't comprehend why people slag this book off, it is ingeniously written. Cleverly constructed and above all a fantastic modern mystery thriller. Just because the American Bible bashing mid west are up in arms is no reason to jump on the Da Vinci bashing bandwagon. Here's a fact for you. It's fiction, it claims to be nothing else.
Film will be a blockbuster I expect. I can't wait to download it ;)
If Clive Cussler can say of it '.....one of the best mysteries I have ever read...' then I'll not take too much worth from illiterate b3tans slagging off a book because they dislike the subject matter.
EDIT:/ The prequel, Angels and Demons is an even
better read.
Edit:/ Not the prequel but rather the story written previously in the adventures of the main character.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 16:45,
archived)
Film will be a blockbuster I expect. I can't wait to download it ;)
If Clive Cussler can say of it '.....one of the best mysteries I have ever read...' then I'll not take too much worth from illiterate b3tans slagging off a book because they dislike the subject matter.
EDIT:/ The prequel, Angels and Demons is an even
better read.
Edit:/ Not the prequel but rather the story written previously in the adventures of the main character.

But I'm damned if I'm driving 25 miles to wait for hours to get a scrawled name and a fake smile.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 16:47,
archived)

the catholic church understandbly doesnt want them on their land. As for the book, well whats wrong with fun fiction?
*eats head*
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 16:49,
archived)
*eats head*

but the fact remains that the book is dull at best, poorly written, slow, predictable, self indulgent, based almost exactly on another, better, book, over rated pop-fiction.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 16:52,
archived)

it to Foucaults Pendulum.
Which is ace.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 16:55,
archived)
Which is ace.

Books are written for the sake of the story. You are muddying the waters by comparing it to another story. Who asked you to do that?
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 16:59,
archived)

find Foucault condescending and a little insulting at times. Besides, the only people who read him usually are grad students because they have to, and pompous 'literati' who need to be able to drop his name into conversations at cocktail parties. I just launch into them with Goethe and tell them to get to fuck.
As I said already, it's a moot point. It's all subjective. I happen to like varied writings. I particularly loved the first and second chronicles of Thomas Covenant the unbeliever and I've had some ding dong fights with tolkien nazis on those two subjects.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:17,
archived)
As I said already, it's a moot point. It's all subjective. I happen to like varied writings. I particularly loved the first and second chronicles of Thomas Covenant the unbeliever and I've had some ding dong fights with tolkien nazis on those two subjects.

Not Foucault's "Pendulum", Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum".
See how great punctuation is?
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:29,
archived)
See how great punctuation is?

I don't understand how anyone who knows Goethe
could be a fan of Dan Brown. Just because
pompous fucks like Eco doesn't make it bad.
Personally, I prefer Arturo Perez-Reverte over
Eco, lighter style and better dialog and great irony.
But Dan Brown gives me the shuddering heebie-jeebies...

I'm afraid I can't comment on Eco as I have never read any of it. I was referring to a guy called Michel Foucault who was a pompous, condescending twat.
Horses for courses. I read anything and everything I can get my hands on, what I like is what appeals to me at the time. Some adults like Harry Potter, yet I for one could never comprehend reading children's stories stolen from classical mythology.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:43,
archived)
Horses for courses. I read anything and everything I can get my hands on, what I like is what appeals to me at the time. Some adults like Harry Potter, yet I for one could never comprehend reading children's stories stolen from classical mythology.

when that's exactly what I want to read.
But mostly I read it 'cos everyone was talking about it and I hate not having an opinion on stuff when everyone else does.
Mmmm... the sound of my own voice...
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 16:56,
archived)
But mostly I read it 'cos everyone was talking about it and I hate not having an opinion on stuff when everyone else does.
Mmmm... the sound of my own voice...

I don't give a toss about the so-called 'contraversy' - it's been done before, and better.
No, it's just a really, really badly-written book. Dialogue sucks. Characterisation sucks. This Harvard professor (or whatever he is) gets stumped by Da Vinci's backwards writing? Give me a break.
And the characters! You can hear Dan Brown plotting them out
"Hero, well he had to be American, I mean, of course"
"And a French chick who, being French will be spunky and sexy as everyone knows all French chicks are"
"French guy - he's a dick"
"English guy - gay"
Just really annoyed me.
rant off
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 16:55,
archived)
No, it's just a really, really badly-written book. Dialogue sucks. Characterisation sucks. This Harvard professor (or whatever he is) gets stumped by Da Vinci's backwards writing? Give me a break.
And the characters! You can hear Dan Brown plotting them out
"Hero, well he had to be American, I mean, of course"
"And a French chick who, being French will be spunky and sexy as everyone knows all French chicks are"
"French guy - he's a dick"
"English guy - gay"
Just really annoyed me.
rant off

subjective I suppose. I found it well written. I write myself and have read countless ( worthless really, ) books about creative structure. It does what it says on the cover and is exactly what it purports to be. If it claimed to be litererary genius I would have a differing opinion. I'ts a modern day whodunnit and cleverly set up IMO.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:03,
archived)

for example, some people liked Hitler. This book is a lot like Adolf Hitler. The people who like it are ultimately wrong.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:06,
archived)

right about many things, he just did not have a sane enough mind to implement them. We would avoid mass over-population and disease if people would just accept that Eugenics is a natural form of evolution.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:12,
archived)

IS NOT THE FUCKING PREQUEL! GAH! It was wrote BEFORE DA VINCI CODE!
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:01,
archived)

your point is? Are you aware of the meaning of the term prequel?
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:09,
archived)

Could prequel mean it is written after the first book but set before it? Or is a prequel just the opposite of a sequel?
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:12,
archived)

when it is written. The story timeline means that it is set befire the Da Vinci code and therefore a prequel.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:14,
archived)

A prequel is released after. If George Lucas made episode 1 before any others, you couldn't call it a prequel.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:17,
archived)

I FUCKING FEEL LIKE IT! Any one fancy starting a fight club?
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:21,
archived)

you like. I've been out of the ring a while but I can still knock the fuck out of people.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:23,
archived)

will need one. Oh and I forgive your arrogance. You are a Stockport lad and it's acceptable. I myself am not too far away and born in the heart of Salford.
( ,
Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:28,
archived)