Hagbard Celine
Senior Member
"The DaVinci Code" is an entertaining, fast-paced mystery novel that uses interesting and controversial subject matter to draw the reader in. At the very beginning of the book, the author Dan Brown lets the reader know that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Dan Brown, a professed Christian, has confessed in interviews and elsewhere, that he is happy that such a debate has swirled around his book because it has stirred people to discuss religion not only from a faith-based viewpoint, but from an historical and secular viewpoint as well.
"Breaking the DaVinci Code" tries to "debunk" Dan Brown's work of fiction in order to "set the record straight" I guess. On page two of "Breaking the Code," the author, Professor Darrell L. Bock, quotes the passage from "Code" as the basis for his argument. "This remark surfaces as a kind of pop-up ad at the start just to grab our attention. But it also tells us that the story we are about to hear is set in a nonfictitous, historically accurate world." Now I think this is a huge stretch and I disagree because from what I can tell, Dan Brown makes no claims of historical fact other than the descriptions of "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals." All other characters and events in the book are fiction. So why would Dr. Bock say something like this unless he had an agenda to fulfull?
In my opinion, "Breaking the Code" was a terrible waste of money because it didn't teach me anything I couldn't have learned in Sunday school or on the History Channel and its entire purpose was to debunk the fact in a work of fiction.
So my review: Read "The DaVinci Code" if you like mystery/suspense novels.
Don't read "Breaking The DaVinci Code" unless you enjoy reading one-sided propaganda pieces and/or do not have the History Channel.
"Breaking the DaVinci Code" tries to "debunk" Dan Brown's work of fiction in order to "set the record straight" I guess. On page two of "Breaking the Code," the author, Professor Darrell L. Bock, quotes the passage from "Code" as the basis for his argument. "This remark surfaces as a kind of pop-up ad at the start just to grab our attention. But it also tells us that the story we are about to hear is set in a nonfictitous, historically accurate world." Now I think this is a huge stretch and I disagree because from what I can tell, Dan Brown makes no claims of historical fact other than the descriptions of "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals." All other characters and events in the book are fiction. So why would Dr. Bock say something like this unless he had an agenda to fulfull?
In my opinion, "Breaking the Code" was a terrible waste of money because it didn't teach me anything I couldn't have learned in Sunday school or on the History Channel and its entire purpose was to debunk the fact in a work of fiction.
So my review: Read "The DaVinci Code" if you like mystery/suspense novels.
Don't read "Breaking The DaVinci Code" unless you enjoy reading one-sided propaganda pieces and/or do not have the History Channel.
