I cannot stop rambling about how good and feckin' brilliant The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are. So what did y'all think? ^.^

here is some info on the Da Vinci Code.

The summary of Cecil Adam's opinion:

Brown's [...] whole book--is so cartoonish that you're inclined to dismiss it out of hand. (To cite one egregious example of his imprecision, he continually refers to the painter of the Mona Lisa as "da Vinci." As anyone with a semester of art history knows, the man's name was Leonardo; da Vinci merely refers to his birthplace.)

I'm one of the few people I know that cringes every time Leonardo is referred to as "da Vinci." Nice to know we're not alone.
As for the book, I've not read it. I'd heard that it makes sense within its own framework, but falls apart under outside scrutiny; in other words, as long as you just "go with it" and take the story's facts as true, it works, but if you actually research some of those facts, you'll find they aren't accurate. Mind you, that was one reviewer's opinion... can't remember where I read it, so I can't verify the veracity of the review.
So, yes, this is a pretty useless post.

I have recently finished the book- it's been sitting on a shelf for months waiting for me to get to it (while I tried my darndest to avoid any sort of outside influence). So I have very little frame of reference of what Brown has said about the veracity of what's in there, or even if he's said anything. But I have approached it from the point of view that it is, after all is said and done, a fictional story and that does grant the author a certain amount of license to mold and extrapolate from historical events in order to make things work within the framework of the story. If those events in turn make an impression on the reader then I would hope that they would see it as the beginning of their journey, rather than the end of it.

Possible Spoiler


With that in mind, thanks Constanze for posting that link. I've actually been meaning to do a little research on Phi since I read the book so that was helpful to me.

I did have some problems with the book as a work of fiction, though. The stylistic choices (3 page chapters all ending with a cliffhanger, needlessly doling out information in dribs and drabs) become too apparant by the middle of the book and took me out of the story. I also wasn't too crazy about the final scenes with the "Teacher" and Bazu Faiche.

But the real pleasure about a mystery is in solving the clues along the way- and that's where this book's strength lies. Overall I thought it was pretty solid. And it did get me to pick up Philip K Dick's Valis again, so that's also a good thing in my book.

No board for the movie, but the difference between the book and movie creates a nit for the movie.

Book/movie difference: Why Silas goes to Chateau Vilette.

Book: Teabing calls Silas as Teacher and tells him to go there expecting Langdon to arrive with the keystone.

Movie: Fache learns Langdon is at Chateau Vilette because of Tracking device. Fache calls the bishop, who calls Silas.

Problem: In movie, Silas beats the police to Chateau Vilette! True we see him driving recklessly on the way, but the police would have used their sirens to get the right of way, not to mention that Silas would not know the way to Chateau Vilette off hand.

There is indeed a board for the movie. It's under Thrillers.

---Angels & Demons
Near the end of the book, Brown repeats the popular notion (I believe it's the camerlengo who does so in the story) that humans only use a small percentage of their brains. In fact, this is a myth.

On page 536 it states that the camerlengo tricked into doing his bidding. But how in the world did the camerlengo do this? The story indicates that the camerlengo murdered the Pope soon after the Pope told him that he would endorse Vetra's antimatter technology, which was recent. Where did he find someone he could trick to do all that the Hassasin did, and how did he do so, especially on such short notice?

Also, while it only mitigates the above criticisms about Kohler stating that the antimatter "proves" Genesis only slightly, it's important to note exactly what he said. On page 523, Kohler refers to Vetra's work as proving that Genesis was "physically possible," not that it proved that Genesis *occurred*. Again, this doesn't change the fact that the statement is still false for *other* reasons, but I just thought I'd point it out.