"...if I agree to publish an idea like this...it'll kill your reputation. You're a Harvard historian, for God's sake, not a popshlockmiester looking for a quick buck."

"Renowned Symbologist" Robert Langdon was supposed to meet Jacques Sonier one night; instead, he gets called to the Louvre, the scene of Sonier's horrific death. Langdon spots clues to Sonier's murderer everywhere, which makes the French police officer, Fache, immediately think that Langdon is the murderer. Fortunately, sexy Sophie intervenes to shunt Langdon away. And then they are off, trying to avoid being arrested, trying to find the "Grail", and trying to discover who killed Sonier.

NOTE 1: My French is atrocious; expect misspellings everywhere.

NOTE 2: Light spoilers to follow.

This book has been quite controversial. A lot of Christian and Catholic churches have been up in arms about the claims Dan Brown makes in this book--namely how Jesus married Mary Magdalene and how the Church will stop at nothing to try to conceal this "horrific and world-altering" religious conspiracy.

Let's get this out right off the bat: I don't know if Jesus was married. Tradition has it that he was not, but since I wasn't there, I can't say for certain. All I know is that, if I learned Jesus was in fact married, I would probably be surprised, but I'm not going to suddenly abandon my faith just because of Jesus' relationship status. And while this may create a bit of controversy if it ever does appear to be true (I think there was a recent article that gave more evidence to this), I think a lot of people are just going to believe that it's all a bunch of lies. Good grief, stop making mountains out of molehills.

"Controversial" non-controversy aside, this was an absolutely unintentionally hilarious book. Characterization is astonishingly bad, the pacing is dull, the clues somehow end up between too easy and too difficult, the mystery is snooze-worthy, and the narrator's over-the-top French accent sent me into gales of laughter.

Our main characters are Gary Stu and Mary Sue--I mean, Robert Langdon and Sophie Noveau. Langdon is one of the most boring male protagonists I've had to read in recent history. I love how he supposedly looks so "bookish", with descriptions like this:

"His usually sharp blue eyes looked hazy and drawn tonight. A dark stubble was shrouding his strong jaw and dimpled chin. Around his temples, the grey highlights were advancing, making their way deeper into his thicket of coarse black hair. Although his female colleagues insisted the grey only accentuated his bookish appeal, Langdon knew better."
George Clooney anyone?

It was painful how every character had to clamor on and on about his "accomplishments" and how "intriguing" he is, or how the ladies' panties get all wet when he enters a room. If this is not male fantasy, I don't know what is.

The weird thing is, when it comes to actually solving the clues/mystery, Langdon is a moron. He spends so long talking about history, symbols, sacred feminine (I got a load on this one...), but he seems severely stumped when trying to solve a few clues. The worst was the mirror-image English. Do you seriously mean to tell me an American can't recognize mirror-image English? I, a measly engineer, experimented with reading mirror-image English and had no problems.

Meanwhile we have the set of boobs, Sophie. Don't expect her to have a personality or purpose besides being a set of boobs to get captured. I think Sophie is held at gunpoint 800 times in this book. She is even dumber than Langdon, despite being a talented cryptographer. She cannot solve any of the puzzles on her own, even though her OWN GRANDFATHER WROTE THEM.

The rest of the cast was goofy and 1-dimensional. Fache might as well twirl a mustache for all the good he does. I had no clue what Arringarosa's purpose in the story was. Silas' Sally Sob Story was so overwrought and cliche, I was laughing at his self-flagellation. And Teabing...good God, Teabing. I have no idea how to classify Teabing. Other than I kept imagining Sir Elton John, and I'm not sure that was the "characterization" Brown was going for.

But you know, a lot of thrillers are more about the puzzles and mystery and action than the characters. I can buy that. But you also know what? The puzzles, mystery, and action are horrible. The puzzles tend to be the same type over and over and over again. They also seem to somehow be way too complicated (such as translating one word into Greek, doing an anagram, then translating to English???) and way too easy at the same time. There really is no mystery; there are so few characters, that it's pretty obvious who the Teacher is about halfway through the book. And the action? PAH! None, or very, very sparse. Most of the book is long, boring talking scenes where Teabing and Langdon try to out-Wikipedia each other. I'd rather go to Wikipedia and read THAT then read the mangled facts here.

The other thing that drove me bonkers was how EVERYTHING, from Walt Disney to Sir Isaac Newton, from playing cards to the Mona Lisa, was about the Sacred Feminism. I don't doubt that the Sacred Feminism had its influence, but come on! It's like Brown randomly threw in artwork or famous people to be a part of his stupid conspiracy theory. It was so bad, I started throwing this guy around my status updates:



And the narrator! Good grief! A Geoffrey Harding narrated my copy, and he had the worst accents I've heard in a long time. Sophie sounded like a moron; the French sounded so ridiculous, I had to stop the iPod to laugh. And Harding reads everything in this movie trailer voice that makes the book seem so much more important than it is.

The best thing about this book was reading it along with my Goodreads friend. I loved how she would bring up stuff I totally missed or how we would virtual laugh over Dan Brown's ridiculous scenarios.

If you want a smart, intelligent read, don't go here. If you are expecting Indiana Jones style adventure, I think this is just too slow-paced for you. If you are looking for a Buddy Read to snark over, you've come to the right place!!

The Movie Was Better

When the curator of The Louvre is found murdered, Robert Langdon finds himself in the middle of a mystery filled with riddles and puzzles. Will Langdon be able to figure out all of the clues?

The Da Vinci Code is structured in very short chapters which at first was refreshing but became old pretty fast. Instead of focusing on one major mystery with a bunch of players, there are a bunch of riddles to solve. Of course, I wasn’t able to solve the riddles (alright well I did solve the first riddle because if I was guessing someone’s password that would have been my very first try). The prose is simply horrible in this book. The sentences were very short.

To read this, you have to suspend reality (and not in a good way, yes, I’m talking to you all of my fantasy friends!). There was always a car ready to whisk them away. The police were constantly outsmarted. Planes could easily be redirected in mid-flight. If you ask Langdon the most basic yes/no question, he would answer you with a full treatise. But apparently this is really quite an aphrodisiac because the women seem to just love this nerdy guy.

Thank you to everyone who participated in The Da Vinci Code Readalong!

2025 Reading Schedule
JantA Town Like Alice
FebtBirdsong
MartCaptain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
AprtWar and Peace
MaytThe Woman in White
JuntAtonement
JultThe Shadow of the Wind
AugtJude the Obscure
SeptUlysses
OcttVanity Fair
NovtA Fine Balance
DectGerminal

Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Insta My Bookstore at Pango

Four stars for pure entertainment value.

However, Dave Barry's review gets five stars:


`The Da Vinci Code,' cracked
by Dave Barry

I have written a blockbuster novel. My inspiration was The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown, which has sold 253 trillion copies in hardcover because it's such a compelling page-turner. NOBODY can put this book down:

MOTHER ON BEACH: Help! My child is being attacked by a shark!

LIFEGUARD (looking up from The DaVinci Code: Not now! I just got to page 243, where it turns out that one of the men depicted in ''The Last Supper'' is actually a woman!

MOTHER: I know! Isn't that incredible? And it turns out that she's . . .

SHARK (spitting out the child): Don't give it away! I'm only on page 187!

The key to The DaVinci Code is that it's filled with startling plot twists, and almost every chapter ends with a ''cliffhanger,'' so you have to keep reading to see what will happen. Using this formula, I wrote the following blockbuster novel, titled The Constitution Conundrum. It's fairly short now, but when I get a huge publishing contract, I'll flesh it out to 100,000 words by adding sentences.

CHAPTER ONE: Handsome yet unmarried historian Hugh Heckman stood in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., squinting through the bulletproof glass at the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, he made an amazing discovery.

''My God!'' he said, out loud. ``This is incredible! Soon I will say what it is.''

CHAPTER TWO: ''What is it?'' said a woman Heckman had never seen before who happened to be standing next to him. She was extremely beautiful, but wore glasses as a sign of intelligence.

''My name is Desiree Legume,'' she said.

Heckman felt he could trust her.

''Look at this!'' he said, pointing to the Constitution.

''My God, that's incredible!'' said Desiree. ``It's going to be very surprising when we finally reveal what we're talking about!''

CHAPTER THREE: ''Yes,'' said Hugh, ``incredible as it seems, there are extra words written in the margin of the U.S. Constitution, and nobody ever noticed them until now! They appear to be in some kind of code.''

''Let me look,'' said Desiree. ``In addition to being gorgeous, I am a trained codebreaker. Oh my God!''

''What is it?'' asked Hugh in an excited yet concerned tone of voice. ''The message,'' said Desiree, ``is . . . ''

But just then, the chapter ended.

CHAPTER FOUR: ''It's a fiendishly clever code,'' explained Desiree. 'As you can see, the words say: `White House White House Bo Bite House, Banana Fana Fo Fite House, Fe Fi Mo Mite House, White House.' ''

''Yes,'' said Hugh, frowning in bafflement. ``But what can it possibly mean?''

''If I am correct,'' said Desiree, ``it is referring to . . . the White House!''

''My God!'' said Hugh. ``That's where the president lives! Do you think . . . ''

''Do I think what?'' said Desiree.

''I don't know,'' said Hugh. ``But we're about to find out.''

CHAPTER FIVE: Hugh and Desiree crouched in some bushes next to the Oval Office.

''We'd better hurry up and solve this mystery,'' remarked Desiree anxiously. ''It's only a matter of time before somebody notices that the Constitution is missing.'' She had slipped it into her purse at the National Archives while the guard wasn't looking.

''The answer must be here somewhere,'' said Hugh, studying the ancient document, which was brown from age and the fact that he had spilled Diet Peach Snapple on it.

''Wait a minute!'' he said. ``I've got it!''

''What?'' said Desiree, her breasts heaving into view.

''The answer!'' said Hugh. ``It's . . .

But just then, shots rang out.

CHAPTER SIX: ''That was close!'' remarked Desiree. ``Fortunately, those shots had nothing to do with the plot of this book.''

''Yes,'' said Hugh. ``Anyway, as I was saying, the answer is to hold the Constitution up so that it is aligned with the White House and the Washington Monument. . . . There, do you see what I mean?''

''My God!'' said Desiree, seeing what he meant. ``It's . . . ''

''Hold it right there,'' said the president of the United States.

CHAPTER SEVEN: '' . . . and so you see,'' concluded the president, ``you two uncovered a shocking and fascinating secret that, if it should ever get out, could change the course of history.''

''Mr. President,'' said Desiree, ``thank you for that riveting and satisfying explanation, which will be fleshed out into much greater detail once there is a publishing contract.''

''Also,'' noted Hugh, ``we may use some beverage other than Snapple, depending on what kind of product-placement deals can be worked out.''

''Good,'' said the president. ``Now can I have the Constitution back?''

They all enjoyed a hearty laugh, for they knew that the movie rights were also available...

،
،
عندما شَرعت في قرآءة الروآيه كآن آكثر ما إعترك فضولي هوا سؤال واحد
ماذا تعني الشيفره التي كتبها "جآك سونيير" قبل وفاته وهل ستدلنا على القاتل ..!؟
ولكن ..! وبعد الإنتهآء من الروآيه ، وعندما اطبقت اخر ورقه في الكتآب
شعرتُ بآن هُنآك مئآت التسآؤلات الصآرخه بـ دآخلي والتي تبحث عن إجآبه
وكآن آكثر ما خالجني هوا ..: هل حقاً إنتهت الروآيه ..!؟

Has the novel really ended ?
,
وماذا عن طوفآن التيه الذي آشعر به الآن ..!؟
هل هذا ما كآن يُريدهُ الكآتب ان يُوصِلني إليه ..؟
آن آلجَّ بين دَفتّي " اليقين والشك " لـ آبقى عالقةً بينهمآ ..!؟
،
،
ذِكر "الآنثى المُقدسه" في الـروآيه جعلني اتذكر فتره قضيتهآ في"الهند
حيث كانت النساء الهندوسيات قُبيل المغرب يغسلن مدخل بيوتهن بالماء
ومن ثَم يتفنن بـ النقش على آرضية المدخل بـ بودره ذآت الوان زآهيه
وعند الإنتهاء وقرب الغروب يُشعلن الشموع امام عتبآت المنزل
وعلى رفوف الشبآبيك يُعلقن الــورد والفُـل
وعند سؤآلي عن السبب قيل لي بآن روح " الإلهه الهندوسيه المؤنثه
تزورهم في الليل لــ تَهبهم " الطمآنينه والآمآن
ويتوجب آن يكون المنزل ومدخلهِ ذآ بهآ يليــق بـِهآ
،
وفِعل مشآبه لـ مثل هذهِ المراسم الدينيه .. رآيتهآ لــ عائِلات ملايو البــوذيه
و صينيين " في ماليزيـاء وسنغافوره " بـ إختلاف العآدات والمُعتقدآت
ولا آظن بآن هناك علآقه بين "الآنثى المقدسه" التى ذُكرت في الروآيه
و" الإلهه المؤنثه " للإختلاف الديني بينهم .
ولكن ..! آظن بـ آنهُ قد يجمعهم مفهوم " إلهه الجمآل والحياة " > وجهة نظر فقط
وهذا ما شعرت بهِ من سِيآق ذِكرها المُتكرر في الروايه
،
ورغم الكم الهائل من الحقائق في الروآيه والتي اصابتني بـ الذهوول
إلا ان هُنآك نقآط اساسيه كآنت اكثر ما استوقفتني ، وجعلتني آغصُّ بـ تفآصيلهآ
سـ آحآول ان الخِّصهآ كما جآءت في الروآيـه :
،
،
"النجمه الخماسيه" .. *
والتي يُحددها كوكب فينوس كل اربعة سنين
" ترمز لـ إلهة الحب والجمآل " الآنثى المقدسه " .. وعُرفت بـ عدة اسامي
" فينوس، النجمه الشرقيه ، عشتار ، وعشتاروت "
. لـ تُحـرف من بعد وتُصبح رمزاً اساسياً للحرب"
،
" الرقم فاي PHI " *
المشتق من متوالية فيبوناتشي ، وهيَ متواليه حسابيه شهيره
نواتج قسمة الآرقام المتتاليه تتمتع بـ خاصيه مذهله وهي الاقتراب من الرقم ١،٦١٨
ودور هذا الرقم كـ حجر بناء اساسي في الطبيعه . وإعتبارهِ رقم مُقدس
ادهشني هذا الرقم جداً ، وطريقة ربطهِ بـ النجمه الخماسيه .
،
النزاع بين "المسيحيون والوثنيون" الذي هدد بـ آنقسام روما الى قسمين *
والذي على اساسهِ وضع "قسطنطين " قرآر التوحيد تحت لـواء ديني واحد الا وهوا " المسيحيه
حيث خلق دين هجيني والذي كان مقبولاً من الطرفين وذلك عن طريق دمج الرموز والتواريخ
والطقوس الوثنيه والعادات والتقاليد تهيئةً "للمسيحيه الجديده ."
،
.. ا*دآفنشي الرائـد في علم الكتابه بـ الشيفرة
لوحات "دافنشي" التي ذُكرت في الروآيه والذي ادهشني ايضاً إرتباطهآ بـ الدين
:
١ــــــ "الرجل الفيترومي"، آو شريعة الآنساب " والتي كانت تُمثل التناغم بين الرجل والمرأه
الموناليزيا ومعنى تسميتها بهذا الاسم " Amon l’isa" ٢ــــ
والملامح التي تقصدّها دافنشي في رسمهِآ وتفسير البآحثين لهآ "
"٣ـــــ "سيدة الصخور" والتي رُسمت بـ شكل يتنآسب مع الكنيسه الكاثوليكيه "عذراء الصخور
٤ـــــــ " العشاء الآخير " وما تضمنتهُ هذهِ الوحه من اسرار وتلميحآت
" الورده ، الكآس المقدسه ، الدم المقدس ، السلاله المقدسه ، السانغريال ، القدح "
و"مريم المجدوليه" الوعاء المقدس الذي حمل سلالة يسوع المسيح الملكي وانبتت الثمره المقدسه
،
. فرسان الهيكل" حُــراس هوية المسيح الحقيقيه وآسرارهِ" *
،
نجمة داوود " شعار سليمان " التي اتخذتهآ اسرائيل شعاراً لها *
والتي كانت ترمز لـ " سيف وقدح " وهما عبآره عن مُثلثآن مُتعاكسان مُندمجان في النصف
واللذآنِ يُشيرآن إلى الاتحاد الكامل بين الذكر والآنثى .

،
وآخيراً..... *
والذي كُنت اركض خلفه ونركض خلفهُ جميعاً منذُ بآدئ الروآيه
هوا : "نهاية ايـآم الـحـــوت وبدآية الدلـــو
وهيَ الاشاره التاريخيه المُنتظره لـ نشر وثآئــق "الدم الملكي
امام العالم اجمع ، وإنتظار المؤرخين لـ ظهوره
"الغـــريال" Sangreal"
وهذهِ هيَ التآئهه كمآ بدآ لي طوآل فترة قرآءتي للروآيه ،
،
ولكن ..…!
وعند قرب الوصول لـلكآس المُقدسه وكشف السر للعالم
ظهر مآ الَجم فـآه الآحداث السآبقه، والتي آعآدتني إلى تيه الـبدآيه
واصابتني بـ التشكيك في آغلب المُجريات والحقآئق التي ذُكرت ..!
هوا ما قالته الجده ماري " زوجة المعلم الكبير جآك " في نهاية صفحآت الروآيه

فما نهاية الأيام إلآ اسطوره اختلقتها عقول مريضه ، فـ ليس هناك مايعرف" :
على انه تاريخ محدد يتم الكشف فيه عن "الغـــريال
بل وهناك تآكيد دوماً على ان الغريآل يجب ان لا يُكشف ابداً

. إنتهى #

،
وإن حاول الكآتب من بعد ان يصل بنا الى نهاية مليئه بـ التلميحآت لـ يروي بهآ ش��ف القارئ
إلا آن هذا السر يظل مُبهماً و يحتفظ بــ الكثير من التساؤلآت في جيوب القارئين و البآحثين
و التي تتطلب البحث المستمر ، وإعترآك سآحة الآلغـــآز لـ فك عجرة خيوطهآ المُتشابكه
،
ومن هنا اعود بكم الى كلمآتي الآولى والتي صآفحت تيه الإستفهآم
هل حقاً إنتهت الروآيه ..!؟

Has the novel really ended ?
Was that what the author wanted to convey to me ?

..

n  “Life is filled with secrets. You can't learn them all at once.”n

This is one of the best and most amazing novels I've ever read!
When I finished it at almost 3 am, I couldn't sleep.
From the instant the book starts, Dan Brown immediately grabs the readers attention, grabbing them by the throat and making them read on right until the end!
I like conspiracy theories, so the whole basis of the book was interesting.
Obviously most of what is in the book is fiction, but Brown's story telling makes you think it's real.
I thought his use of real places, people and events in what is a fictional story was very clever.

If you're into mystery/suspense genre, history or secret societies, I recommend this.

If you are a devout Christian, I don't think I'd recommend this book.

PLEASE do NOT recommend The Da Vinci Code to me because you think it's brilliant. Please do not try to explain to me that it is a "really interesting and eye-opening book." Just don't. Please.

I've read Iain Pear, I heart Foucault's Pendulum, Dashiell Hammett is my hero, Alan Moore is My Absolute Favorite, I listen to Coil on a fairly regular basis, and cloak n' dagger secret society/Priory of Sion/Knights of Templar-tinged num nums make me a very happy girl... but if you truly believe that Brown's stupid airport thriller has ANY right whatsoever to be placed in the same category with Michael "Wooden Dildo Dialogue" Crichton, let alone Umberto Eco, kindly keep this opinion very far away from me, or the ensuing conversation we have will not be constructive or polite in any way.

I loathe Dan Brown. I resent him for spoon-feeding the masses pseudo-intellectual "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" D-grade thriller shite under a pretense of real sophistication, and getting orally serviced by The New York Times for his effort.

I'd heard that the novel was meticulously researched and contained some really interesting and controversial assessments of religious zealotry. Um, not really? Well, not by my Merovingian standards, anyway. :D

Let's put it this way. If Dan Brown was teaching an Insurgent Christian Symbolism in Art and Literature 101 class at my local community college, I'd definitely have a different opinion about him.

But NO. Dan Brown is not a professor of anything but pap. He is a barely competent thriller writer who wrote an AWFUL book that I could not bear to finish because I felt my IQ plummeting a little further with every "Let's Go to Paris! Guidebook" description and blowhard authorial essay. Oh, don't even get me started about those cute soliloquies the main characters are so fond of delivering, ever so calmly, often while cops n' bovvers are chasing them.

The characters are weakly drawn. The dialogue is excruciating. The research is shoddy and self-serving at best. The plot, no matter how open-minded you are, is beyond ludicrous. It's laughable enough to be incorporated into the next Indiana Jones movie. That'd be sweet, dude.

What really irks me are Dan Brown's sanctimonious interviews, wherein he shows off all of his priceless antiques while expressing his abiding convictions that the American public needs a "deeper appreciation" of art and history and culture. What a shallow, self-aggrandizing hypocrite. I'm all for fictional subversion of the dominant Catholic paradigm, but only if the subverter knows what the hell they're talking about. Brown DOESN'T. He's all "la la la, connect the dots" but the picture he comes up with is awkward and unconvincing.

The DaVinci Choad is a dead easy, nay, downright lazy read, and yet droves of people are patting themselves on the back for having read and *gasp* actually understood it. Like this is some spectacular achievement? WHY? What, because the slipcover describes it as "erudite"? Are you fucking kidding me?

Don't believe the hype, kids. You are profoundly more intelligent than this holiday page-turner gives you credit for.

If you really, honestly, just plain liked the book, that's cool I guess. Maybe you also prefer Anne Geddes to Alfred Stieglitz, Kenny G to Sidney Bechet, John Tesh to Igor Stravinsky. Your prerogative. Just.... please don't try to tell me that this is "fascinating" or "meaningful literature". Frickin' read The Club Dumas or something. Then we'll talk, and I won't want to shoot myself in the face.

Alright, glad I purged that poison from my system. Carry on.

First of all, let's try to rid our mind of all the hype and hoopla surrounding the whole thing. Let's pretend the whole thing is just some spiral bound notebook that you found on the train and read because you were lonely.


Ok, having accomplished that, let's dole out some compliments. Good plot, Danny boy! You managed to write an interesting crime/mystery/whatever thing WHILE managing to blaspheme one of the most worshiped dudes of all time. That takes some creativity, and some balls. Kudos.

If i might suggest something, though- and I realize this is hurtful, but take it like a man big guy- you probably could have done the literary world a favor by giving this wonderful little story to, er, a writer. I mean, it's nice to be able to read the whole thing in one afternoon without even having to get up for a piss, but I couldn't help but feel like I was reading the newspaper the whole time. And that's a big part of a book's validity- the whole "quality of writing" thing.

Anyway, you kind of got fucked over with the whole international attention thing- now all the 'cool' people in the world will diss on your book because it's way overblown, and the only people who still embrace will be those poor little simpletons who don't know the difference between hip and square. Looks like it's a life in the lower-middle class for you, Mr. Brown.

But hey- enjoy that swimming pool filled with gold doubloons.

The writing 2/5

The unexpected acknowledgment of the rise of the sacred feminine in this ultimate dad book 5/5

This wasn’t nearly as awful as I had feared. I had lots of reasons to believe this would be pretty awful, but actually, the story moved along nicely and there was enough to the story to sustain my interest nearly up until the end – in much the same way that any good murder mystery sustains interest. This isn’t the best murder mystery novel I’ve ever read – but it is not a terrible one either.

Having said that it might seem a little strange that I’ll spend virtually all of this review talking about the things I didn’t like about the book. Oh well, if being ‘a little strange’ is all I get accused of I can say with confidence that I have been accused of much worse.

It does not take long for the book to do something I think is nearly unforgivable in any book. I’ll quote the first time this happens in full:

Saunière held up his hands in defense. "Wait," he said slowly. "I will tell you what you need to know." The curator spoke his next words carefully. The lie he told was one he had rehearsed many times... each time praying he would never have to use it.

Needless to say, the lie told here is somewhat important to the plot and we only find out more about it later in the book.

This quote is from the very start of the book, a mere thirteen paragraphs in. This sort of writing happens early and then repeats for much of the rest of the book. This sort of writing really annoys me.

When you read a book there are a number of people who you find are talking to you. There is the voice of the book itself (the narrator), there is often the person whose story this voice is telling you, there are other relatively incidental characters who chime in now and again and, of course, there is the author. Now, each of these people know a bit more or a bit less about what is actually going on in the story. And that’s okay, that’s also the way life works. But you might notice that I’ve made a distinction between the narrator of the story and the author. Obviously, there are times when this distinction if absolutely necessary – for example, where it is necessary to tell a story where the narrator of the story (the voice doing the talking) can’t in anyway be considered the same person as the author. In The Catcher in the Rye, for example, it is obviously a character, Holden Caulfield, who is supposed to be doing the talking – but no one would argue that Holden is Salinger. Holden is clearly a creation of Salinger’s and for the book to make sense it is important to keep that distinction clear. But behind the voice of Holden, if you listen carefully enough, you will hear the whispering voice of Salinger.

In this book that might seem to be a less important distinction to make. This is because the text is written in what is called ‘omniscient narration’. In this book the narrator is a kind of God and he can see into the hearts of all of the characters in ways we lesser mortals can never do in the real world. When he says that a character is happy or confused or lustful – then there is no possibility that that character can be anything else. If the Christian God really is interested in giving us free will, then an author of a piece of omniscient narration has even more power than God. But even so, I think it is important to be able to distinguish between the author of a book and the omniscient narrator within the book – even in cases where they would seem to be very closely aligned.

Let’s go back to the quote above and why it does something that really annoys me. When I read a mystery story I want the mystery to be intrinsic to the story. The writer should know where the story is going, but I don’t need the narrator to necessarily know. All the same, I do need to be able to trust the narrator.

I want to trust that the narrator will tell me something like the truth (or not, but in a way that can be fun for me to see where the narrator is distorting the truth), but I really don’t want the narrator to mess me about. I want the voice of the book to tell me stuff that the voice knows and to be clear with me about that.

So, in the quote above where Saunière tells his captor what he knows BUT WE ARE NOT TOLD what he says, there can be only one reason for this – the narrator has decided that telling us what is being said at this point in the story will somehow spoil the mystery. And, to me, that is the weakest form of mystery story telling. To me, the mystery should be in the story itself, something deeply embedded in the very nature of the story and how the story needs to be told. In this case it is as if the narrator is saying, “I’ll explain to you what gets said here in my own good time”. And look, that would be fine, except that a mystery that needs the narrator to effectively tell the reader that they are keeping something secret from them to create the mystery is, to quote my daughters, a bit lame.

Actually, there can be two reasons for this kind of secret keeping, the other is more likely in this case – it is to ‘heighten suspense’. This is a very dangerous game for a writer to play. Suspense that is artificially created, not by the story, but by how the story is told can quickly become very irritating.

The distinction between the writer and the narrator is perhaps best shown by this little piece of self-congratulation in the book. "A brilliant ten-digit code that Saunière would never forget." Now, think about what is actually being said here. The narrator has explained a code that was created by one of the characters called Saunière – all well and good – except, of course, we all know that really Dan Brown actually created the code. The code’s brilliance is that it links in with some mathematics that is seen as somewhat important to the plot (Fibonacci sequences). But behind the voice of the narrator congratulating Saunière on his brilliance is the author who came up with this plotting point in the first place. So hearing the narrator say how brilliant Saunière has been is really nothing more than the writer saying how terribly clever he thinks he has been in coming up with this idea in the first place. If you are thinking of writing a novel, avoiding this sort of self-congratulation would be one of my main pieces of advice.

This is a work of fiction, and so I guess it makes little sense to criticise it for the historical or factual inaccuracy of large slabs of its subject matter – nevertheless, I prefer my fiction to be in the story, rather than in what are presented as historical facts.

The one that annoyed me the most was this bit about the Mona Lisa:

Langdon nodded. "Gentlemen, not only does the face of Mona Lisa look androgynous, but her name is an anagram of the divine union of male and female. And that, my friends, is Da Vinci's little secret, and the reason for Mona Lisa's knowing smile."

Effectively we are told that Da Vinci was very clever in naming the painting because it fits nicely with one of the main themes of this book, the union of the male and female. The only problem is that Da Vinci never called the painting the Mona Lisa. As my mate Wiki points out:

The painting's title stems from a description by Giorgio Vasari in his biography of Leonardo da Vinci published in 1550, 31 years after the artist's death.

There are other historical inversions of this kind in the book, but my personal favourite is the fact that Catholicism is held up to scorn for its rejection of the ‘sacred feminine’. But of all of the Christian sects, I would have thought the Catholic Church, with its idolatry of Mary, the mother of God, would be the least deserving of this charge. The other Christian Churches seem to refer to ‘the Mother Church’ as the ‘Cult of Mary’. I would have thought the Catholic Church would have been a much more difficult target for the charge of rejection of the female than any of the Protestant Churches as they are purely interested in male divine beings with no mediation of the feminine possible or permissible at all.

I don’t think I’ve included any spoilers in this review, although that might depend somewhat on what you want to read this book for – I don’t think I’ve said anything that would destroy a reading of the book as a murder mystery, which is where I believe this book works best. I mean, as philosophy it is nonsense, as theology it is a smile on a doll and as Symbology (even if that is a ‘discipline’ Dan Brown made up all by himself) it is pretty shallow stuff. The bit at the end where Langdon needed the Star of David explained to him really did make the premise that Langdon is an expert in this field ring somewhat hollow.

It may be that I am the last person in the world to have read this book – as such the whole question of spoilers is somewhat academic. All the same, if you have not read it already I need to stress that it is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Sure, some of the writing will make you cringe, but at least the story moves along at a decent clip – and of what is pretty well trash, there is little more you can ask than that.

Oh, and by the way, I like to collect ‘best first lines in novels’ – Calvino’s If On a Winter's Night a Traveler comes close to the best, but Jolley’s Miss Peabody's Inheritance has a good first sentence as does Carey’s Bliss. But this book has given me a new hobby, that is in finding the worst last line of a book. How is this for terrible? “For a moment, he thought he heard a woman's voice... the wisdom of the ages... whispering up from the chasms of the earth.” I know what you were thinking Dan, but unfortunately, I don’t think it quite came off there.

Interesting plot, but not quite an entertaining thriller. It was too long or was it because this was a group read and we read a few chapters a day so it felt like forever. I enjoyed the movie better.

I borrowed three formats from my library. Audio, ebook, and this interesting edition "The Da Vinci Code special illustrated edition". It looks like the glossy hardcover type for your coffee table. The chapters match the actual book. It's less wordy and includes photographs of objects, paintings, and places which makes it more interesting.

Still, I'm happy I "read along" with Goodread folks, thanks Lisa!!

The Da Vinci Code (Robert Langdon #2), Dan Brown

The Da Vinci Code is a 2003 mystery thriller novel by Dan Brown.

It follows "symbologist" Robert Langdon and cryptologist Sophie Neveu after a murder in the Louvre Museum in Paris causes them to become involved in a battle between the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei over the possibility of Jesus Christ having been a companion to Mary Magdalene.

عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «رمز داوینچی»؛ «راز داوینچی»؛ نویسنده: دن براون؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: سال 2007میلادی

عنوان: رمز داوینچی؛ نویسنده: دن براون؛ مترجم: نوشین ریشهری؛ تهران، نگارینه، 1384، در 336ص؛ شابک 9647533764؛ چاپ سوم 1385؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 21م

عنوان: راز داوینچی؛ نویسنده: دن براون؛ مترجم: حسین شهرابی؛ سمیه گنجی؛ تهران، زهره، 1384، در 462ص؛ مصور؛ شابک 964570340؛ چاپ هفتم 1385؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، علم آرین، 1384؛ در 462 ص؛ شابک 9649582541؛

عنوان: راز داوینچی؛ نویسنده: دن براون؛ مترجم: مریم بهرامی؛ تهران؛ بهزاد، 1385؛ در 571ص؛ شابک 9642569264؛

صهیون، نام خرابه های قلعه ای در «سوریه»، و نزدیک «لاذقیه» است، در زمان «اسکندر»، «فنیقیان»، چهارصد سال پیش از میلاد مسیح در آنجا مسکن گزیدند؛ در سال 1119میلادی، به تصرف «صلیبیون مسیحی» درآمد، سپس «صلاح الدین ایوبی»، در سال 1188میلادی، آنجا را فتح کرد؛ همچنین کوهی است، در جنوبغربی «اورشلیم (بیت المقدس)» که معبد را روی آن بنا کرده اند، و در آن «مسجد الاقصی» و «قبه ی صخره» است؛ گاهی «بیت المقدس» را به این نام خوانند؛ از فرهنگ معین

کتاب «رمز داوینچی» ترجمه خانم «نوشین ریشهری»، با پاراگراف بالا آغاز شده، «رابرت لانگدون»، سمبل شناس و استاد دانشگاه «هاروارد»، و «سوفی نی وو» نقش آفرینان رخدادها هستند، دل انگیز بود، کتاب با نام «راز داوینچی» و با ترجمه جناب «حسین شهرابی» و بانو «سمیه گنجی» در انتشارات زهره، و با ترجمه بانو «مریم بهرامی»، در نشر بهزاد، نیز منتشر شده است

ماجرای داستان به یک تئوری ویژه، درباره ی تاریخ «مسیحیت» برمی‌گردد، که پیش از این کتاب نیز، در موردش نوشته هایی نگاشته شده، و تاریخ‌دانانی با آن موافق هستند؛ کتاب «خون مقدس، جام مقدس»، منبع اصلی «براون»، برای این تئوری‌ها بوده ‌اند؛ طبق این تئوری، «عیسی مسیح» با «مریم مجدلیه» ازدواج کرده‌؛ و صاحب فرزند شده ‌است، و کلیسای کاتولیک، و «واتیکان»، با آگاهی از این قضایا، برای پنهان کردن آن‌ها کوشیده ‌اند؛ در ضمن «جام مقدس»، نه یک شیئ، بلکه خود «مریم مجدلیه» است؛ تئوری‌های دیگری نیز، در این کتاب وجود دارند؛ که «لئوناردو دا وینچی» همجنس گرا بوده، و نقاشی معروف «مونالیزا»، در واقع پرتره ی «داوینچی»، از خودش به شکل یک زن است؛ داستان کتاب، در کشورهای «فرانسه» و «بریتانیا»، و در اماکن نام آشنای این دو کشور، رخ می‌دهند؛ (همانند «موزهٔ لوور» و صومعه‌ ای که به «صومعه برهنه» موسوم است، و همچون نقاشی مشهور «داوینچی» از آناتومی انسان ژست گرفته، و پیغامی رمزی نیز در کنارش نوشته شده ‌است)؛ پنج ماه پیش از آغاز داستان، «واتیکان» به اسقف «آرینگاروسا»، رهبر فرقه ای مسیحی تندرو، و مبتنی بر ریاضت‌های سنگین جسمانی، موسوم به «اپوس دئی (یعنی: کار خدا)» اعلام می‌کند، که می‌خواهد دست از حمایت از آن فرقه بردارد، و بیست میلیون یوروی اهدایی فرقه را هم، پس خواهد داد؛ فردی موسوم به «استاد»، که در اصل قصد تخریب وجهه ی کلیسا، و «اپوس دئی» را دارد، به اسقف پیشنهاد می‌دهد، در ازای بیست میلیون یورو، جام مقدس گمشده ی «عیسی» را، در اختیارش بگذارد، تا «اپوس دئی» قدرت و محبوبیت پیدا کند؛ ولی در حقیقت، با استفاده از یکی از نیروهای اسقف، به قتل اعضای دیر صهیون، که مخالفان قدیمی کلیسا، و حافظان جام مقدس هستند، می‌پردازد، تا خودش بتواند جام را به دست بیاورد؛ «استاد اعظم دیر صهیون»، که رئیس موزه «لوور» است، پیش از مرگ، اسرار یافتن جام را، به نوه ‌اش «سوفی» گفته است، و از او خواسته، از دانشمندی «آمریکایی» به نام «رابرت لنگدان»، که در نمادشناسی مذهبی، و باستان‌شناسی تواناست، یاری بخواهد؛ این دو، با وجود پیگیری بی‌امان پلیس، و نیروهای «استاد»، مرحله به مرحله، به «جام مقدس» نزدیکتر می‌شوند، و در این راه، از یک تاریخ‌دان «انگلیسی» به نام «تیبنیگ» هم، یاری می‌گیرند، نهایتاً «پرنسس سوفی»، خانواده گمشده ‌اش را پیدا می‌کند، و «لنگدان» هم جام مقدس را؛ و تازه آن دو همدیگر را نیز پیدا می‌کنند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 03/06/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 15/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

Ladies and gentlemen I am before the more complicated review that I have to write, and quite possibly will generate the rejection of much of the Goodreads community. First of all, I apologize to everyone who put him like to my review, thinking that he would him the book of the "Da Vinci Code" a good note. I must admit, that you underestimate to the "Da Vinci Code" thought that a book was very bad, and have come to realize that it is one of the worst books I've ever read. Of course my relationship with this book began long ago, when this book getting hits and had success without any reason. . Everyone seemed to feel fascinated by this book. As I knew, that this book was bad I did know, but I found the misunderstanding of people, who want more my friends. That even though I well informed, despite not having read told me that the book was great, when I retorted them telling them of the numerous historical errors told me, but you have tests, although I would have had them no one would have believed me. This is the first phase the second began when I arrived at Goodreads. I thought that this book would be a short-lived, and would soon be forgotten, but me. So, that most hurt me by misfortune was that large number of Catholic and Christian users put him four, and five star. This review there is to be understood only as a criticism only this book, but certain literary phenomena praised by the public, or which are backed by lobbyists, which we will call the new world order. Is very difficult, which I can understand these people (I apologize to those people who asked me friendship and who does not accept, know now because he does not accept them as friends on Goodreads. Anyway, do not reject their friendship, just not accept them as friends, but, although did not accept them as friends for that reason can follow me, and also write me whenever they want. I will reply to them always with respect, and affection). In this case as the criticism can be long (my intention is to not pass six pages, but I don't think you get it, I will just share links of unknown writers). As a user told me I know that I have all lost, that the books of Dan Brown have triumphed, and has earned a lot of money. If people have not paid attention to the wise words of Anthony Esolen, Amy Welborn, Carl E. Olson, Sandra Miesel, and Michael Coren much less it will lend me a unknown user of goodreads, but as G.K. Chesterton says "there is nothing closer to paradise to win a battle that was believed lost". I do several things first thing is to thank a person who I play, it gave it is true, that she is a fan of this book, and unfortunately not going to like anything that I'm going to say about the book. I hope that you will forgive me for what I say. That which is not worth me the excuse that has been given, that it is true that the book is bad, but intrigue is very good. It has not affected my faith (congratulations, but to others, if occurred them), what he says is a lie, but it also says them. Gentlemen I believe, that is the truth with touch without offending anyone. To me I'm not worth the slogan of the daughter of Fu Manchu "of telling me lies, but tell them to me with sweetness" I would recommend them to read a story by g. k. Chesterton "Curse of the golden cross" because it is the key to everything. Summary it is the story of a murderer, who wants to become a relic, and is disguised as priest and tells a story based on newspapers and novels. That, is what makes Dan Brown guided by the ideology of the new world order, it is inoculated into the reader the politically correct. The first scene of the book shows how bad writing that is. There are times when you do not know, where are each character, and you lose. That, drive very few characters (Langdon, Sophie Neveu, Sauniere, Bezu Fache, Vernet, Silas, Aringarosa, Remy, the editor of Langdon, Remy, Sir Leigh Teabing, and some more police, and still doesn't move them.) The action scenes are very badly written, so that they seem to have died, and then come back, nor I have the temporal structure of the book is very clear to me. The action scenes are very badly written, so that they seem to have died, and then come back, nor I have the temporal structure of the book is very clear to me. A character is in a place, and in some pages will appear in another scenario) I am not a fan of Opus Dei, but it is that Brown says a number of untruths, which, if I ever doubt entered as cash, and read this novel would no doubt enter. None of that tells Mr Brown is new. His sympathetic albino (Silas). It seems to have come out of "The monk" M.G. Lewis. He drinks deeply anti-Catholic books, like good descendant of the Mayflower pioneers. Attacks on Opus Dei are not new, other writers anti-Catholic as Sue in "The wandering Jew", the own Stendhal "Red and black" in Spain we have the case of "A.M.D.G." have already seen how these books were used to attack the Jesuits. Opus Dei has already suffered attacks on its inception in a play inspired in "The Tartuffe" was an attack on Opus Dei. The own Morris West in his penultimate novel "Eminence" part of the plot was to blame the crimes of the dictatorship of Videla Opus Dei. Criticism as excess money, or that they favor among them are more legitimate, but I am in profound disagreement with Mr Brown, they used mescaline, to cause hallucinations, using hair to whip himself (I doubt, that someone use them), and that they bought the acquiescence of the Vatican, and also deeply at odds with the subject of women. There is no regular order of Opus Dei. Another thing, they are not terrorist, and you too has raised the level of influence in the Vatican. As to brainwash other groups I can think of things like the Nmivix that sect, who kidnap women, and prostituted them covered by Hollywood (in fact I am a lover of film, but not the current ideology of Hollywood. We saw in the 1950s, it fell into the McCathysm. It was somewhat contentious, but logical, considering that this ideology has killed 100 million people and is still killing. . The paradox is that we have gone to the extreme opposite in such a way is that if you're not on the left you can do movies, and have seen their bullying recently when Disney which you talked about in his novel, and Netflix threatening mafia way not roll in Georgi a, and Alabama but withdraw their pro-life bills. Mr Brown seemed to me, what he said the Disney was stupid, but seeing as it is attacking what has filled you with money the family unfortunately I assume, that at that point he was right. True, if in the dialogue that Bezu Fache and Langdon have speaking of as misrepresents Hollywood reality why it has allowed them to adapt her novels? Let us be honest Hollywood only makes movies for half of the population, and one feels now when he leaves a room of cinema as John Smith "The Brave new world"), and as soon as that may be Catholic terrorists again returns to wrong religion. Or the anvil which is the most extreme is terrorist). Another thing that has displeased me book is Mr Robert Langdon, certainly seems a conceited playboy, and with excess of libido (said that he was inspired by Indiana Jones, but Dr. Jones starts skeptical, and at the end just believing). One of the scenes that has most displeased me book is during the investigation. It is the intelligent who is Robert Langdon, and the fool who is the Catholic Bezu Fache is a mixture of bad of Watson-Closseau, to show the ignorant, and stupid, that we are Catholics. Saunieré leaves a message and already Fache this thinks Langdon is guilty, lousy method of detection. Note that does not know you, how the police. Sometimes the author echoes its provincialism, and their ingrained prejudices, as when in page 29 accused the French of being sexist. I see, that you don't know French women, who are the most liberal of the Earth. Mr Brown, who do not agree as the Me Too, unlike us does not convert the French male chauvinists, but a people with common sense, who rejects the NOM. It is not that he is a very religious people. In fact, since the third Republic France is a secular country, but perhaps because they have seen the ears with may 68 Wolf, now is they have transgressed (However, today the most interesting countries of this decrepit Europe are Hungary, and Poland). Page 52, Mr Brown shows his perfect ignorance, that thing most improper of which may be one of the best universities, as Harvard (where you studied. Certainly, to universities or general studies were created by the sexist Catholic Church) Easter Seals have nothing to do with the Ku Klux Klan. Then you sell us the image of the goddesses, I recommend to read another account of the great "The eye of Apollo" Chesty. The recently deceased Gene Wolfe understood better than you paganism and in one sentence of his novel "A soldier of the mist" captured its essence. If you knew something of paganism, he would know that in reality to the priestess of Astarte and Istar should exercise sacred prostitution. That is what you want our women to become prostitutes. Mr Brown Christianity ended with paganism, as the official religion, but my view did more harm authors as Carneaces Democritus, Epicurus, Aristofenes, Lucretius, Catullus, who laughed at the gods, in such a way, that already the people did not believe in them. Despite the attempt, that made Augusto reform Customs failed, and until the second century they had to prove certain philosophies as stoicism. The problem is that we try to imitate bad paganism and not to the virtuous as of Cornuto, Epictetus, Traseas, Iamblichus. If you read the Iliad, you will notice that the behavior of the gods gives embarrassment. These gods do not deserve to be worshipped. But yet I prefer to the virtuous Pagan, which, to the skeptical pagano, who no longer believe in their gods. Neither ran so they should have recourse to solar deities, that associated as the imperial cult, but of course, if fall emperors, as the imperial authority weakens. Let us be sincere Mr Brown. Today is recalled to Rome, and the Roman Empire because Christians, since those citadels preserved his legacy, and saved texts. Own Chateaubriand in 'The genius of Christianity' shows the superiority in the art of Catholic art against the pagan https://www.goodreads.com/series/1129... as Leonard Da Vinci I disagree with you and Mr Isaacson. I do not deny his homosexuality, but I doubt that as much as the Renaissance is anthropocentric, you worship nature, and rise the classic, yet was still Christian. So Leonard Da Vinci could not be the creator of the Priory of Sion, which is of the Decade of the 50s of the last century. Here we have the real Leonardo. Oh, by the way, that cupcake is not Madeleine, but San Juan Evangelista, and if you don't believe me look at the San Juan Bautista https://www.religionenlibertad.com/cu... The Sacre Couer, is not exotic, but neoclassical style in particular influenced by Byzantine architecture, which influenced Islamic art. On page 158, the Inquisition did not write El Maellus Maleficarum, but two German Dominicans were Kramer and Spranger. It must be said, in Germany there was no Inquisition since in 1236 Bishop Conrad of Marburg was killed. The paradox is that, in Spain, and in Italy where if had Inquisition, despite literature, there was almost no processes of witchcraft, and in countries, where there was who had more processes (not to mention that at the end were Protestants who ultimately burned more Witches). Would recommend you this book "Brief history of the Inquisition" of José Ignacio de la Torre https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... because unlike you, I do not recommend to psychologists and UFOlogists, but historians of truth. By the way, that the Inquisitor, who instructed the process of Zugarramurdi Alonso Salazar and cold. He came to admit, that he did not believe in witchcraft, so the Inquisition, almost not pursued witches, and was a guarantee for a process and a fair. By the way, read a history of the crusades in conditions (here I recommend some historians, Steven Weidenkopf, Thomas F. Madden, Jonathan Riley Smith, Ashbridge and Stephen Runciman, because if not I'm going to think, that Sir Leigh Teabing, and his Robert Langdon them) they gave the Chair in a raffle. Godfrey was not King of Jerusalem, but defender of the Holy Sepulchre. Oh and the Latin King of the second Crusade was not Baldwin II, but his grandson Baldwin III. In addition, I, I'm a big fan of the Crusades, I always thought in my ignorance, that they were to free the Holy places of the Turks, and to defend our Byzantine brothers, and not to protect the memory of the Magdalena. In addition, to me, I love how you change responsibilities Felipe IV and Pepin of Heristal finished with the Templars, and Dagoberto is killed, and make that the Church supports them, and you think that it is the Church who does it. But, how it will help the Church with a King, who contract to a villain, for slapping Pope Bonifacio VIII?) Pope Clement V wasn't inductor, a puppet named by King Felipe IV for their purposes. Oh also the Popes in France were at that time, and not in Rome. As for the Pope, already Zevaco invented that, and Katherine Neville was ahead of you with the cupcake in his novel "The magic circle". In terms of the divinity of Christ all the fathers of the Church Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Tatian, Saint Clement of Alexandria, origins, and Tertullian defended it. Therefore, it wasn't a Constantine caprichito, and what was decided in Nicea, is not whether Christ was God or not. In that were agreement all Catholics and Arians, but if Christ was the son of God, or not. No one doubted his divinity, and the books were already determined. The Gospels of Philip and Mary, you cite, on the contrary, apart from very misogynist. Since they make cupcake man. As for the idea that Christ is not God, I will paraphrase C.S Lewis ' call you crazy, blasphemous, or you kneel, and worship him as a God, but not to consider a teacher of morality, because that is what is not " . Those ideas, apart from that are labels, like the world. Renan, had already proposed it and Gnosticism Anatole France. Precisely the reason, why those books were discarded was due to that they wrote in late, and also instead of emphasizing the humanity of Christ, enhanced his divinity. What the spouse of Christ, already occurred to the great, although a little unorthodox Anthony Burgess and not married to Christ, cupcake, but with such a Sarah, that Sir Leigh Teabing became his daughter. As for what's the lineage Benjamite is telling me, that Madeleine is a descendant of King Saul. I see it, difficult, since except for Mefibal all descendants of Saul were killed. In addition, without sin, you snob, and classist. We live in a democracy, who cares which one is son of King. But, what a coincidence that the descendants of the Magalen praises, and emparenten with the lineage of the Merovingians, just highlight Merovech, Clovis, Chlothar. By the way, that they were known for their religiosity, and not worship the great goddess. That leave it to Robert Graves. It was also the last King Chilperic II. Please read this book "Stories of the Merovingian times" https://www.iberlibro.com/buscar-libr... by the way, you will know which was on the verge of going to pique that dynasty, by a civil war between two women, Fradegunda, and Brunequilda. Thus I could not it as an example of how wonderful female. By the way, feels that we are like the bonobo, and that here everything arranged with sex. Man is a social animal capable of controlling his emotions. The Church does not pursue sex, they condemned the abuse, or lack of it, many heresies were banned by condemning it. The Miss Neveu sees his Grandpa behaving as a satyr, but be lenient with him, because it serves to the goddess, and the eternal feminine. Mr Brown, will pay for treatment to people who suffer venereal diseases with the benefits of his novels? Because you said them, you have to imitate Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut. Everything has a risk, and it does not seem right that you us to convert in a satyrs and nymphs. Also have seen the negative effects of pornography, and as it is destroying families? I know what I mean, because I suffer this addiction. By the way, even if you consider it a trickery, don't think, that this rather than congratulate Neveu, not have nor idea of theology, and more when you passed by the mouth of his characters quoting Bible verses. Now let's get to what less I liked the final part which has seemed so cowardly as the inheritance of the wind. At the end is getting into my church policy, and makes what the NWO wants. That is, the progressive to become. It is sad, but in my opinion it is sad, that the alleged villain Aringarosa is right. The keys of the faithful have been due to modernism, and progressive trends. Much of the paedophilia scandals have since little suitable for that Ministry, the famous levada walks people have gotten thanks to the Liberals. What I say is false, you look at the case of the Anglican Church. He did everything that requests that the Catholic, and is now a relic. In addition, those people loves very much power, very little belief in God, and I don't have a church dominated by the new world order. No more interference from the secular power in the Church please. No sincere Catholic goal on its lists referring to Pope, Bernini, and William Shakespeare. This It is as in "Cold fire" as Holly Thorne, that chance that all geniuses of mankind were the Priories, also Christian Newton, I tell him, that he did not believe in the eternal feminine. It is not necessary to be the Club Bilderberg, Freemasonry, nor the Skulls and Bones there are more cults, but only the wealthiest people. The real conspiracy is that cupcake is married to Jesus, and our Church has lied to us, but a group of plutocrats use to this gentleman, to submit to its control, and change the domain of our Church by nothing benign tyranny of some Gates, Soros, Rockefeller, Ford, plutocrats that chance, that those are the ones who dominate the world, and no one attacks them. Precisely, I do not think that the worst book of Mr Brown is this. In "Angels & demons" prequel it this, I said, that the Church could exist, provided that the NOM be progressive. In "Inferno" shows us the requests of the plutocrats. Not to have children, because if not shall the world.. Instead of opening the dead would have been more useful, as the journalist Pablo J. Ginés holds a Marshall plan for the countries of the third world already in 'Origin' commitment to atheism. Unfortunately I think, that his following novels will try to make to humanity (my friend Alfonseca and I talk a lot of the Antichrist. I believe that a person, and he will be an ideology, his theory is true. This would be the Antichrist. The solution is not to ban books like these, nor burn them, but read good books, or do not wish Mr Brown the fate of Salman Rhusdie. This it was talking to Manny and Madeleine people who has free will, not should be banned anything but against bad books I recommend to read good books. In a post I'll recommend some, but they are the di in my review of "King receives" who want to can order me the complete list https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... ). I am not a fortune teller, and can't predict the future, but there will come a day that books like these will be relegated to oblivion. This book will not survive the passage of time.