OKAY PEOPLE…someone let me in on the gag because between the cries of "Greatest Book of Greaty Greatness EVER" and the screams of "Lamest Load of Lamey Lameness EVER", my itty bitty brain is left very… n  n
So post Hype-a-ganza, I finally got around to reading this popular, polarizing, pop culture icon and thought it was….drum roll……………………FINE(sigh). It was a solid read with a slight lean towards the “eh” side of MEH and few moments of genuine “that’s neat.” I don’t see all the love and I don’t see all the rage. Other than the obvious religious flavor of the content, it reminded me of your typical page-turning, popcorn beach read and I thought it accomplished its goal in decent, if unremarkable, fashion.

Now I have a strict “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t mock, don’t preach” approach when it comes to religiousness so I am going to ignore the bird-flipping Vatican bash aspects of the story, though I can certainly see people on both sides of the fence having “epic rah rah” or “epic fail” reactions and I respect that. For me, it didn’t move my needle much in either direction beyond my fondness for the “big hidden history mystery” which is something I generally really enjoy.

The plot of this one has been talked to death and beyond so rather than adding one more jelly bean to the jar, I thought I would just run down a few likes and dislikes about the story and leave it at that.

n  TURN ONSn

1. Conspiracy theories: are just fully fun and I am a major sucker for plots concerning “shadow” histories and secret people doing secret things behind secret doors for reasons that are SHHHHHHH. I love a good conspiracy. Find me a rumor involving Kim Kardashian being a Bilderberger and using a secret banking pipeline running from Area 51 through Microsoft to the Saudi Royal Family and laundering vast monies to be used to coordinate the sale of Boise, Idaho to a mysterious consortium headed by Jay Z and Justin Bieber who will then turn the city into a giant quasi-government facility used for the testing of alien “cloning” technology………….and I am glued to my seat and ONE HAPPY FELLA.

2. Knights Templar: As much as I love conspiracies in general, when you throw the Knights Templar into the mix, it’s gonna perk me up better than a latte enema. I am always in favor of having them show up as a lynch pin to any massive global plot. The Knights Templar are like caramel on ice cream and just make a good conspiracy better. I had a lot of fun with the rehash of the Templar’s place in the center of EVERYTHING.

3. Symbology, Da Vinci and the Holy Grail (the IDEA): I thought the major plot components themselves were interesting and I enjoyed following the hidden clues, messages, riddles and the tie in to all of the famous historical artifacts. It was fun. I also liked the “historical significance” of the search (i.e., the “big reveal”) and the implications to the world if revealed.

n  TURN OFFSn

1. Symbology, Da Vinci and the Holy Grail (the EXECUTION): As much as I enjoyed the plot concept, the execution of the story was often frustrating and occasionally insulting. I’m not talking about the clunky, “serviceable at best” prose as that’s gotten enough play without my squirting lighter fluid on the bonfire. My issue is more with Dan feeling the need to “spoon feed” me details about his “oh so clever plot” so that my economy-sized brain could grasp it.
n  n
For example, there would be a “reveal” that I thought was interesting….and then Dan would exhaust me with explaining EXACTLY what that meant and EXACTLY what the implications were and make sure I knew EXACTLY what he had told me. I get it Mr. Brown, heard you the first time.

2. THRILLer killing amounts of PLOD: For a page turning, actiony thriller, there was just too much sideways movement of the plot and some really unnecessary amounts of plod to the narrative. Part of this has to do with the excessive “hand holding” Dan does with his audience mentioned above. However, there are also WAY too much time spent slowing down to take a look around and where we are and where we’ve been. I started getting the impression that Brown was trying to hit a particular page count for the book and didn’t have anything but filler to loan the pages with. This is never a good thing for this kind of story.

3. The End: Not a big fan of the final resolution of the story and I found it very un climaxy and a bit of a let down. Once we have the big reveal, very little new information ever really got added to the picture and I felt like my curiosity should have been stroked a few more times than it was in the home stretch. This lack of satisfying climax left me with a serious case of “blue brain.”

Still, overall, this was a good, serviceable mystery-thriller that seems tailor-made for a warm afternoon on the sand. It isn’t great literature, or even good literature, but it is a good thriller, a good concept and, for the most part, fun. It seems to accomplish pretty much exactly what it set out to do.

2.5 to 3.0 stars.

Book Circle Reads 11

Rating: 3 stars of five

The Publisher Says: An ingenious code hidden in the works of Leonardo da Vinci. A desperate race through the cathedrals and castles of Europe. An astonishing truth concealed for centuries . . . unveiled at last.

While in Paris, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is awakened by a phone call in the dead of the night. The elderly curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside the museum, his body covered in baffling symbols. As Langdon and gifted French cryptologist Sophie Neveu sort through the bizarre riddles, they are stunned to discover a trail of clues hidden in the works of Leonardo da Vinci—clues visible for all to see and yet ingeniously disguised by the painter.

Even more startling, the late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion—a secret society whose members included Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Da Vinci—and he guarded a breathtaking historical secret. Unless Langdon and Neveu can decipher the labyrinthine puzzle—while avoiding the faceless adversary who shadows their every move—the explosive, ancient truth will be lost forever.

My Review: Not one word. I mean it. Not ONE WORD of criticism for this book's three-star rating. It is not Literature, it is not even particularly well-written farb, but it is undeniably a page-turning rip-snorting adventure story that pokes fun at christian religion. Therefore it is A-Okay with me.

Snobs: It's not about you. It's about normal people getting their entertainment from a book for once, instead of a TV or a gaming console. Why are you bitching? Who said you had to read it?

Lovers: It's not about how much you love it. I didn't love it. I read the whole thing in a sitting and I wasn't about to get up until it was done, and that's saying a lot for someone whose life list of books read includes the snooty people's snootiest books. So yeah, three-star review is a huge vote of confidence from this source.

Religious christians: What in the hell are you doing reading my reviews?! Are you daft? I won't be saying anything nice about your imaginary friend any time soon. Pass on!

Environmentalists: Yes, the entirety of Siberia was deforested to print the book in its zillions. I feel bad about that too. Tell you what: Get out there and make hemp paper (better for the environment, plus a smokeable side product!) on a commercial scale. Books will go down in price, forests will be saved, and the mellow quotient of the world will go up. Win-win-win!

Normal people: You've all read the book by now, right? If not, go to a used bookstore (Brown's rich enough) and pick a few up. It's a lot of fun.

n  n
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

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...

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!!

This book, and everything written by Dan Brown (to varying degrees), represent much of what I most dislike about pop literature. First of all, Mr. Brown, despite teaching English at Amherst College, is a bad writer. This is not to say that I am a good writer. But I recognize a person who can't "show" you vivid scenes, he has to "tell you". Various characters wear expensive clothes. How do we know? The text says they're expensive. How do we know Mr. Langdon is brilliant? The text makes no bones about telling us. Langdon is also famous. Blah.

Furthermore, Mr. Brown's books are ridiculously formulaic. Every single "thriller" that he has written to date begins with the murder of a key character at the hands of a shadowy and "terrifying" assassin individual/group. This group is controlled by a larger group with dubious intentions that generally have to do with world domination. The protagonist is introduced as an "expert" whose credentials relate to the matter at hand, and who takes the job of hunting down the bad guys. He enlists the aid of an extremely avuncular, wise, benevolent helper. This person provides assistance as the protagonist (with a love interest) finds clues to the murder, attempts to find the bad guys, is pursued by the assassin(s), all while TIME IS RUNNING OUT. The avuncular father figure turns out to be pulling the strings of the assassins, is behind the original killing, and provides a forgettable monologue at the end where he pleas for understanding. But our hero takes him down. The end. I'm sorry if I just ruined all Dan Brown's books for you.

Finally, Mr. Brown likes to write about what he sees as religious conflicts. These conflicts take place between believers and non-. Unfortunately, he proves unable to adequately and convincingly describe these conflicts, because he reveals a striking inability to understand why people believe, in the first place. His highly religious characters therefore invariably turn out to be crazed nutjobs. I don't like stories that exploit religion for entertainment, and then use the attention that they draw to this entertainment to subtly undermine the reasons for faith.

But by all means, read the Da Vinci Code. People say it's smart. Others describe it as a fast-paced thriller with historical and theological implications. It could've been in the hands of another author.

One night about five years back, I stopped over at a friend's house to drop off a movie I'd borrowed. Her husband greeted me at the door and said she would have come out to say hi, but she was too busy reading. "Oh, what's she reading?" I asked. "The Da Vinci Code. She said it's, like, the best book ever."

I was shocked and appalled. Surely not! Not from my 19th century lit-loving friend, whose main criterion for a good book is that the author is no longer living, and has preferably been that way for at least 100 years. I talked to her on the phone the next day and she explained, to my relief, that she didn't think the book was well written (you know, good), she just thought it was interesting, and appreciated the way it subverted religion and revealed the lengths people will go to to justify and reinforce their beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (she was in a big anti-religion phase at the time).

"Phew!" I thought. "Friendship crisis averted."

Then just today at work, conversation turned to popular fiction. It started with Stieg Larsson, and that I am totally on board with -- even though the man doesn't so much write stories as explain to you what is happening in them, in Lisbeth Salander he created a character for the ages (hyperbole alert). I kept my scoffs to myself when co-worker A mentioned that she had looved Water for Elephants, finding it a wonderful break from her usual diet of James Patterson, though my nose may have begun to point ever so slightly upwards (full disclosure: I thought the former a perfectly cromulent, perfectly forgettable plane read, though I can't recall ever reading The World's Best-Selling Author).

But then.

Then co-worker B said it: "Have you read The Da Vinci Code? That is seriously the best book ever."

I could have filled a terabyte hard drive with my sighs and eye rolls.

Um. Except. Except I have never read The Da Vinci Code, or anything by Dan Brown. Normally I am strongly against literary snobbery (you have to be when you read as many genre books as I have been lately), but everyone has a weak spot, and mine is that book. Can't say why. The hype? The overblown controversy? The terrible movie? Tom Hanks' terrible, terrible mullet?



The thing is, sometimes I will disparage this book aloud, in conversation, as if I know what I am talking about. Look, I even gave it a star rating. I am such a pretentious jerk sometimes.

But I can't help feeling that the book deserves it.

Facebook 30 Day Book Challenge Day 23: Book you tell people you’ve read, but haven’t.

The curator of the Louvre is murdered but manages to leave several clues for Robert Langdon and cryptologist Sophie Neveu to follow, and hopefully, to save an age old religious secret from falling into the wrong hands. Interesting enough premise, but not very satisfying as a thriller . It just doesn’t thrill. It’s maybe one of those rare occasions where I would recommend the movie.

I freely admit that my disdain for The Da Vinci Code is my own personal backlash over its popularity.

Dan Brown isn't a terrible writer, despite facing that charge from many experienced readers. He has a likable style, and he drives the pace of the book relentlessly, which is exactly what one would want from a pulpy adventure that one can take to the beach.

Likewise, the charge that The Da Vinci Code is somehow a failure because it is in any way inaccurate or unbelievable is unfair. The story is fiction, after all, and one should expect to have his/her credulity stretched, especially when reading pulp that is written with the screen in mind (as The Da Vinci Code surely was).

I even enjoyed the Sunday afternoon it took me to read The Da Vinci Code. It was an absolute waste of time and exactly what I wanted to be doing, sitting on a comfy sofa, drinking tea and reading about self-flagellating albino monks (and other fun things).

I've given many books that are just as good as The Da Vinci Code and even some that are worse three stars, and I meant every star. The truth is that on its own merits, I'd have given The Da Vinci Code a similar rating if not for a repeated experience that led to my backlash.

At the beginning of every semester, in a bid to get to know my students better, I play a memory game wherein the students provide me with their favourite things (books, food, music) and some personal details (people they hate, people they love, things they are proud of), then I connect something about them, something that stands out for me, with their name. It is a good start in getting to know the students, but it has also led to my hatred for Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

A good half of the students that enter my courses declare that they don't have favourite books, and/or they've only ever read three books in their lives -- two involuntary (both assigned by an English teacher, and always seeming to include To Kill a Mockingbird) and one voluntary (The Da Vinci Code). What pisses me off most is that even if these people liked The Da Vinci Code, Brown's novel didn't spur them on to read more. They read the The Da Vinci Code, enjoyed it or didn't, then went back to their reading apathy.

Moreover, if I could convince people to read one book voluntarily, one book for their pleasure, it would not be ANY cheesy, pulpy, low grade adventure story. It's like pouring a glass of $9 dollar wine for a person who is trying wine for the first time. They may enjoy the glass, but they're not going to choose wine as their alcohol of choice based on Fortant de France.

And for that reason, I hate The Da Vinci Code. It is the cheap wine that keeps people away from the joy of good wine, and while I admit that it is the fault of popular culture rather than Dan Brown, each reader I find who stops at The Da Vinci Code makes me hate the book a little bit more.

"...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!!

من أكثر الروايات شهرة في عالم الروايات البوليسية اللتي يلفها الغموض من كل جانب و يرافق الفضول و التشويق القارئ حتى النهاية.

لكن هنا سأسكت قليلا احتراماً و تقديراً لجهود الكاتب في نقل صور الأماكن و المآثر المعمارية بهذه الدقة و الغدق في التفاصيل دون ملل مع معلومات تاريخية عنها هنا و هناك خلال المغامرة الشيقة والممتعة للبطلين.

زاد عشقي لإيطاليا من خلال رحلتي بين الكاتدرائيات و الكنائس و المآثر التاريخية بالعاصمة روما في كل مرة اتوقف عن القراءة و أبدأ بالبحث عن اسم المكان المذكور و أندهش من الجمال المعماري للمدينة و أعود للقراءة و كلي فضول لمعرفة المزيد و المزيد عن رحلة بروفيسور علم الرموز و صوفيا، رسالة من جدها المتوفي في لوحة دافنشي تحاول جاهدة فك شفرتها المعقدة لكشف غموض هذه الرسالة.

ثم ندخل متحف اللوفر في عاصمة الأنوار و العطور باريس و جولات سياحية ثقافية بين لوحات و تحف المتحف.

متعة حقيقية و معرفة جيدة ومغامرة لم تكن الاخيرة مع البروفيسور

The novel that thrust Professor Robert Langdon, a Harvard symbolist into the public eye.

A great puzzle murder mystery as curator of the Louvre Jacques Saunière is found dead, he’s body posed just like Da Vinci’s - Vitruvian Man.
It’s a race against time as Langdon is accused of the murder, the story jumps around at a breathtaking speed with art and history being integral to solving the murder.

It’s a fun thrill ride that instantly had me hooked.

I liked A&D better than this one but it was still a good read. Sometimes though I felt like it was just rambling on and on. Sometimes books like these feel more like a lesson than a following of the plot even if the dialogue is relevant to the story.

Overall, not bad at all. Great for people who love mysteries and history.