In addition to the fact that the watchers perception will influence their opionion of the intelligence/merits of a peice you also have the fact that there are very few really new ideas out there...would intelligence simply be combining old ideas in a new way to create something, while based on derivatives, is new and better?

"There is nothing new under the sun" Solomon

When the Greek philosophers wrote about the shadows on the back of the cave walls and whether that was reality, even then it wasn't a new idea.

That doesn't mean we can't appreciate what is new to us, just that novelty is subjective and you can often find even cooler stuff if you do a little digging.

I read the book in question. It started off in a very interesting manner, giving info on the story behind the symbols used in art and religion. Since, for instance, the pomenegrates have been a symbol of fertility in Greece continuously since ancient times, I was intrigued by the display of symbols in Western art in the book. Even though I had found the descriptions of exactly how long it took the hero to go to the Louvre loo quite unecessary.

But the ending...it was so trite and cliche and predictable it makes Barbara Cartland look like Jane Austen. Anyone who kills off a book like that is, in my books, exceedingly dumb.

Go for something truly intelligent with an ending that won't insult [i:d369a944c9]your[/i:d369a944c9] intelligence.

I have always considered intelligence in books to be the ability to achieve the aims of the author and connect with the reader. Having great new ideas and commentary is no use if no one can understand it. Also, if the author's aim was to make people laugh, then it wouldn't be very intelligent to pack the book full of depressing philosophy but it would be intelligent to pack it full of things that make people laugh. If you get me.
Its all about appropriateness, I think. Knowing how to present an idea to the reader and how to make the most of the subject matter.

For the record, I read the first chapter of The Da Vinci Code then gave it back to my mother because I though it was so outrageous. But I would consider it an intelligent book because it knew exactly how to manipulate the reader. But I hate that. So perhaps not so smart.

I was going to say exactly that!

I think an intelligent book might be one that causes the reader to change how they perceive or understand something, or causes them to change their opinion. After my sister read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time by Mark Haddon, she sent me a card to say she finally felt she understood me. (This perturbed me slightly, since the book is about an autistic boy.) This book didn't change her opinion on anything, but it changed how she understood people whose thought processes are very different from her own.

An intelligent book might be one that analyses into something or draws connections between things that might not appear to be connected. I haven't read the Da Vinci Code, but I believe it does the latter. Drawing connections where others do not could indeed be seen as intelligent; unfortunately, the Da Vinci Code used ideas that were common in earlier years. There may be no new ideas (and I'm not sure I agree with that anyway), but there is a difference between something having been thought of before and something being commonly thought.

People usually say 'this is an intelligent book' when they mean it requires intelligence on the part of the reader to follow what's going on. This is not true! One of my criticisms of the early Discworld books is that, if you are new to fantasy, they are hard work to follow. One of the strengths of the Da Vinci Code, I understand, is that it is easy to read, and it does make people believe in the story that the author is spinning. In these senses, it is a very intelligent book. The trouble is that there are so many stupid people who can't differentiate between story and fact, especially when the story is told by someone far more intelligent than them.

There is also the element of being well-informed. I enjoy reading a book that contains information I didn't know before. I think that is one of the things that attracts people to the Da Vinci Code. However, and someone better-informed than me can confirm or deny this, I believe the 'facts' given at the beginning of the Da Vinci Code are not all facts at all.

I think that Da Vinci Code is a crappy mass reading. The only writers merit is that he brought some issues written in this book to the mass reader.

Though he perverted and "leaked clean" - naturally, the book is for Mass Reader - some facts.

He read them and made a bestselling fiction, nothing more.

P.S. I managed 70 or 80 pages and dropped this book because I couldn't get rid of déjà vu.
We have discussed similiar topopics when I was at school, with our teacher of hostory of fine art.

Though, my ex-class mate liked this book. She didn't attend those classes.

Not just the ones at the beginning some might say....

Are the facts "accurate"? What difference does it make? many will ask.

Brown seems to insist on the accuracy and factual nature of all his theories. A significant number of historians and academics disagree with many of these facts. therefore, the problem readers often have with this book is in remembering that it is a work of fiction.


If Brown hadn't been so insistent on his facts, the book would (in my view) have stood up as a good-ish work of fiction. Now it gets confused with a poorly researched conspiracy theory dressed up as fiction.

Still...better a book that does make you think and discuss and research other points of view, than one which causes no discernible reaction!

This book in particular I thought was extremely clever, young and old alike. It has been written in a way which is not hard to read, from a technical point of view, but can be viewed in so many different ways and contains so much underneath the text that it simply becomes intelligent. He used metaphors, not as a writing tool in the traditional sense, but as a way to understand the character. In many ways his metaphor was a metaphor for how he thought.

For me it rested in the front of my mind for months; and naturally, only intelligent books can really achieve this.

The DaVinci code was good; don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed it. It was reasonably well written and managed to hold the reader through the use of tension and interesting clues. The problem I had was it simply didn’t stand out. He didn’t play with the language or manipulate you much through words (yes there were a few points but most of them were just clues in another form and is nothing particularly note-worthy). The text tended to mean what it said. The only thing hidden in the book was a bizarre story about his childhood trauma (which is one of the few parts of his novels that does stick in my mind) and the actual clues. For me the plot took over the telling of the story, which is fine for the audience it was aiming for, but it wasn’t a fantastic piece of literature.

I realised that this wasn’t as good as I first though when I got interested and read through his other books. It wasn’t until that point I realised how little he does to vary his plots. They all start in the same way, all have a reasonably happy ending (minus a few deaths) and all are written in the same voice with the same use of language.

It is one of these areas where there may be fact but there is more theory. Some of his facts, he admits, are not entirely correct because for the novel to fit it just had to be changed. I would give an example but it was a while since I read the book and I can’t remember what was incorrect.

What he gave were theories that may have existed, but not to your average Joe. People feel that reading this makes them appear intelligent because it covers a topic that is largely associated with academics and scholarly people. Its one of these, ‘become an expert in 5 days with Dan Brown’. People like being able to have a seemingly intelligent conversation and appear as though they are well informed. Obviously this book has allowed a few people to do so; they recommended it to their friends, and so on.

Phew, that took a while to type….

You know what I find disturbing is the number of accessory books available to help people understand the divinci code. Seriously their must be closed to 40 books pushed into mass market and 10 or so DVDs by now.

I believe this should be called the "tutor" effect, that is the mindset that I have found to many pervade people that they need a tutor, psychiatrist, or all that coffee lifestyle crap that is sold in starbucks (perhaps consumer effect would be more appropriate in this one).

For what is frankly not intelligent but maybe is cleverly pulled off mass market fiction it is rather disturbing the number of people other than the author who are trying to get a quick buck off it.

I disagree completely, at a weekly basis there is a new flood of scientific knowledge.

New molecules, techniques and discoveries. Now this isn’t exactly common knowledge in that you tend to have to go and look for it but it is new.

More accurately there is no new “plots” perhaps, but that is like saying there is no new music. An example in the science of discworld gave perspective on the total number of simple “tunes” that have been used by mankind, it is a mere fraction of all possible combinations of notes that these simple “tunes”.

The problem – if it is a problem - is that author exploits the topic, there is nothing more, but “amusing” “facts” that he wants to feed to the reader. The book WAS written to be a bestseller and pretends to be a revelation.

That’s why this book averts me.

Eco, for example, never looks back at readers. He just does the best he can and tries to make his books as accurate as they can be.

On the other hand Julian Barnes – just an example – wrote his “History of the World…” , used many interesting facts and played with them, with words and reader, though he never epatered public with cheap tricks, never tried to be an oracle or make oodles of money.

Both authors didn’t play at give-away with the reader. Perhaps that is the reason why they are not millionaires.

Personally, I think "The Passion of the Christ" was a far more dangerous film than the "Da Vinci code" has the potential of becoming...

Also, has anyone read Holy Blood, Holy Grail? Deals with the same claims as the DaVinci code (that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that they had children whose descendants the Templars have been protecting all these centuries) but without the fictional dressing-up.

Pepster, I think what that quote refers to is the state of humanity, not the scientific discoveries. In other words, people-created notions like wars, love, ambition, jealosy, friendship etc. have been around forever, or at least as long as there have been humans.

I've since read Digital Fortress (Weak) and Deception Point (Not too bad) and I agree. He has one plot and sticks to it. At least Deception Point has a decent twist in the end.

The DaVinci Code didn't give me any new info, but that's because I am interested in stuff like that. Hell, I saw better theories on Discovery. The puzzles were mediocre and the writing, like fairyliquid said, was just straightforward, no double meanings, no hidden clues. Then again, we are spoiled by the likes of Douglas Adams and Pratchett...

True but I have to take a hard stance against generalisation that could put me out of a job