Take a photo of a barcode or cover
hyperdontiia 's review for:
The Da Vinci Code
by Dan Brown
Ahahaha...
This book would easily be four stars if I was rating it based on how much I liked it as a fun thrill romp across France and England with some inventive symbology. However, the entire story is ruined by one page. It's the very first page. The very first page seems to imply we should be taking all of this seriously. If you don't think that's the case, I'd like to introduce you to numerous people who seem to have been under this impression (they're probably in the comments). Dan Brown's book is full of little inaccuracies that fly in the face of "meticulous research", huge reaches, and things that really just don't make a lick of sense, such as Jesus being mortal and Mary still retaining "goddess" status.
Furthermore, I did nooot expect this book to be as dorky as it was. Langdon and Sophie are so goshdarned perfect and at the same time when the plot wants them to be, totally dense-- why oh why do they look at the literal backwards text for a whole five minutes before it dawns on them what it is? How would this stump anyone? ??????? I can't believe a critically acclaimed novel takes time to meander through Langdon's awkward attempts to use slang with his class (cardboard cutouts of cardboard cutouts of actual students at the college level) or to point out "HEY REMEMBER THE DUST IN THE LION KING THAT SPELLS "SEX"?!"
yeah, because buzzfeed told me.
That said. Instead of trying to open your third eye with this book. Turn your brain off a little and it is a fun, dense thriller. I really enjoyed it all the way through, and yes, Dan Brown can weave a yarn you don't want to put down. Give the man his credit where it's due.
This book would easily be four stars if I was rating it based on how much I liked it as a fun thrill romp across France and England with some inventive symbology. However, the entire story is ruined by one page. It's the very first page. The very first page seems to imply we should be taking all of this seriously. If you don't think that's the case, I'd like to introduce you to numerous people who seem to have been under this impression (they're probably in the comments). Dan Brown's book is full of little inaccuracies that fly in the face of "meticulous research", huge reaches, and things that really just don't make a lick of sense, such as Jesus being mortal and Mary still retaining "goddess" status.
Furthermore, I did nooot expect this book to be as dorky as it was. Langdon and Sophie are so goshdarned perfect and at the same time when the plot wants them to be, totally dense-- why oh why do they look at the literal backwards text for a whole five minutes before it dawns on them what it is? How would this stump anyone? ??????? I can't believe a critically acclaimed novel takes time to meander through Langdon's awkward attempts to use slang with his class (cardboard cutouts of cardboard cutouts of actual students at the college level) or to point out "HEY REMEMBER THE DUST IN THE LION KING THAT SPELLS "SEX"?!"
yeah, because buzzfeed told me.
That said. Instead of trying to open your third eye with this book. Turn your brain off a little and it is a fun, dense thriller. I really enjoyed it all the way through, and yes, Dan Brown can weave a yarn you don't want to put down. Give the man his credit where it's due.