When I read it, I didn't really enjoy the writing. I did enjoy the ideas that are tosed about. I thought about them, did some further reading. That's what I enjoyed: being about the spectulate about a new set of theories.
Heh, they're hardly new. :p The Priory of Scion gag was disproved when the perpetrator came out and admitted it was a prank, and "Jesus got it on with Mary Magdalene!" has been whispered in every Catholic school in the world at some point of another. I thought he could have picked something that was at least original, like The Rule of Four did.
It's very true. I think his writing was thought to be too similar to "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." Well at least to the authors of those books. If I recall the story behind that book, it's also just a theory being presented.
It is interesting that all the sources he could have used have been around for a while, but it took that novel to renew interest, or to spark interest in people.
As far as that stuff goes, I wouldn't know. ^^ I'm not too interested in religious conspiracy theories to start with (nor religion itself, for that matter - no offense to those who are religious, but it just doesn't suit me, I find) and have very little knowledge of Christianity and Catholicism (aside from the mainstream image of it).
I do, however, know for a fact that there's about a mouse's chance in a cat-filled room of some of the things he describes as fact happening - cops would wait until the preliminary evidence collection was finished (at the very least) before bringing any civilian in, I think. Especially if said civilian is only there to give his opinion on the ritualistic aspects of the murder/suicide/whatever.
I'm very quickly beginning to suspect that he just pulled things out of the air on a lot of areas, though. Frankly, if a book is so bad that it doesn't bother to get certain basic scenarios as accurate as possible (eg, bringing in a civilian expert to the crime scene before any evidence recovery has been performed - no. Just no. Especially since the he then had the gall to have his character comment about the need to preserve evidence in order to justify having the body still there when the expert arrived), I don't hold much stock in any theories it puts forward since I doubt it's too reliable if the author and editor can't make sure the more basic facts are straight.
Yeah... you want to have even some shred of credibility, you have to make sure that what you write is actually believable, and I'm just getting too fed up with his apparent use of "I don't have a sweet clue what the actual protocol is in this situation, so I'll just make up something that suits my Plot Point." to think it's anything more than a very overrated work of poor fiction.
Reply
Reply
It is interesting that all the sources he could have used have been around for a while, but it took that novel to renew interest, or to spark interest in people.
Reply
I do, however, know for a fact that there's about a mouse's chance in a cat-filled room of some of the things he describes as fact happening - cops would wait until the preliminary evidence collection was finished (at the very least) before bringing any civilian in, I think. Especially if said civilian is only there to give his opinion on the ritualistic aspects of the murder/suicide/whatever.
Reply
Reply
I must say that the daVinci Code is tame compared to Angels and Demons with the sort of wtf-ness. They are definitely not the best written books.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment