Book review: The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

Granted. Dan Brown’s runaway 2003 bestseller “The Da Vinci Code,” a novel part thriller/religion exposition, is truly “pulse-quickening” (People magazine review) and “breathtaking” (The Boston Globe review). I agree that it is unputdownable, and that it is a good page-turner.

Yet when it is hardly “one of the most remarkable books I’ve ever read,” as said by one of Brown’s countless fans in his self-promoting website. Thousands have been said about the book being poorly researched and how it fails as a historical novel, but not much has been said about it being poorly written.

“The Da Vinci Code” does not only fail in delivering facts as it promised on its fact page. It also fails a lot of rules in literary writing.

Dan Brown failed to describe the novel’s primary characters succinctly, leaving the readers to rely on age-old conceptions to gauge how the characters look and act.

Primary male character Robert Langdon, for example, famous Harvard professor and symbologist, was not described physically. Only his face, which for the character looked old, was described. Nowhere does Brown write how Langdon stands, how tall he is, how fat he is, or even what he wears.

Meanwhile, female primary character Sophie Nevue, cryptologist, was described inappropriately. At the moment he saw her, Langdon thought Sophie had an “unembellished beauty and genuineness that radiated a striking personal confidence,” qualities that can only be attributed to a person you’ve been with for a long time, not for just five seconds at most.

Character motivations, moreover, are shallow. Brown never says succinctly why all of the characters act the way they do.

Bezu Fache, chief of the French police, is deadly intent on catching Langdon. But why? All the while readers are treated to the assumptions of Lieutanant Collet, that Fache wants to run for public office so he cannot afford an unresolved murder. Yet these assumptions aren’t confirmed anywhere in the book, and so it is certain this isn’t the real motivation of Captain Fache. What is it then? We are left to ask why.
Sophie’s motivation may be the most rounded, that she just wants to take revenge for the murder of her grandfather. But halfway through the book, she catches Silas. She knows the albino monk murdered her grandfather, but does she stop? Her motivation has been fulfilled, why did she go on?

Then through the end of the book we find out who the mastermind of the murder was. If Sophie’s motivation was so much rounded, why didn’t she act strongly to carry on revenge? The killer was only meters away from her, and she didn’t even kick him even when he was helpless. This is what we call uncertain motivation—Dan Brown’s fault.

Leight Teabing and Robert Langdon, meanwhile, had the most muddled motivations. They just want to solve the puzzles, and to know the truth behind the grail. Are these motivations enough? Of course not.

Brown should have dug deeper into his characters. Wanting to know where the grail is could be a motivation, but it is only a shallow one. Why do Langdon and Teabing want the grail? Why do they have the affinity for the sacred feminine? Why do they spend most of their time discovering codes under codes presumably hidden by authorities for ages? Did they just wake up one day with the want to know where the legendary grail is, or did they just have bad childhood experiences?

The most motivated of the characters is the Opus Dei numerary Silas. He kills for his goal, he kills for worship, he hurts himself to be holy. But why? Brown only discussed his childhood, and how he was saved by a priest, Manuel Aringarosa, from near death. Being with the priest made Silas want to be holy. And, if we are to follow that want, Silas should have come out as a saint. So why did he kill? Who taught him to? Somewhere between Silas’ childhood and the present day, an event may have changed his outlook. What is the event? This is another Brown’s fault—wrong backgrounding for one motivation. (Considering that Brown characterized Aringarosa, Silas’ mentor, as a near-saint in the end)

I can mention a lot more of Brown’s errors at characterization, but I know I have already driven the point.

Brown also failed at plotting in some points of his novel.

The first riddle in the cryptex stumped Langdon and Teabing. But if they were as good as they were described by Brown, then they should have known in a flash that the characters were written in reverse. (The riddle was printed in the book’s pages. I solved it in one look, and I’m not even a cryptologist.)

Langdon only solved it when Sophie gave him a hint, and only when he remembered how the novel’s featured painter Leonardo da Vinci loved to write. (If Langdon was very familiar with Leonardo’s works, as Brown has described him to be, how could he forget?)

Then there was the visit to the Templar Church, where supposedly ten knights were displayed on top of tombstones.

Brown’s first words when Sophie, Robert and Leigh were nearing the tomb was that there were that the three saw ten knights—five at the leaft side, and another five at the right. Yet moments later, we read how Sophie counts the knhigts again and finds out that one is missing. (Brown led us on to a deceptive description to propel his plot. Unforgivable.)

Then Brown goes on into Leigh’s thoughts, saying how he forgot that one knight had always been missing, that the knight was originally conceived to be buried in the tomb. (Amnesia, again? And if one knight had always been missing, why are there ten knights? Shouldn’t there only be nine?)

Then if Brown originally conceived Opus Dei and Bishop Aringarosa as evil, why did he let the priest tell Silas, as he was dying, that forgiveness is God’s greatest gift? (Did the good win Brown in the end? So people from Opus Dei are saints then? This is a sudden aboutface from Brown’s original conception of the group, another sin at bad plotting.)

I’m sure that if you open your eyes while reading the book (read it again if you already had) you’d see more plotting errors than what I’ve seen.

Grade: 1/10 (minus 5 for the poor characterization, minus 3 for plotting errors, and minus 1 for wrong and inaccurate research) –hardly the remarkable book ever written, as fans have touted.

A tip: Avoid this book.

If you really want to read a good thriller, take:

Triple by Ken Follett (if you really want to read a novel that works like a movie, but this time with greatly-realized characters and solid plotting) –great

Sole Survivor by Dean Koontz (a chase thriller that touches the experience of the divine) –great

An Unholy Alliance by Susanna Gregory (a historical thriller that revolves around the Catholic Church in the middle ages) –great

Or if you really want to boast that you have possibly read “one of the most remarkable books in the world,” try:

The Stand by Stephen King (a final battle between good and evil) –great, but I’ll recommend the Complete and Uncut Edition

Spring Moon by Bette Bao Lord (the epic bestseller, follows five generations of a Chinese clan through war and betrayal)

The Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder (1982 Pulitze Prize winner, follows thirty American computer-whiz geniuses in their goal of creating the best computer ever made) if you want to read a novel that reads like a lecture, this is the book.

***
Just remember that if you want to read a book, try to read only those worthy of your time and money. You shouldn’t follow hypes and good reviews.