I recently finished “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown. I actually listened to it on audio book on the way to West Virginia for the white water rafting trip, rather than reading the book. Unfortunately, the audio book was an abridged version, so some portions of the book were left out. The parts cut out didn’t affect the plot of the book, but I have a feeling that I missed some details that may help understand the “code” presented by Brown. My review is based on the abridged version.

I’m going to look at this book from two different angles, as merely a fictional work and then as the fact-based story which Brown claims it is.

From the perspective of this being merely a fictional book, it was a decent read, though I wasn’t a big fan of Brown’s often elementary writing style. Many times he was too verbose, taking a simple description of a character’s hair and turning it into this huge analogy that in the end left me scratching my head. At times, the book got too predictable. The main characters would be confronted with clues they needed to solve, and get stumped by them, on one page, and then solve it by the next page with an “amazing revelation.” This happened time and time again. It would have been more suspenseful had this “problem solving” been a bit more varied. The plot was an interesting premise, though, and I did get caught up in the action, wondering what was around the next corner. However, at times, it seemed like this was written as a screenplay (and there is a movie in the works). While not the greatest, The Da Vinci Code was still an okay read for those who like mysteries and adventures.

Now, from the perspective of this being a fact-based story, I have a lot of gripes. First, if the theories Brown was proposing were true, then why did he write a work of fiction instead of a paper or documentary about it? To me, it seems he didn’t have enough to go on, that there were so many holes in this “code” that he had to wrap a mystery around it and present it differently, to try to hide these holes.

Secondly, much of Brown’s so-called “Da Vinci code” isn’t his own. The secret society, Priory of Sion, and the conspiracy of Da Vinci secretly hiding the “truth” in his paintings were presented many years ago, as were other aspects of “the code”. The person who originally presented some of these ideas was actually discredited, and evidence found that supported the fact he made it all up. Brown choose to ignore this, though, and presented it as fact in his novel and even in his dicussions about the book.

One thing that I can’t get over is how Brown thinks that his interpretation of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper painting is the truth. Works of art are, almost by definition, subjective. Each person who looks at a painting, sculpture, etc may get something different out of it, and these interpretations may be entirely different from what the author intended. Brown insists the legendary Holy Grail is present in The Last Supper, and that this Holy Grail is the women next to Christ, Mary Magdalene. While some, including Brown, may be convinced that this is Mary, practically everyone else knows this is the apostle John, who was often painted as more feminine that others. He can think what he wants, everyone is allowed their own opinions, but what bothers me is that he presents this as fact, that Da Vinci *did* paint Mary Magdalene, and bases much of his theory on his “interpretation.”

Along these lines, Brown speaks of the Holy Grail as if it’s a fact, too. The Holy Grail is actually part of Arthurian legend, as can be seen in such movies as “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” or “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” Nowhere in the Bible or elswhere does it say the cup of Christ *is* the Holy Grail. This is purely a human invention, something we made up of our own accord. We made up the label of Holy Grail for the cup of Christ. Brown takes the standpoint that there is without a doubt a Holy Grail and that it isn’t the cup of Christ, but Mary Magdalene herself. So, in other words, the legends that were made up are wrong? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

It’s hard for me to completely describe all the problems that I have with Brown’s Da Vinci code, but I find it thoroughly unconvincing. While the book may be a decent suspense and mystery story, the fact that he claims his theory is true wrecks whatever enjoyment I may have gotten out of it.

Read more reviews at amazon.com.

[Disclaimer: Most of what I wrote above about The Da Vinci Code were my own thoughts, which I formed as I was reading it. However, I am now reading "Cracking the Da Vinci Code," which is a book entirely devoted to debunking this code, and a portion of the review was influenced or supported by facts which I have read in that book so far.]