sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-12-12 02:35 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-12-12 02:35 pm
Entry tags:
Review: The Da Vinci Code
I have belatedly gotten around to reading The Da Vinci Code, in part because I'm a cheapskate and I was waiting for it to come out in paperback (it never occurred to me that I could borrow a copy), but also because I have a tendency (not always justified) to avoid things that are popular simply because they are popular. So I approached this book as "my duty" as a dedicated researcher of all-things Gnostic. Though at one point I had some grumpiness and anticipated that my review would be scathing, by the end my opinion mellowed and I am glad I read it.
Since it is common knowledge what the book deals with, I feel that it isn't necessarily a spoiler to discuss the material in the book, because I can do so and leave the plot points undiscussed. Even so, I will put things behind lj-cuts because I believe in informed consent.
Characterization: B-. Aside from eccentric Holy Grail enthusiast Sir Leigh Teabing, we don't get much of a sense of who the characters are. Notably, the reader is given no emotional connection to protagonist Robert Langdon... there is little about who he is as a person, where he comes from, and what motivates him. Anyone who thinks that such details can be safely omitted from mystery/thriller stories are advised to re-read some of the Sherlock Holmes stories and meditate on what would be lost if we had no sense of who the protagonist was.
Plot: A-. All I can say is that I was pleasantly surprised by the resolution.
Readability: A. This book is very readable and accessible.
I want to give a few thoughts on the material and research covered as well, because this is what is most interesting to me in the subject matter of the book.
Symbols of the Sacred Feminine: A-. Much of the plot of the book revolves around the characters' abilities to unravel a code written in symbols associated with the divine feminine. In this context, the author includes the pentagram, the rose (both the flower and the rose windows of European cathedrals), the golden ratio, the triangular "chalice," and so forth. Anything that brings this issue to the public attention is in my opinion a good thing, though I have to go with an A minus because of some glosses that made me twitch. For example, Brown describes the planet Venus as drawing a specifically perfect pentagram in the sky. Several years ago I wrote an essay about this which was published in the magazine Sistrum, because I belonged to a Thelemic order that, among other things, celebrates ritually the motion of Venus. The pentagram in the sky is not a perfect pentagram, it varies by up to 8ยบ.
Sacred Sex and Hieros Gamos: A+. Much of my research on female-centric tantra has turned up much the same as Brown mentions and depicts in his book. I have no quibbles here.
The Priory of Sion and the "holy bloodline of Jesus" claim: C. This is an intriguing claim, but the evidence is just not there. Firstly, the famous Priory of Sion documents were recently exposed as a hoax. Secondly, the evidence does not support the claim that the Nicene Council created, out of the blue, this idea of Jesus as a god-man in order to bury the earthly descendants of Jesus. However, I will not give this an F because I think there is a reasonable case to be made, from the standpoint of ancient Jewish culture, that Mary Magdalane was actually the wife of Jesus.
The Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls: F. It is clear from the context that Brown did not even bother to read an encyclopedia article about the Dead Sea Scrolls. That did not, however, prevent him from claiming that they are "early Christian documents."
Secondly, Brown uses the Gnostic Gospels as evidence to support the idea that Jesus was not divine -- which is an absolutely ludicrous claim, as anyone who has actually read them knows. The Gnostics, if anything, focused more on his divinity than mainstream Christians, as many of them were Docetic.
Overall: B+. If one overlooks the places where his argument gets thin, Brown has written a very accesible and thought-provoking book. It brings many important topics to mainstream attention and opens a conversation on the meaning of the divine feminine's absence from Western religion.
Since it is common knowledge what the book deals with, I feel that it isn't necessarily a spoiler to discuss the material in the book, because I can do so and leave the plot points undiscussed. Even so, I will put things behind lj-cuts because I believe in informed consent.
Characterization: B-. Aside from eccentric Holy Grail enthusiast Sir Leigh Teabing, we don't get much of a sense of who the characters are. Notably, the reader is given no emotional connection to protagonist Robert Langdon... there is little about who he is as a person, where he comes from, and what motivates him. Anyone who thinks that such details can be safely omitted from mystery/thriller stories are advised to re-read some of the Sherlock Holmes stories and meditate on what would be lost if we had no sense of who the protagonist was.
Plot: A-. All I can say is that I was pleasantly surprised by the resolution.
Readability: A. This book is very readable and accessible.
I want to give a few thoughts on the material and research covered as well, because this is what is most interesting to me in the subject matter of the book.
Symbols of the Sacred Feminine: A-. Much of the plot of the book revolves around the characters' abilities to unravel a code written in symbols associated with the divine feminine. In this context, the author includes the pentagram, the rose (both the flower and the rose windows of European cathedrals), the golden ratio, the triangular "chalice," and so forth. Anything that brings this issue to the public attention is in my opinion a good thing, though I have to go with an A minus because of some glosses that made me twitch. For example, Brown describes the planet Venus as drawing a specifically perfect pentagram in the sky. Several years ago I wrote an essay about this which was published in the magazine Sistrum, because I belonged to a Thelemic order that, among other things, celebrates ritually the motion of Venus. The pentagram in the sky is not a perfect pentagram, it varies by up to 8ยบ.
Sacred Sex and Hieros Gamos: A+. Much of my research on female-centric tantra has turned up much the same as Brown mentions and depicts in his book. I have no quibbles here.
The Priory of Sion and the "holy bloodline of Jesus" claim: C. This is an intriguing claim, but the evidence is just not there. Firstly, the famous Priory of Sion documents were recently exposed as a hoax. Secondly, the evidence does not support the claim that the Nicene Council created, out of the blue, this idea of Jesus as a god-man in order to bury the earthly descendants of Jesus. However, I will not give this an F because I think there is a reasonable case to be made, from the standpoint of ancient Jewish culture, that Mary Magdalane was actually the wife of Jesus.
The Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls: F. It is clear from the context that Brown did not even bother to read an encyclopedia article about the Dead Sea Scrolls. That did not, however, prevent him from claiming that they are "early Christian documents."
Secondly, Brown uses the Gnostic Gospels as evidence to support the idea that Jesus was not divine -- which is an absolutely ludicrous claim, as anyone who has actually read them knows. The Gnostics, if anything, focused more on his divinity than mainstream Christians, as many of them were Docetic.
Overall: B+. If one overlooks the places where his argument gets thin, Brown has written a very accesible and thought-provoking book. It brings many important topics to mainstream attention and opens a conversation on the meaning of the divine feminine's absence from Western religion.
no subject
xoxoxo (:
-p
no subject
no subject
no subject
Re: the part about the dead sea scrolls. Brown's book got me interested to look elsewhere (actually, I think I posted about it and you commented some time ago--I'll have to check my older posts) and I read a book that claimed that the place where they found the dead sea scrolls was not far from where the entire set of gospels happened, including what most people assume happened in Jerusalem.
I should dig up that book again and reread that part. I have a small patience for any book, however, that even mentions the word "mason" in it. Not sure why.
no subject
*giggles*
no subject
no subject
I found the plot to be a B+ and the readability to be a B+ but the skill of writing to be a D-. But that's more from my training as a writer now and watching him put in too many obvious cliches than any skill in writing. And his skill at obfuscating the twist was bad to the point of misleading, which makes many readers more angry about the twist than impressed with his ability to mislead. It could have been done much better than it was.
As far as the rest, I more or less agree with your ratings. :)