Is a book like Da Vinci Code healthy literature in terms of literary merit as well as claims of it being fact?

Question

or books by authors such as Umberto Eco that are both superior literarily and makes no such absurd claims?

Answer 1

It's a medicore book in terms of plot and style - not brilliant, but I didn't think it stank as much as some folks said. But for me, Brown blew any respectability with his stupid claims that it was all true.

Answer 2

I think it is a bit of stretch to compare the da vinci code to umberto eco's novels.

eco's novels are more literary, more sophisticated and require greater effort on the part of the reader.

da vinci code is pure entertainment and should be regarded as such. there is nothing wrong with entertainment and i am sure that the basic facts are probably more or less accurate (though the way they are represented may be questionable) but it is not a book anyone is likely to mistake for high literature.

if you want to kill a few hours on a plane, by all means dan brown is your man.

but he is not superior literature.

Answer 3

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Dan Brown has never claimed to be uncovering a great hidden truth, that's just the interpretation of the hysterical masses. It's probably about as true as the bible is, but look how many people take that as er... gospel (ahem). It's a good yarn, a well crafted mystery/ thriller and it pokes a finger in the eye of traditionalist religious dogma, which is always good for a giggle. It's well written and the characterisation is fairly solid, if you buy into the story. The security/ police investigation methods are far less accurate than than anything else, but why let things like that get in the way of a good story.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy remains my all time favourite, but I don't believe it's a true story.

Oh to the idiot above... Dan Brown never said it was a true story, he was sued by somebody else who claimed he had plaigerised the idea, but this was not upheld in the courts and the other guy backpedalled, actually.

Answer 4

DVC is not not based on fact as many above have rightly said.

There are some glaring factual errors in it which a small amount of research will bring to light, however...he wrote a fictional book, he may have changed facts to make them fit with the story which is perfectly exceptable in fiction, additionally a lot of the facts are not facts but theories without evidence.

Is it well written? As a novel that is enjoyable to a large, non-literary audience (as in many people who read it would not normally pick up a book more than once a year) then the answer is yes.

Is it a book that will survive the ages and become classic, the answer is a resounding no.

Answer 5

Not sure why everyone claims he said it was all true.
From Dan Brown himself:

HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

Answer 6

Eco's books are also properly researched, whereas Browns book is lifted from other conspiratorial books that have done the same. None of these authors now read the source material as they assume that at some point, someone has. The Nag Hammadi texts are very vague and therefore extremely open to interpretation. The Grail stories are the same. Mashed together, anyone can make any theory sound plausible.

The public then read it and assume it's true. The other problem is that Dan Brown states the facts as true.

Then in addition to that; Holywood puts its take on it and the story twists even further.

Mind you, most of history is written that way too!

Answer 7

this is such a long running debate...

i think Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown is a brilliant book. Agreed it has a controversial subject in its story line

but the guy has done his research and the story telling is riveting - you have to give him credit for those 2 things

back to it claiming it is fact. read the first page again ! it says something like 'all the places, paintings, arts, museums and locations are fact. the priory of sion is real and actually exist'

if you read his words properly you will see that he never claims that the story is fact ! the characters are fictional - the story is fictional - but the other things, topics arent....

well i guess it depends on diff people how they want to take it !

Answer 8

The book is trivial and over the top, with a very far fetched plot,but that's what most people seem to want.

But neither is "Uncle Tom's Cabin" a "good" book in terms of literary merit, still, what influence did it have!

I hope the "Da Vinci Code" will get people to think about the obvious misogyny in Abrahamic religions, that would be a good thing, certainly.

I don't think "healthy" is/should be a criterion.

Answer 9

Eco is a better writer in absolute terms, but I must defend Dan Brown on one point: he made no more claims than Eco did. Umberto Eco published fiction, and so did Dan Brown. Eco used scenes and circumstances which allowed the reader to speculate on whether or not it was substantially true, or had elements of historical truth in it, and so did Brown. They both wrote stories I enjoyed very much, but I have to say Eco is the better writer in terms of literary quality.

Also, he wrote very long books, which allowed him to develop a more complex plot. Put in more fictional elements, as it were.

Answer 10

i don't think it has much literary merit.... however, when one looks at the general mind set of modern society, it fits in perfectly and hence it's success.... and i guess this gives it some sort of merit none the less. a merit that Umberto lacks.
as to the claims of fact. that would depend on your point of view. obviously the author believes that the research done in the Holy Blood, Holy Grail and other works is relevant and the conclusions reached valid. There is no doubt, if you have done unblinkered research yourself, that you would find that the Vatican has a long history of deception and cover up... whether the story of Mary Mag. is a part of it, it can not be known for certain until the vatican vaults are opened to public scrutiny.
as one who lives in the vicinity of where much of the mystery 'lives', i find it hard to ignore that there is a story there, that it is a story that has power by virtue of the fact is is guarded so diligently, and denied so vociferously by the catholic church.
the question remains, though, is this story any longer relevant to us in modern times? i would say no. and i think most would generally agree, it is only the vatican's protests that piques our curiosity. if they didn't say anything, would we have even noticed? it just would have been another mystery written in popular, cheap literature, by someone who thinks that the basis of the story is fact.

Answer 11

I'm not sure I understand your question - the Da Vinci Code does not claim to be 'fact'. It states at the beginning that a couple of things mentioned in the book really exist, but the whole work is fictional.

Can you get 'unhealthy' literature? I mean, I'm not sure if a book can actually make you sick (taking the sentence literally) and taking it metaphorically, literature is supposed to inspire the mind, even if it's rubbish. Literature is all subjective.