So. Dan Brown.
(VERY mild spoilers below.)
I just finished The Da Vinci Code (I received and started it yesterday at about 6 p.m.). It was a book that held my interest for about the first half - the beginning through Langdon's and Sophie's visit to Teabing - and that I finished only for the sake of finishing. At one point in the story, after yet another twist, I thought, "This is becoming ridiculous. All these twists are just a ploy to help Brown wrap up the story more quickly." In other words, a fantastic beginning and a good (albeit slightly disappointing) conclusion/epilogue, but the middle part - after the escape from Teabing's chateau and until Langdon and Sophie's arrival at Rosslyn (spelling? I gave the book to my brother to read and so don't have it anymore) - was ridiculous.
What primarily held my interest were the cryptology and codes. The Divine Proportion and its relationship with the Fibonnaci sequence were amazing, and I loved the hunt for clues that Saunière created for Langdon and Sophie throughout the Louvre. Teabing's and Langdon's collaborative lecture about Opus Dei, the "true" Holy Grail, and etc. also intrigued me, even though a lot of that has since been dismissed by historians as inaccurate and embellished. At any rate. The mystery of Jacques Saunière's murder, which is explored in roughly the first half of the story and which propels the ensuing action, was by far the better part. I think I like learning about the premise and background of mysteries more than I like to read about how they're solved, so I'm definitely not an impartial reader.
So - first half of the story is more well-crafted than the second. The second wouldn't have been so bad if it weren't so sloppy. The twists in the story were becoming ridiculous and so many in number that I felt that Brown was cheating his way out of writing a second half whose power and intrigue should have equalled or surpassed those of the first half but didn't. But after spending roughly 200 pages on a single night, Brown, I'm guessing, must have wanted to wrap things up with rapid-pace rising action, a bang climax, and a happily-ever-after-and-yet-somewhat-nebulous denouement. For the sake of the readers, that was a good choice, but for the sake of the story, that was a terrible choice. After such a good build-up, why wrap things up so quickly?
Then again, the story was becoming predictable. But nevertheless. If I were to reread this book, I'd stop after the visit at Teabing's.
Additionally, there's no emotional depth. Sophie's family situation seems to have been written in for three reasons: to offer a character who knows a lot about Saunière, to provide a major female character, and to add some pathos to the story. All three reasons are valid, but only the first two actually succeed in the working. A good suspense/thriller mystery makes you want the protagonists to succeed because they're so appealing to you. But by the time the storyline had become absurd, I wanted them to succeed only so the book could end. As likeable as Langdon and Sophie are, they don't succeed as characters because there's no real depth to them. They aren't unique individuals. What makes them unique is their knowledge. But apart from that, they have no distinctive character traits, no flaws-beneath-the-surface that make them "relatable" to the readers, nothing that adds an emotional depth to them...
Having finally read the novel that's stayed in the bestseller lists for three years, I'm not so sure why exactly The Da Vinci Code has enjoyed an enduring presence there. Certainly the premise is intriguing, but the second half is so sloppily-constructed and half-baked and the characters are so boring that overall, the novel is somewhat of a disappointment. (I hope that Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman have improved that second half for the movie, which I plan to see at some point.) Granted, I could hardly craft a better story, but who said that critical book readers need to be capable of writing The Ultimate Novel? :P
I just finished The Da Vinci Code (I received and started it yesterday at about 6 p.m.). It was a book that held my interest for about the first half - the beginning through Langdon's and Sophie's visit to Teabing - and that I finished only for the sake of finishing. At one point in the story, after yet another twist, I thought, "This is becoming ridiculous. All these twists are just a ploy to help Brown wrap up the story more quickly." In other words, a fantastic beginning and a good (albeit slightly disappointing) conclusion/epilogue, but the middle part - after the escape from Teabing's chateau and until Langdon and Sophie's arrival at Rosslyn (spelling? I gave the book to my brother to read and so don't have it anymore) - was ridiculous.
What primarily held my interest were the cryptology and codes. The Divine Proportion and its relationship with the Fibonnaci sequence were amazing, and I loved the hunt for clues that Saunière created for Langdon and Sophie throughout the Louvre. Teabing's and Langdon's collaborative lecture about Opus Dei, the "true" Holy Grail, and etc. also intrigued me, even though a lot of that has since been dismissed by historians as inaccurate and embellished. At any rate. The mystery of Jacques Saunière's murder, which is explored in roughly the first half of the story and which propels the ensuing action, was by far the better part. I think I like learning about the premise and background of mysteries more than I like to read about how they're solved, so I'm definitely not an impartial reader.
So - first half of the story is more well-crafted than the second. The second wouldn't have been so bad if it weren't so sloppy. The twists in the story were becoming ridiculous and so many in number that I felt that Brown was cheating his way out of writing a second half whose power and intrigue should have equalled or surpassed those of the first half but didn't. But after spending roughly 200 pages on a single night, Brown, I'm guessing, must have wanted to wrap things up with rapid-pace rising action, a bang climax, and a happily-ever-after-and-yet-somewhat-nebulous denouement. For the sake of the readers, that was a good choice, but for the sake of the story, that was a terrible choice. After such a good build-up, why wrap things up so quickly?
Then again, the story was becoming predictable. But nevertheless. If I were to reread this book, I'd stop after the visit at Teabing's.
Additionally, there's no emotional depth. Sophie's family situation seems to have been written in for three reasons: to offer a character who knows a lot about Saunière, to provide a major female character, and to add some pathos to the story. All three reasons are valid, but only the first two actually succeed in the working. A good suspense/thriller mystery makes you want the protagonists to succeed because they're so appealing to you. But by the time the storyline had become absurd, I wanted them to succeed only so the book could end. As likeable as Langdon and Sophie are, they don't succeed as characters because there's no real depth to them. They aren't unique individuals. What makes them unique is their knowledge. But apart from that, they have no distinctive character traits, no flaws-beneath-the-surface that make them "relatable" to the readers, nothing that adds an emotional depth to them...
Having finally read the novel that's stayed in the bestseller lists for three years, I'm not so sure why exactly The Da Vinci Code has enjoyed an enduring presence there. Certainly the premise is intriguing, but the second half is so sloppily-constructed and half-baked and the characters are so boring that overall, the novel is somewhat of a disappointment. (I hope that Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman have improved that second half for the movie, which I plan to see at some point.) Granted, I could hardly craft a better story, but who said that critical book readers need to be capable of writing The Ultimate Novel? :P