The Da Vinci Code

I have always viewed the so-called "wonder book" "The Da Vinci Code" that has been highly publicized at home and abroad with a skeptical attitude. Compared to the other two Renaissance masters: Michelangelo and Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci is probably the one who has been studied the most. I don’t know if it’s because of Mona Lisa’s not-so-mysterious smile or because of Freud. For the sake of virtue. However, as a student of art history, I find it hard to imagine that Leonardo da Vinci had any secrets beyond his homosexuality and Oedipus complex that would appeal to shallow contemporary readers. Of course, we cannot forget the lovely Priory of Sion, a secret organization that included all the famous people the author could encounter while flipping through the history books. I can imagine Dan Brown reading popular science books about the Renaissance while writing, seeing Botticelli’s name, and thinking: “Oh, this guy looks good, let him be the Priory of Sion.” The elders from 1483 to 1510. "The only thing I feel lucky is that the author at least got the year of Botticelli's death correct. However, when I saw the names of Hugo and Debussy, I couldn't help laughing several times. I always thought that Nicholas Miles was amazing when he brought Freud and Sherlock Holmes together. It was really amazing that Dan Brown was able to create a "secret organization" like the Priory of Sion, a hodgepodge of historical celebrities. amp;

However, let us talk about the advantages of this book first, otherwise I would be a bit sorry for the author if I continue to be satirical like this. Any Discovery Channel viewer will know that Mary Magdalene's affair with Christ is not news. But it is the first time that "The Da Vinci Code" is presented to readers in this way. You have to admit that the Bible is a great book. Putting aside the Dead Sea Scrolls, the 4 Apocrypha, and the Book of Mormon, there are only the New Testament and the Old Testament recognized by the Catholic Church. It is full of self-contradictions and ambiguities, so that any interpretation can be established under certain conditions. Therefore, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, whether he wore gloves or had horns on his head, it all depends on which version of the Bible the reader is reading, or which theory he believes. The same is true for various studies on Mary Magdalene. From a personal point of view, although I am skeptical about the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus, I will not be surprised or unacceptable if one day archeology really proves that the two people were indeed a couple. After all, it doesn’t seem entirely impossible that the efforts to humanize Christ that began with the Franciscans in the 13th century would eventually come to this point. Therefore, I have nothing against the theoretical core of the book. However, regarding other parts of this book, I really can't find a more suitable adjective other than finding it ridiculous. OK

To understand Dan Brown's theoretical structure, we must first understand the so-called "inverted pyramid" structure. The author found every hint about the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Christ from the pile of old papers, and then constructed a set of "inverted pyramids" layer by layer full of necessary elements for various best-selling novels. Secret organizations, religion, sex, royalty, bloody torture and persecution, servants' foolish loyalty to their masters full of perverted desires, romance between the hero and heroine that has nothing to do with the plot, plus some anecdotes about unofficial history to satisfy readers' curiosity. What more could you want from a best-selling novel? Dan Brown's arguments in support of his theory are even more flimsy. Let me take the Last Supper as an example. The article mentioned that the person sitting at the right hand of Christ in the Last Supper created by Leonardo da Vinci was Mary. The reason why she was mistaken for Saint John was because the ancient paintings were not cleaned enough. Anyone with a college-level knowledge of art history will tell you that the protocol for creating Renaissance murals was to apply color to wet plaster so that the painting would last long after the plaster dried. But when Leonardo da Vinci was creating "The Last Supper", because he kept changing his mind and also left Milan to travel around, he went against the usual practice of coloring on dry plaster. As a result, the painting's color had begun to peel while Leonardo was still alive.

The convent where the "Last Supper" is located was used as a warehouse when Napoleon invaded Milan in 1796, was flooded four years later, and then bombed during World War II. If that wasn't enough, in 1652 some not-so-sane The monk actually dug a door out of the wall where the mural was located and cut off the entire foot of Christ (this unlucky monk will definitely go to hell after his death). Due to the poor quality of the painting, some scholars believe that the painting was repainted many times by later artists. So what remains of the "Last Supper" from now on is just a pale shadow of Leonardo da Vinci's original masterpiece. In addition, one of the characteristics of Leonardo da Vinci's style is that the male characters he created are more or less feminine. If St. John sitting on Christ's right hand looks like a woman, wouldn't St. Philip sitting third on Christ's left hand be even more full of female sadness and tenderness? Also, if Leonardo da Vinci put Mary Magdalene into the Last Supper, what about the young and handsome St. John? As for the author's later descriptions of Christ's life experience, secret societies, etc., I feel that the level of fabrication is comparable to fantasy. Ya Mysterious Forum -- Mysterious Alliance Official Forum Q.

Such an inverted pyramid theory was created purely to satisfy readers' curiosity. But compared to The Da Vinci Code, I prefer the descriptions of the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant in the Indiana Jones series. There is nothing wrong with using the theoretical structure of the inverted pyramid. After all, this is how everyone writes a novel by digging out a sentence from history. Shakespeare had no idea whether Caesar said that fateful sentence before his death: "et tu Brute?" I just wrote a classic play out of thin air. In the end, having such an unconventional theory is just a garnish on the meal of The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown's real problem lies in the most basic elements of the novel: structure, plot and characters.

First let’s talk about structure. The parallel structure of three main story lines is almost the first choice of all best-selling novel writers: the main clue of the hero and heroine, the sub-clue (here is the sub-line of the Paris police), and the secret clue of the villain behind the scenes (readers generally can only read this clue) to pieces of a puzzle that don’t fit together until the end). This can not only make a plot that is not very complicated create the illusion of grandeur and complexity, but can also create some unexpected text dangers when changing clues. I have always thought that such a popular three-line structure is like eggs and tomatoes, and it will not be any worse no matter what. However, it is the first time I have seen Dan Brown write the three-line structure in such a rigid way. The substitution between clues and the final summary of the three-line structure are all extremely poorly written. I don't like Sidney Sheldon, but as a best-selling novelist, Sheldon's works are indeed very smooth in structure but make readers unable to put down the book. Dan Brown should really learn structure from Sheldon. What I can't stand the most is the author's bad habit of ending a chapter at a critical moment and switching to changing the clues. Dan Brown loves such poor writing techniques so much that I initially thought that The Da Vinci Code was originally serialized in a magazine, so the author had to stop writing at a critical moment to attract readers to buy the next issue of the magazine. Come on, Mr. Brown, you're writing a book. Do you have so little confidence in your storyline that you have to resort to such tactics in the hope that readers will keep reading? To say it calmly, the story of The Da Vinci Code is not that bad. Although it is not the best I have ever read, it still gets a B. However, the way the author wrote it made me lose all interest. Mysterious Forum -- Mysterious Alliance Official Forum Now that we've talked about the story, let's take a look at the plot of The Da Vinci Code. I gave this book a B grade when I got to Chapter 70, but by the end, the grade dropped to a near-passing D-. I can understand the author shoehorning in an unnecessary romance between the hero and heroine, which is, after all, the first element of a best-selling novel. But the super-predictable story development, and the shocking ending, which has no help or connection to the main plot, and the baggage about the heroine’s relatives and life experience seem a bit too childish, right? .

I'm not very good at predicting who is behind the scenes, because I don't want to predict, but even so, I can still tell who is behind the scenes two-thirds of the time, which is the so-called " The true identity of the leader. The plot development is reminiscent of most adventure puzzle video games. The protagonist receives one quest after another. After completing the quest, the story development location is changed and the plot enters the next stage. This book is more like a movie script, or an RPG or adventure game script than a best-selling novel. mAs for the characterization, it's simply worse than the structure and plot combined. Not to mention the terrible heroine who has no personality at all. I don’t even know why the author put such a character in the story. Ultimately, there are no memorable characters in this work. It has only been 3 days since I finished reading this book, and it would take me a long time to recall the main characters in the book. In my opinion, villains are the hardest to write, but in The Da Vinci Code there are not even good guys with personality, let alone villains with personality. Originally, there were many things worthy of close-up, such as the psychology of British jazz, the psychology of American experts, the psychology of bishops, etc., but what we see are the less thrilling memories of a self-motivated woman. and some not-so-serious mental harm that these memories have done to this not-so-bright woman. . . Oh my gosh! The thinness of the characters is one of the best among best-selling novels. Although it may be too demanding, I really hope that Dan Brown will also learn from Mario Puzo how to create characters with personality and connotation

Finally, I should talk about the code and password that are so praised by everyone. Decryption process. This reminds me of puzzle games like Myst. I think the author is probably a fan of puzzle video games, because the decoding techniques used in it are something I have encountered in almost all puzzle games. Here I highly recommend the Myst trilogy, Dark Fall and Sherlock Holmes series. People who like decryption can buy it and play it, and then they will know that the decoding game in The Da Vinci Code is nothing more than child's play. 7

Whether it is as a researcher of art history or as a slightly savvy reader, The Da Vinci Code to me is a poor joke that is not even carefully crafted. However, no matter how untenable its theory is, how bad the structure is, how simple and predictable the plot is, and how pale the characters are, it at least made me laugh several times on a winter afternoon and slap the table until I burst into tears. After all, no joke can achieve this effect. Just for one thing, the few hours I spent on this book are not a waste