The Da Vinci Code: Flawed But Entertaining

The other week I finished reading The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, and I've been meaning to write a review since then but I just haven't found the time until now. I know I'm about four years behind the times, but I had a little free time and when I saw it in the library I decided that I might as well become acquainted with a novel that has sparked worldwide controversy and lined the pockets of Dan Brown and his publisher.

My assessment of The Da Vinci Code is, as my title suggests, mixed. I have no doubt that it is a good novel (although not a great one), but it is flawed not only in its history but also in its technical nature as a piece of fiction. For me there were too many serious flaws to seriously rate this book as a recommended read, but this should not discourage someone who wants to find out what all the fuss is about. In one way, The Da Vinci Code is a lot like literary fast food: you feel good while you're doing it, but it's very difficult to feel good about afterwards.

First, let me start off with the good. As a thriller, the book is quite well written. There are a number of plot threads that all blend quite well, and Dan Brown knows what to reveal when in order to keep the reader turning the pages. Secondly, Brown's complex conspiracy theory is very well told. Little by little the pieces are put together in a way that is both convincing and entertaining; something that is achieved by very few writers. Finally, the novel is very neatly trimmed; with something as large as a conspiracy engulfing the world's largest religion there was always the risk of the plot ballooning out to worldwide proportions. However Brown steers the book very carefully and keeps the story confined to a size that the average person can follow and appreciate.

However most of these strengths are overshadowed by the far more telling flaws. Firstly, Brown's writing technique is not without its flaws. Perhaps the two largest technical flaws in the novel are the characters and the length. However both of these problems are the result of the second major fault with the novel: its conspicuous and at times painful misuse of facts. The net result of these two factors is this: if you know very little about the subject matter (namely history, religion and art), you can enjoy the novel as a work of fiction. However if you know any of the three in any depth (I consider myself fairly attuned to the historical and religious issues in the book) you will find that Brown's conspiracy theory is much less convincing, and the characters less impressive. This in turn contributes to the sensation of drag, whereby you wish that Brown would finish explaining his conspiracy theory and get back to revealing the key mysteries behind the characters. I could go into the factual inaccuracies and their impact on the effectiveness of the novel as a work of fiction, but there are literally shelves of books on the subject.

Finally the thing that really nailed the coffin on The Da Vinci Code for me was it's freshman college approach to the world. Reading the novel I felt like it could have been written by an eighteen year old kid who had just started college and was so thrilled with all the stuff he had learned that he wanted to show it off and look down on people. The Da Vinci Code works for many because of its copious name dropping and veneer of intellectualism; you feel like you are being let in on a big secret, and you are so excited to have access to this hidden knowledge that you temporarily suspend your questioning of the teacher (ironically another major theme of The Da Vinci Code). Equally patronising are Brown's attempts to feign impartiality towards Christianity, with his painful monologues on how Jesus was supposed to be a great humanist leader worthy of our respect. Both these elements remind me of the sort of unrefined pseudo-intellectualism that permeates those in their first years of tertiary education, and to be honest it makes me cringe because it reminds me of when I used to think about the world in a similar fashion.

Don't get me wrong – I read the Da Vinci Code in two sittings, with the second one being several hours. I definitely wanted to see what happened next and to find out what the conclusion would be like. It's just that with the length of the novel and the mounting inaccuracies and blatant misrepresentations (or shoddy research, whichever you prefer) the book became more tedious the further I waded through it.

In conclusion, it is easy to critique The Da Vinci Code in the same way that it caricatures Catholicism: overly-simplistic, but enjoyable if you suspend your disbelief and go along for the ride. This is definitely not a book for intellectuals: too much thought and Brown's intricate and carefully spun web will fall apart. This leads me to believe that Dan Brown is one of three things: either he is a pulp fiction writer who has somehow struck it lucky, he is a very clever man who is out to line his pockets, or he is one of the great ironists of our time. Given some of the interviews of his that I've read, my thoughts are that he is probably somewhere in between the first and second categories.

Whatever the case is, one fact is certain: Dan Brown is a very rich man.

All Roads Lead To Rome...but most of them are closed

I'm normally quite a patient driver; you won't normally find me cutting lanes and speeding through amber lights (not unless there's a sale on at JB Hi-Fi), and apart from inconsiderate drivers I'm normally quite tolerant of most other road users. However recently a couple of things have contributed to a rise in the overall level of road angst I'm experiencing when I hop into my car.

The first is the amount of road work going on. It seems that almost everywhere I look they're tearing the road up. Now I don't have a problem with this per se - believe me, I've been to New South Wales and I'm thankful for the job that VicRoads has done thus far. However there are some places that just seem to be under perpetual rennovation, and no matter how many times I drive past there (at 40km/h under the watchful eye of the burly man in the hard hat with the 'SLOW' sign in hand) it seems that the project is not progressing. I understand that roads are in need of constant maintenance, but can't the job be done faster or at a more convenient hour? I'm not sure either the drivers nor the workers enjoy the congestion and the stress associated with it. Can't the work be done later at night or early morning?

The second are the speed limits. I have to confess, I'm a cautious driver - I don't break the speed limits unless I have to. If someone's in a rush, let him overtake me. However there comes a point where the speed limits just become ridiculous. In my opinion suburban streets should be 60km/h, main roads (two lanes in each direction) should be 70km/h, and school zones should be abolished. I think that the focus the government is placing on speed limits belies a myopic view of the road toll problem; a more effective method is to try and change driving culture and driving standards. Anyone who's had to drive through a school zone at 9:30am, when ALL of the kids are in class but drivers outside are still expected to crawl along at 40km/h, will be able to sympathise. The increased presence of cops waiting around these 40km/h zones is not increasing driver awareness; it is increasing driver anxiety. How about we spend more time looking ahead of us instead of down at the speedometer, hmm?

I guess the straw that really broke the camel's back for me was exiting the freeway today and immediately transitioning into a school zone. That means that in the time you get off the exit ramp you need to have decelerated from 100km/h to 40km/h. This is just ridiculous. Who builds a freeway next to a school without considering these things, anyway? What's more, the school was not readily visible from the exit, meaning that those drivers expecting to enter the road at 70km/h were in for a nasty surprise.

So my message to VicRoads is: shape up or ship out. You're frustrating good drivers and failing to have any impact on the hoons that cause the majority of the smash-ups.

The 14th of February

Although it's actually been a couple of days since Valentine's Day, I thought that in this rare quiet period I'd pen a couple of thoughts on the day that has dominated this week.

I think that Valentine's Day, like most other major holidays, is neither an entirely good nor an entirely bad thing. As with most things in life, it's how one approaches it. I suppose the only thing that Valentine's Day (or indeed Christmas or any other major holiday) does is amplify our characters - everything is brought out into the open.

There will of course be the counter-culture warriors, who stalwartly 'bah humbug' their way to spinsterhood and lonely bachelordom, the opportunistic women, who see the day as a way to bludgeon yet another diamond bracelet out of their man, and the under-invested man who sees Valentine's Day as a way to keep his woman's emotional needs satiated for the year. It's not hard to see why these sort of people give the day a bad name.

Amidst all the gift giving and general chaos in the package delivery industry it's easy to forget that there are those who choose to utilise the day appropriately: Valentine's Day, as it is conceived in the public imagination, is a day on which we focus on love. This does not mean that it is THE day for romance, to the exclusion of others; nor does it necessitate the vapid and perfunctory giving competitions that are an unfortunate by-product of a consumption-based society. Valentine's Day should be viewed as an opportunity to do for others rather than a burden or an opportunity to receive.

So next time February 14 rolls around, give your significant other a call and let them know how much you love them. Buy something nice for them, go out for dinner and maybe even do what most couples end up doing on Valentine's Day. Just don't forget that Valentine's Day is about you and your partner, not about anyone else. Have eyes for your partner only, and trust them to have eyes only for you. Personally I think that that's more special than any amount of roses or chocolate.

And I know what you're asking - is that what I did for Valentine's Day? Does the man practice what he preaches? Well you'll have to wait until next year for that one as well - I claim exemption on the basis of being single.

Best of luck to all the world's couples, and I hope you had a great Valentine's Day.

More thoughts on the US elections

Since the US elections seem to be dominating the media both here and abroad, I thought I'd offer a couple more thoughts on the subject. Since I last posted on the topic a number of big changes have occurred - McCain is the Republican nominee (just this morning I read that the vanquished Mitt Romney is now going to formally endorse McCain), and Obama and Hillary look like going down to the wire.

Just a couple of thoughts on the current situation:

- All of the candidates are articulate and presentable as leaders of the most powerful nation in the world. We're not going to have to worry about posters of 'Clinton-isms' or 'McCain-isms' (or at least the mistakes will be political, not grammatical)

- The fight for the soul of the Republican party is in a way just as fierce as the one for the Democratic party, even though the Republican party now has its nominee. McCain had better hurry up and get the remaining hundred or so delegates he needs, because until he does Huckabee will stay in the race and be a real obstacle to McCain's attempts to rally the conservative wing of the Republican party.

- President Bush's endorsement of McCain as a 'true conservative' won't be worth much.

- Clinton has to avoid looking flustered. Nothing will kill her campaign faster than appearing like she has an entitlement mentality as a result of panicking when her 'inevitable' candidacy appears under threat.

- Obama's main job from here on out is to not make a mistake. Easier than it sounds, but still probably easier for him than for Hillary given that he is the frontrunner and politically a much smaller target.

- The Democratic nomination is far from settled. Don't feel let down if we go to the November poll with a choice between two old white people.

And, given that it's 7:30 and I've just come off a two hour morning shift for the news service that I work for, that's all I've got for now.

Stay posted.

More quality news

Well at least it's nice to see that SOME news outlets are carrying the big stories that affect all our lives.

Zenith is...'Moderately Gifted'?

This morning, while I was trying to avoid doing all the busy work I have piled up on my desk, I decided to click on one of those website ads and do an IQ test for the hell of it. If you want to see what test I did, I took the one at www.iqtest.com.

After a couple of minutes of trying to work out number sequences and handle palindromes I was sent an e-mail that told me I have an IQ of 139. Having had my intelligence measured by a reputable clinician I then went to another reputable source to put the figure in context: Wikipedia.

According to one measure of grouping IQ scores, my score of 139 qualifies me as 'moderately gifted':

80-114 Average Intelligence
115-129 Bright
130-144 Moderately Gifted
145-159 Highly Gifted
160-175 Exceptionally Gifted
Over 175 Profoundly Gifted

Well, 'moderately gifted' isn't very helpful. Does that mean I can come up with an average exceptional piece of work? I did a bit of further snooping and I found some interesting celebrity IQs:

Republican 2008 Nominees:
John McCain: 120 - 130.
Mike Huckabee: 110 - 125.
Mitt Romney: 122.


Democractic 2008 Nominees:
Barack Obama: 121 - 137.
Hillary Clinton: 140.
John Edwards: 124.


Past Presidents:
Bill Clinton: 137
George W Bush: 125


The fact that I'm 'smarter' than pretty much all of the major US politicians for the past decade and a half (apart from Hillary) isn't much comforting, except for the fact that the US President is surrounded by policy wonks and the fact that my IQ score from an internet site is probably wrong.

On another interesting note, I'm apparently a step behind such intellectual luminaries as Shakira, Madonna and Geena Davis, who all scored 140. But even they're not up to the level of Ms Sharon Stone, who is apparently 'highly gifted' with a score of 154. Which just goes to show that women are in fact smarter than men.

...or does it?

It's hard to tell with all this qualified, quantified, reputable information floating around.

Why does The Age even bother?

Generally I'm quite tolerant of the organised media. While I used to be the sort of person who would squabble about perceived left-wing or right-wing media bias, I've learned that there are more important (and productive) things to do with my time and energy. Nevertheless, there are certain instances when the final straw breaks the camel's back.

Today's edition of The Age was one such moment. I've been reading The Age for the past couple of years, and I have to say that I've noticed a significant decline in the quality of the paper in that time. Now I'm getting to the point of exasperation, wondering whether The Age should even bother calling itself a broadsheet.

I can tolerate the watering down of the content and the influx of mX-style tidbit stories, but one thing that I can't stomach is clear editorialising outside of the opinion section. It's no secret that The Age is a left-leaning paper, but to have such blatant one-sided reporting is really unacceptable. If the paper wants to applaud the Rudd Government's summit, it should do so using its editorial for the day. And for the record I have no problem with the Rudd Government or the summit per se; I'd just like to be able to make up my own mind on the subject.

If this keeps up, I'll have to find another use for my Age subscription...doorstops, anyone?

To be two or not to be two

Yesterday the US presidential elections just got interesting. With the withdrawal of Rudy Guliani and John Edwards from the Republican and Democratic races respectively, both the nomination contests are in effect down to two candidates each, which I find much more fascinating than the erratic multi-horse race that we've suffered until recently (particularly on the Republican side).

It's my personal belief that while having multiple candidates to choose from is a sign of a healthy democracy in theory, in practice it can lead to some of the worst and lowest populist outcomes that a democratic system can generate. When the average voter is faced by a slather of candidates they will either be turned off by the complexity of it all and not vote, or be motivated to vote by single hot-button issues. Obviously the second problem will occur in any race, but I feel that it is more pronounced and worrying in a multi-candidate field. For example, Mike Huckabee carried Iowa largely on the morals platform, Hillary Clinton winning New Hampshire largely because of females who sympathised with her, and Barrack Obama taking the goods in South Carolina because he is an African American (ironically, in a different sense of the word to the one usually used).

Some may argue that this is good for democracy in that it stimulates the public to back its horse and galvinises those who otherwise would not vote. However to vote in a democracy is an act of sovereign power, and one that should not be encouraged simply for its own sake. What I mean by all this is that I am worried that, in a splintered field of candidates without a clear frontrunner, the true issues of substance such as policy and mettle will be lost in a sea of 10 second sound bites and hot-button issues.

Now the American public has a much better chance to seriously scrutinise the remaining four presidential pretenders and make an informed decision. While I am sad to see some candidates go, especially someone like John Edwards who was so passionate about social justice, I would prefer the American people to seriously consider four candidates than roll dice to decide between eight.

And my thoughts on the four remaining candidates? I don't think I really have any credentials to be a pundit apart from reading the papers, but then again I don't particularly think that many actual pundits have strong credentials to do their jobs anyway. That being so I might as well start with the negative side of things.

With Barrack Obama I'm worried that if he gets elected on a centre-left platform and a cult-personality following he may go the same way as Tony Blair in the UK once tough decisions have to be made. Blair was also touted as the 'healer' when he came to power in 1997, loved by the majority. He left in 2007 in a storm of controversy and shunned by a public amongst whom 'Blair-hating' had become a national pasttime. Obviously the President has more far reaching powers than the Prime Minister, but if Obama is running on a platform of unity that may crumble once substantive decisions have to be made. If not, and if he attempts to consistently tow his populist line he may not have the strength or mandate to make tough decisions that need to be made.

Which brings us to the 'hard' candidate, John McCain. Personally I like McCain – he has the bearing of a leader and a proven tenacity and resilience that none of the other candidates have. Additionally he has never been the front runner until he was propelled to that position by the voting public, something I find to be a true vindication of his campaign. That being said however, there are three main concerns with McCain: firstly, his age. The guy's 71, and is old enough to be Barrack Obama's father. Will he really be able to put up with the constant strain of the modern US presidency and yet be able to keep a rein on his temper (his second main problem)? Finally, McCain has only been cautiously accepted by the Republican conservative wing, and he is still yet to win over the ultra-conservatives. If these king makers are so hard to get on board, will McCain have the strength to pull through difficult times without them (or even against them)?

Another candidate for whom opposition seems to be a defining characteristic is Hillary Clinton. She is clearly a very smart, capable woman who for too long has been hidden in the shadow of her charismatic husband. But where Barrack is strong, she is weak: can a woman who 47 per cent of Americans say they won't vote for lead the country? Will Clinton bashing be the successor of Bush bashing? With the current economic downturn and geopolitical turmoil, America needs to have a strong leader (which Hillary would certainly be), but also a leader who can unite to lead.

Which brings us to the wildcard Mitt Romney. To me he is the candidate that doesn't fit neatly into any of the boxes; he is a true big-business economic conservative, but he is yet to be fully embraced by the Republican conservative core. He is also trying to grab some of the 'morals' vote with his strong family values, but many of the 'values' voters will be turned off (fairly or unfairly) by his equally strong Mormon faith. And despite the amount of money he is pumping in he is still trailing behind a man whose campaign was declared dead not a few weeks ago. Will the pieces of the puzzle come together for Romney in time?

To a cautious person like myself, the familiarity of McCain and Clinton is appealing. But then again I'm circumspect enough to know that the world is changing rapidly, and that my gut instinct is not always right. I personally like Obama and I agree that his message resonates with me, but I'm still not sold on him until I see something more substantive (which is not to say there isn't any substance). Romney remains the unknown quantity, and the candidate on whom I have the least to say. My views haven't crystallised yet, and probably won't until the two parties have elected their candidate. But whatever the case, I can only hope that from now on the discussion will move to issues of substance instead of symbolism.