• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Dan Brown: The Da Vinci Code

Whenever I hear the words "intellectual" or "pretentious" used as if they were the worst insults in the English language, I always picture the following scene:

The two cavemen Og and Gog are huddled inside a cold cave, tattered deerskins wrapped around them, freezing their prehistoric asses off. Suddenly, in runs their friend Kog, excitedly waving two bits of wood around. "GUYS! Check this out!" He sits down and rubs the two pieces of wood together and soon has a roaring fire. "And that's not all! I just got this incredible idea: if we take a piece of flint and beat it against another, we can make tools! Using those we can make a wheel, tame horses, sew clothes, build houses, and... check this out... we're gonna go to the MOON!"

Kog runs along to the next cave to show Bog and Tog his new invention. Og looks to Gog and says "Shit, is he pretentious or what?"
 
Disliking TDVC does not make anyone an elitist. Characterizing readers that enjoyed the book as idiots does. Of course it works both ways.:rolleyes:

Read Peder's discussion, my reply, and his answer back. Valid points about the book's faults, of which he made many excellent ones, are accepted and encouraged. Blanket statements about those readers that have enjoyed the book aren't. To be honest the average reader would likely be scared away from expressing his/her opinions here for fear of being thought of as mentally inept.
 
Thank you, drm. But all jesting aside, I'll have to go find them and read them. :) I had thought that the better and best criticims were made by others here. And the best defenses also!
Peder
 
I think I found it/them waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back.
Sounds like one of my more pompous posts. :(
Oy,
Peder
 
drmjwdvm said:
Not at all pompous, clever, insightful and, well worded. You defend your criticisms of TDVC.
Click to expand...
OK, then I didn't find it!.:confused:
Have to go look again, :cool:
Peder
 
drmjwdvm said:
Blanket statements about those readers that have enjoyed the book aren't. To be honest the average reader would likely be scared away from expressing his/her opinions here for fear of being thought of as mentally inept.
Click to expand...
Why is it that Dan Brown lovers always defend their love of the book by insulting people who don't by labelling them as "elitists"? Robert mentioned "elitists" and Bountyhunter said this:

Bountyhunter said:
The uber-intellectuals with there "Darling, you are astonishingly dumb - and because my intelligence is discombobulatingly superior to yours, I say Dan Brown is a terrible peice of sizzling crap."

Geez, shut up.
Click to expand...

without /any/ mention in the previous posts that all Dan Brown lovers were morons. It seems to me that the DB lovers are the ones throwing around the blanket terms, and that those who didn't enjoy some bestseller or another should be frightened to voice their opinion and be labelled a snobby intellectual
 
Mr. Brown's sequel will now not come out until 2007.......calm down everybody.....don't riot in the streets or anything....:eek: :rolleyes: Contain yourselves! It seems that all this terrible business of the court case and of course all the exhaustive research he has had to do for the new book has put the publishing date back a whole year.

Life is one trial after the other isn't it. :(
 
Never said I was a DB lover, never defended the literary merits of the book (I know they are few or non existent). I'm not making any blanket statements about the book's critics. Just defending those who enjoyed the book despite it's flaws.:D
 
I want to read this eventually, but I usually borrow from the library and it seems the Da Vinci Code has been permenantly on reserve since it came out.
 
MonkeyCatcher said:
Why is it that Dan Brown lovers always defend their love of the book by insulting people who don't by labelling them as "elitists"? Robert mentioned "elitists" and Bountyhunter said this:



without /any/ mention in the previous posts that all Dan Brown lovers were morons. It seems to me that the DB lovers are the ones throwing around the blanket terms, and that those who didn't enjoy some bestseller or another should be frightened to voice their opinion and be labelled a snobby intellectual
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% because it doesn't take an elitist or intellectual to realize that DB's TDVC is a bad book. I'm neither of the two and I know it's a crap book with crap writing.
:p
 
drmjwdvm said:
Just defending those who enjoyed the book despite it's flaws.:D
Click to expand...
drm,
I'll join in the defense, too.
I think it is easy to see why people like it! It is a fast-paced murder mystery that is easy to read. The notion of a murderous Opus Dei organization gives it a certain controversial attraction. Furthermore, the notion of a relation between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, with offspring, and 'proven' by secret documents locked up in a secret archive, is definitely a wall-banger! Plus everyone can now squint at a painting and look for themselves for the sacred V-shape and symbol of the female Chalice. All that without even mentioning that it shows the Church in a bad light. That's quite a bit more than the average page-turner provides, I think. And I say that with no disrespect whatever to all the people who like it. That it lost me half-way through is strictly a personal reaction and somewhat beside the point. Forty million other people can't all be wrong.
Peder
 
drmjwdvm said:
Never said I was a DB lover
Click to expand...
I apologise for placing you in this group then. I was mislead by your statement that you enjoyed his work.

I'm not making any blanket statements about the book's critics. Just defending those who enjoyed the book despite it's flaws.:D
Click to expand...
Yes, defending them by insinuating that people who speak out against the book are elitists.

peder said:
Forty million other people can't all be wrong
Click to expand...
Since when did the number of people who bought the book equal the number of people who enjoyed said book? And plus, millions of people used to believe that the Earth was flat and that the Sun travelled around us, so you can't really put much faith in the beliefs of the masses.
 
MonkeyCatcher said:
Since when did the number of people who bought the book equal the number of people who enjoyed said book?
Click to expand...
In a strict sense of course it doesn't. So let me try it this way: when there is a raging forest fire, I suspect most of the trees are burning. No proof, just a gut feel.
Monkey Catcher said:
And plus, millions of people used to believe that the Earth was flat and that the Sun travelled around us, so you can't really put much faith in the beliefs of the masses.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the hazard of using analogies and slogans. So let me try that one this way. If one is talking, for example, about the literary merit of the book, it may indeed be irrelevant that 40 million people liked the book. OTOH, if we are talking about whether people liked the idea of reading the book well enough to plunk down hard cash, then I think it is almost a tautology that, if 40 million people have bought the book, then 40 million people wanted to buy the book.
Then I would connect my second point to my first point above, which would mean that most people who read the book enjoyed it -- and by an overwhelming majority -- in order to generate such a firestorm of interest to buy the book (to keep the analogy with a burning forest.) 40 million trees is a lot of trees to go up in flames!
Or let me use a different analogy, from this nuclear age. It looks to me like 40 million people was greater than the critical mass needed to sustain the reaction.

In schematic form: Bought => Enjoyed => Wanted => Bought

And if you say that looks like circular reasoning, it does seem to be, but that is exactly how a chain reaction does work.

Finally, and BTW, please allow me to suggest as politely as I may, that, if we are talking about elitism, then I am hoping that you might reread your post with that in mind. The masses?

Thanks for picking up on phrasing that was too loose on my part,
Loose phrasing and using analogies is always hazardous,
Peder
 
drmjwdvm said:
Peder, thanks for your insightful arguments which stay focused on the book and not the readers.
Click to expand...

Given that all comment passed on the book is indicative of the reader, we are never losing focus.
 
MonkeyCatcher said:
I apologise for placing you in this group then. I was mislead by your statement that you enjoyed his work......... Yes, defending them by insinuating that people who speak out against the book are elitists.
Click to expand...

A work, not all the works. I wrote that I enjoyed this book not that I was a DB fan. I've not read any others by him.

I insinuate nothing about those who speak out against the book. If I have use the word elitist it was intended as a defensive response to some comment about the foolish masses, or the idiot fans or whatever the implications or inuendos were upstream of my posts. Don't lump me in with fervent DB lovers/believers. I enjoy criticism about the book just not about it's readers.
 
Stewart said:
Given that all comment passed on the book is indicative of the reader, we are never losing focus.
Click to expand...
Oooh, then I would hate to tell you some of the things I read. :)
Peder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top