Why Da Vinci Code Smells like Cow Poo

Disclaimer: I was bored so I was wrote this.

Is it just me, or was Da Vinci Code a load of crap?

I think the real conspiracy is that millions have read this book - and nobody bothered to tell me how much it sucked.

Those of you who know me probably know how much antipathy I hold for Dan Brown's books (Angels and Demons, Da Vinci Code and other crap). Until recently I never really thought about why I disliked them so much - I guess I believed it was just something that everyone took for granted. It'd be like trying to write a discourse on why licorice tastes like ... well, exactly how licorice tastes to non-licorice lovers - it was something I never thought needed to be taken seriously.

However, because someone brought this up (and I have nothing better to do) I've decided to waste twenty minutes of my life explaining why I think Dan Brown's books ... well ... suck. I'll try look at the whole thing from an objective standpoint (quite unlike how Brown himself writes), weighing up both pro's and con's of his book.

Point of note: I'd just like to say that I am not trying to offend people happen to truly like his book. Liking someone or something is a preference - the point that I am attempting to make is that how much you like something does not instantly make it a "good" book (in the same way that George Bush being elected and then re-elected by the majority of American citizens does not make him a "good" president). This article is my ideas and if you don't like them, then you're probably right.

Points I have heard why Brown is good:

• I bought it for my boyfriend but I haven't read it for myself so it naturally must be good! One of the arguments I've actually heard. Much as I love you guys, I just had to include this one.
  
• Lots of people like it so it must be good! Fair 'nuff ... no, not really. That's almost like saying just because enough people believe something to be true, then it must be (eg. the earth being round, the earth not rotating, the earth being the centre of the universe). Of course, liking something is entirely a preferential act.
  
• It's exciting / interesting / captivating! Yeah ... and so are magazine tabloids. Paris Hilton draws the attention of millions of people, and so do celebrity gossip columns.
  
• It talks about real places, real organisations (eg. the Vatican, Cern, Opus Dei) and real museum pieces (Mona Lisa, Madonna on the Rocks). Actually this is one of the things that I dislike about his writing. If he decided to write a fiction novel about fictious places and fictitious characters - then by all mean, write away! I love a good fiction novel. Problem is Brown transcends the average cheap techno-thriller by talking about real things and real places from a skewed and poorly-researched point-of-view. Like, he himself describes his books as describing "factual events, places, organizations and rituals." Interviews with Brown quote him as a "believer" in all the "facts" that he writes about. So you would think, someone dedicating years upon years of his life to these deep, dark mysterious facts that surround our world is going to write something somewhat credible right? Something that doesn't get treated as a captivating thriller by the masses, and a badly-researched piece of hogwash by the rest. Like come on, the average Joe is going to think, "Anti-matter as a bomb! Ooh .. that's a very plausible, wonderful idea! Dan Brown obviously knows what he is talking about" Or the average person who has never seen the real Madonna On the Rocks may start believing that "Omigosh.. how can Mary be so slack to like her nephew Joseph! Fug ... Dan said that she outstretches her hand over her head like an eagle's talons! Mary's evil man. Dan Brown's right, Catholics are gay." Not to mention people actually believing that Leonardo Da Vinci (while Brown himself professes to base all of his "years of research" upon), born 1,452 years after Christ, in a different city and country, from a completely different background, not even religious himself - would have any more of an idea than we would have, about whether Jesus Christ was married or not.
  

Now a lot of his theories are probably laughed at by most of us. Most of us will probably go "Yep, even though Mr. Brown attempts to convince us that every single one of his amusingly stupid theories are true, I've got enough common sense and scepticism to take his highly-subjective and poorly-evidenced 'facts' with a grain of salt." But can you say that about everyone? I'm going to go out on a limb, and suggest that a lot of the people who end up reading his books will never again hear Catholicism, molecular physics, the ancient cathedrals of Rome and all the other wonderful things out there are really about - except through Dan Brown's retarded interpretation of these things. Seriously, how many of you actually took the time to look at some of the paintings, in which he describes in such vivid, skewed detail? Or read up on what Opus Dei really is, or had a Google for what a astonishingly stupid thing an "anti-matter bomb". I think the real conspiracy is that everyone seems to hide the fact about how stupid this book really is.

My point is this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone should go ahead express their opinion. If Dan Brown said his writing was fiction and kept it at that - then he can go ahead and make a fool of himself for all I care. But to go around harping on about how his stories are all based on "meticulously researched factual information" - some poor bugger is going to start believing his tripe is real. And a lot of it can be pretty damaging to the way they perceive a lot of the world.

I've just realised ... I'm giving Brown more attention than his books actually deserve. There's always going to be some tossser that's popular for all the wrong reasons (think Paris Hilton, The Osbournes, George Bush, Ashley Simpson).

So bugger them and bugger the rest of this article.