Da Vinci Code (Robert Langdon, #2)

ISBN: 2266144340
ISBN 13: 9782266144346
By: Dan Brown Daniel Roche

Check Price Now


Adult Adventure Favorites Historical Fiction Mystery Mystery Thriller Novels Series Suspense Thriller

About this book

Enfermé dans la Grande Galerie du Louvre, Jacques Saunière n'a plus que quelques instants à vivre.Blessé mortellement, le conservateur en chef va emporter son secret avec lui. Il lui reste cependant un mince espoir de ne pas briser cette chaîne ininterrompue depuis des siècles. Mais il lui faut agir vite. Une seule personne au monde peut prendre la relève, décrypter le code et être traquée à son tour...

Reader's Thoughts

Seth Hahne

For cheap supermarket fiction, this sure was cheap supermarket fiction. It would have helped if this was the first book I had ever read. Unfortunately, having read Curious George as a child (a towering work of literary genius by comparison), The DaVinci Code suffered perhaps unjustly.

Jonathan Cullen

Hating the Da Vinci Code is a right of passage for any self-proclaimed intellectual. When the airport page-turner first came out, it was a sensation and a favourite water cooler discussion. Shortly thereafter, Dan Brown was vilified by the minority of his readers who actually had previous experience finishing a novel(s). The more the general public liked Dan Brown and his tripe, the more those of notable cultural and artistic expertise pooped on his face. With each Entertainment Tonight spotlight on the "smash hit", the closer the literarians came to castrating Brown to halt the general decline of homo sapien intelligence. To express your love of the "fast-paced, complex" plot also marked you for gelding.Here is but a sampling of my favourite cherrypicked Goodreads comments on the book and/or Dan Brown:- "bag of piss"- "laughable enough to be incorporated into the next Indiana Jones movie"- "$9 dollar wine"- "I've read dinner menus that were more demanding on the reader"- "inexcusable waste of time"- "total crap"- "ridiculously formulaic"- "self-aggrandizing oh-so-clever stuffed pompous troll"- "Whoever edited this drivel ought to be sewn in a sack with a rabid raccoon and flung into Lake Michigan"- "He is the Brittney Spears of authors."- "Worst. Book. Ever."- "Having read Curious George as a child (a towering work of literary genius by comparison), The DaVinci Code suffered perhaps unjustly."- "Facts are clumsily shoe-horned in or splattered about the page like pigeon-poop" Wow. Ok. I can't necessarily disagree with all of those comments, but you may notice my three star rating. I am a self-proclaimed (at least in an whisper) intellectual. Therein lies a conundrum. Am I a slack-jawed troglodyte? Or rather have I discovered something about Dan Brown's ignominious best-seller that all other intellectuals overlooked, thereby making me an Über-Intellectual with the potential to become Chief Über-Intellectual within my lifetime by giving five stars to Miley Cyrus' book "Miles to Go" after discovering its hidden meaning?No, in my humble opinion, I am neither.What I am is a guy who appreciates quality exposition, clever plots, vulnerable characters and economical prose. Yet I also somehow enjoyed the movie Glitter, with Mariah Carey, which by my definition was the worst movie I've ever seen. I enjoyed it because I had a good day, watched two movies with my future wife and laughed at the terrible dialogue. I had a positive emotional reaction to it, for reasons beyond the dreadful quality of what was on the screen. When I read The Da Vinci Code, I ignored the flashing warning light emanating from the self-proclaimed intellectual portion of my brain and embraced the troglodyte portion. I ate it like you eat an entire box of Fig Newtons: you don't think about it baby! Just do it! Regret it later. I actually did read this book while on a beach, along with the twelve other people I saw doing the same thing. I learned nothing about life and certainly and nothing about writing from this book. Well, I did learn how not to write. Thanks Dan! One of my favourite authors, Dan Simmons, uses the other Dan as his whipping boy in his Writing Well installments on his website. I enjoy that also.So I grant thee three stars Da Vinci Code. I ingest thee like a large movie popcorn with butter and with naught a look back...


I accidentally deleted this from my books. So that sucks. I don't remember when I read it anymore. It was horrible.EDIT:...But not quite as horrible as the idiotic discussion which this review spawned. I hate this book. That is my opinion. Many people share that opinion. I do not claim to be capable of writing a better book (although I suspect I already have written better pieces of literature, for some school assignment or something). You can like this book if you want. But if you do, please do not embarrass yourself by stating such a thing publicly. Especially on this review's comments. Because I'm deleting them all.PSThe whole "if you can't do better, you have no right to criticize" thing is not a valid argument. So please stop making it. Please.


Worst. Book. Ever.


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. :DLet'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.


بغض النظر لو اتفقنا مع الموضوع ام اختلفنا فالعمل في حد ذاته مشوق كعمل بوليسي و كعمل تاريخي مع الحرص على العود الى مراجع اخرى للتأكد من المعلومات التاريخية الواردة فيه..هي رحلة عبر الفن من عصور التنوير و ما صاحبها من قمع و سلطة بابوية الى العصر الحديث مع بقاء هذه السلطة بشكل آخر..دان بروان اختار لنفسه نهج سبقه اليه آخرون في الكتابة الفاضحة التي تعري حقائق قد يرد البعض اخفائها و قد لا توجد اصلا انما اراد الكاتب لفت القارئ لعمله. يستحق القراءة


most of us have heard of this controverisal book. it takes an open minded person to read this and to remember it is just fiction. but it brings up a lot of important questions about the Christian church, and the loss of paganism and the respect of the Goddess or the Woman. I don't care if I am the only one who likes this book. it is my own truth, and i will think what i want to think. Dan Brown didn't LEAD me or anyone else. he OPENED our minds. simply and importantly...he was just a catalyst for different thinking. that is a good thing...poorly written or not.if you finish the book you will notice that Dan Brown even makes it clear to readers through his characters words, that he doesn't want to destroy christianity because it has done so much good for so many people, and if it works for them, let's let them continue to do what works for them. but find your own path. if you were or are a Christian ask yourself about the topics in this book. They are so eye opening. Jesus having a baby? totally possible...never thought of it before. never thought of it. is it true? who knows. Things like this are happening all the time today...Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq? sound familiar? Maybe the church repressed information LIKE this because it was a threat to the church. totally possible. The catholic church creating the biblical canon with a political agenda to wipe out paganism? actually this seems to be a fact. women being oppressed due to the fear of religous zealot men in power losing their power...never looked at it that way. but this seems to be a fact too. is it helpful in broadening my perspective of the fact that christianity is just a religion made by fallible people. it sure is. does it open my mind to other faiths like paganism, judiasm, islam, bhuddism, and want to take the truths from all of them, and then THINK FOR MYSELF and figure out my own truth. it sure does...and that is what this book has probably done for many other people. why do you think Dan Brown's book was on the bestseller list for so long...and became a movie...obviously it was doing some good.


I found this book condescending, unexciting, and ill thought-out. I wanted it to be better. I had been TOLD it was fun. I was lied to. This is an awful book.

مصطفي سليمان

دان براونحيث كمية المعلومات اللي تخليك تفكر مليون مرةكمية المعلوماتالموثقة اللي محتاجه منك انك تتحرك مش تفضل عامل تسمع الكلام وخلاصروايات الالغاز بشكل حديثهو واحد من أهم الناس اللي كتبوا ف المجال داهنا المحقق روبرت لانغدونبيحقق ف جريمة ليها علاقة بجماعات دينيه سريةانا مش عاوز احكيلان الروايات دي مش بتتحكيالروايات دي بتتعاشسيبك ان الفيلماستخف كتير بالروايةوطلع نسخة باهتة جدا من الروايةبالذات ف الحلول المقدمةوتجميعه للنهايةمش عارف محستوش بنكله مع ان المخرج من المفضلين لياالمرة دي نظرتك لمتحف اللوفروصورة الموناليزاودافنشي هيتم تغيرها او علي الاقل هيخليك تفكركتير جداهو دا حقيقيبداية معرفتك بالماسونين والجماعات السرية المنتشرةالراهب القاتل ذو الاقتناع المريب بتعذيب النفسحفيدة مدير المتحف اللي جدها كان بيسيب ليها الغازشفرات طول الوقتلعب بالاعصابعادة امتاز بيها دان براونكل نهاية فصلهو صفعة ممتازةليكفاكر انك عرفت مين عمل ايه تراكعارف بقي اخوية سيون؟آهتراكلالغاية آخر الرواية كدايا جدعان انا دخلت علي الموقع بتاعه ايامهاكان عمله بشفرةO_oاول ما تدخل يقولكاسم لوحة الموناليزا ايه؟اللي هي الجيوكنداحلوفلطيب عدد الحروف اكتر من المربعات المتاحةوعيش يا برنستقريبا غير الموقع كتير دلوقتيبس اصلا من الروايات اللي لما تقرأها هتفكر علي الاقل


I was genuinely confused by the stupidity of the DaVinci code. The two protagonists were touted as supergeniuses, yet kept making the most amazing dumbfuck moves. Sometimes this could be written off as making the book accessible to its intended public (e.g., to insure that his readers understand the concept of a keystone, Brown has one of his supergenius characters exclaim, "but wait, vaulted ceilings don't *have* keys!" as an intro to a suitable-for-third-graders explanation). Other times, it was just ridiculous and disorienting. I spent significant mental energy trying to rationalize why the supergenius characters were stealing an armored van from the swiss bank and driving it straight to their hideout when *obviously* any such van would be fitted with a tracking device and thus was a dangerous thing to leave parked right outside your "safehouse". In fact, I had half convinced myself that there must be some supersecret reason that I just didn't know about as to why the swiss bank wouldn't want its vans to be traceable (the system could be hacked into, necessitates getting too many outside parties involved, etc). But then it turned out that I had been right all along - the van *was* being tracked. The Supergeniuses just hadn't considered that possibility. Duh.Not every book has to be brilliant. Sometimes a nice, fun, escapist mystery novel really hits the spot. But dude, this kind of inconsistency and bad writing (and bad imagination!) just cannot be tolerated. As a reasonably smart person, I was offended at the limitations Dan Brown seems to have projected onto human intelligence - both with respect to his characters and his audience.


I read the Baigent book a decade before I read this novel.Somehow, Brown managed to "dumbify" everything.Afterwards I read Eco to wash the taste out of my brain.


Caveat Academics!!!I won't belabor the obvious, as it's been done quite well by other reviewers, but I just couldn't stand not to add my own "hear hear!" to the fray. If you're going to create a character who is an expert, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make sure you check your facts! Whoever edited this drivel ought to be sewn in a sack with a rabid raccoon and flung into Lake Michigan.And just as a matter of good taste - your expert should not be an expert in everything under the sun. That's one of the hallmarks of poor writing.Even if I were not a practicing pagan, I would find it stretching credibility that every single item the characters run across is a symbol of goddess worship. Five pointed star? Goddess worship. Chalice? Goddess worship. Porcelain toilet bowl? Goddess worship. Pilot ball point pen? Goddess worship. You get the general idea. Not only is every item part of the mythology of the divine feminine, but every number is also part of the divine feminine. Hello? Is a cigar NEVER just a cigar? And some of the claims of symbolism are just plain wrong, as the editor would have found out if he'd bothered to do some fact checking. Remember those military chevrons that, because of the way they were pointed, represented the female divine and those poor slobs of soldiers had been running around all these countless centuries with goddess symbols flaunted on their uniforms without knowing it? The only problem with that premise is that the chevrons facing in their current direction is relatively recent - according to my military historian husband, they faced the OPPOSITE direction for quite some time before being reversed (for what reason, I have no idea...unless the generals all got together and decided they didn't have quite enough goddess symbols on their uniforms and needed it fixed post haste).My theology professor ended up traveling around the country giving talks about this book to thousands of interested people. He loves the book if only because he's now giving pretty much the same information that he used to give to dozing freshman and sophomores to packed theaters of interested listeners. He tells a story about being somewhere in southern Ohio and making a joking remark about the celice being something that all Catholics wore and how now the secret was out, and there was a lady in the back row who elbowed her husband and said "See? I told you so!" The increased interest in history is about the only positive thing that's come out of this book. Honestly, you don't need to make anything up about the Catholic church to point out that it's been the source of some horrible things.I could go on about the poor research and editing in this book, but others have done a pretty thorough job of finding the problems with it.If you want a decent page turner, go for it. If you want something well researched and accurate, give this one a big ol' pass.


For the most part, it seems that people either passionately love this book or they passionately hate it. I happen to be one of the former. For my part, I don't see the book so much as an indictment of the Catholic Church in particular but of religious extremism and religion interfering in political process in general. The unwarranted political control granted to extreme religious organizations like the CBN is an issue that we will be forced to address one way or the other. To my eye, our political process has been poisoned by it and the danger of theocracy is quite real. Furthermore, Brown's indictment of the Church for removing or suppressing feminine divinity figures is justified and needs a much closer look. Women do not have enough of a role in religion, religious practice, heroic myths, and creation myths, nor are they portrayed as divinity figures enough. In short, our religious systems and institutions lack balance and have a bias to suppress issues, stories, and roles that empower women to live as equals to men. Finally, Brown wrote his story simplistically, in my view, to spread his tale to as broad an audience as possible. Though it is not as pristine a narrative as, say, Umberto Eco, the message it conveys is one that needs to be heard. More obscure books on the matter are not as accessible as Da Vinci Code and if someone were to write an accessible book of genius on this subject, I would give him/her all due praise. In the meantime, Dan Brown is telling a story that needs to be told. It is one that has been kept quiet and in the dark for far too long.


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.


It's considered an unfair advantage using a cryptex box to solve this.

Share your thoughts

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *