A very, very late review

I think everyone else on Earth has already reviewed Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' by now, but I just got done reading it recently, and thought I would offer my opinions.

I liked it.

I was torn from the beginning, because I had enjoyed the movie (years ago now) and yet my idol Stephen Fry had described it as 'loose stoolwater' (I think those were the words anyway - it was clear that he didn't like it.)

Although (like so many bestsellers) it wasn't any kind of massive achievement, it was very, very enjoyable to read. A good thriller. I was gripped, throughout, constantly wanting to read one more tiny chapter and see what secret the heroes would uncover next. Even though I already knew the entire plot, come to think of it, from the film.

It is 'a page turner'.

I have to address the faults, just to help me deal with my parental abandonment issues relating to Mr Fry:

1) The villain's chief sidekick is a black-robed monk with red eyes, who is also a masochist. This is very silly. He's albino... but still. I think the only reason he is albino is because that means he has red eyes.

2) The national stereotyping is surprisingly cheap and lazy. Tom Hanks is a handsome, sexy Harvard professor who is a flatfoot and relatively blunt (compared to the French and English characters) but he has a heart of gold and a true and honourable sense of right and wrong. He gets the girl. Sophie Neveu is a beautiful, charming, innocent, French 'police cryptologist' (I hope that is a real job) who seems to be in her twenties, and yet is among the most brilliant problem-solving minds on Earth. And of course, 'Sir Leigh Teabing' is English. He drinks tea, he makes smart quips, he talks posh, he drinks tea, he makes snobby remarks, he drinks tea. He is English. Oh, and he's tricky, too.

3) The characterisation in general is pretty weak. Again, considering how exciting the plot is, this kept surprising me.

4) I often had a hard time figuring out Langdon's (see picture above) motivation for even being there. He seems to risk everything for a vague quest to solve a riddle which may-or-may-not have been addressed to him by a stranger. The character is portrayed as cautious and quiet, so why is he risking his career and freedom for this? It seems to be largely because a pretty French genius asked him to, and he misses the pretty Italian genius he fell for in the first book.

5) And finally, there is a lot of completely made-up art and religious history. Until half-way through, I was absolutely loving this book and its complex weaving of hidden historical facts and fictional adventure, because I saw it as the most exciting art class ever ever ever. When I got to looking things up (on wiki... but still...) I found that it was 90% fiction, and I was disappointed.

But the carefully-organised thriller plot, the anagrams and riddles, and the sense of tension were absolutely wonderful. Here, I guess, lies the massive success of the book. And there was an brief moment when I thought I had learned the secret of Mona Lisa's smile (and title), which felt great until I hit wiki and discovered that, no... there's no such thing as the Priory of Scion. Which is a damn shame.

That said - I spent a long, long time examining The Last Supper after I finished reading. And I really was quite disturbed by the old, familiar image - how could I have never noticed how incredibly feminine Peter looks? I was amazed that I had never noticed.
I will be DAMNED if that's a man sitting opposite Jesus, in a colour-swapped copy of his clothes, forming a large empty space in the shape of a chalice.

Okay, it could easily be a man! I'm no art scholar. I'm barely a scholar, as I'm sure this review demonstrates.

But he looks DAMN feminine...


















(Peter is the one who's about to make-out with Harrison Ford.)