A few weeks ago I finished reading The Da Vinci Code. It was a good book. It wasn't as good as it's made out to be, but nothing that hyped ever is.

The first few pages of my edition of the book are filled with acclaim. 'Exceedingly clever,' says the Washington Post. 'An exhiliratingly brainy thriller,' says the New York Times. Amazon.com calls it 'an intelligent and lucid thriller.'

I take issue with this. It was a fun read, and the facts were all very interesting, but the author knowing a lot of facts doesn't make a story clever. Neither does, as is more the case in his other books, including lots of high-tech important-sounding gadgets and words.

So how exactly was this book intelligent? Was it the twists?

THE DA VINCI CODE SPOILERS.

If done right, yeah, twists can contribute a lot to making a plot intelligent, because it makes it more complex. I'm a fan of the TV series 24, which has endless twists and turns, and the endings of Scooby Doo episodes surprise me every time, but even if twists are a good thing to have, were the ones in The Da Vinci Code really any good? Take the biggest twist of them all: Teabing being The Teacher. Am I the only one who thought this was too much of a coincidence? That Langdon and Sophie ran to him for help, and his explanation at the end was something like, 'Oh, I knew you'd come, it was all part of my ingenious plan'?

Was it the hidden messages? A good portion of the mini-revelations that occurred throughout the story about Da Vinci's paintings etc all seem very clever, but surely that's Da Vinci being clever, and not the story?

(And anagrams... Anagrams, as far as plot is concerned, are dull. After JK Rowling's 'Tom Marvolo Riddle' to 'I am Lord Voldemort', the OH WOW! effect has kind of worn off. Anagrams should not be made major or even minor plot points! Stop it! Bad authors!)

///THE DA VINCI CODE SPOILERS.

What is it that makes any story intelligent or clever?

Is it the concepts (scientific or otherwise)? The Matrix, aside from its breakthroughs in special effects, was considered clever because of its concept of everyone living inside a computer and all the things relating to that, and even more clever by those who looked into all the implicit philosophical stuff. What is it we find intelligent about Pratchett's books? They have a fair bit of philosophy themselves. Pratchett's also very good at perceiving human nature, different personalities/character, and society. Does some sort of social or political commentary make it clever?

Taking all of these things into account, the three words 'get', 'out' and 'more' come to my mind. But I just thought I'd ask what other people think anyway.

I think it's thinking up original ideas that are out of the ordinary. To use your examples, the plot of the Matrix was a totally new idea, and we all know that Pratchett looks at things in a very, ahem, different way from other people.

Big words have nothing to do with it, as you said, although an eloquent style like Pratchett helps to get an idea across better.

The Matrix wasn't actually all that original. It's just that the ideas were presented to a mass audience for the first time, and a lot of people won't have seen the stuff it's derived from, so would see it as something exciting and new.

It's probably the same for The Da Vinci Code... very little of it is new (the theories, etc have been around for a while), but it's the first time they've been presented to a mass audience.

Maybe that's why they seem intelligent.

That is an interesting question. In the case of the Da Vinci Code, it would say it comes down to the way the author crafts a storyline around all those elements (all the different clues, iambic poems). I guess that could be perceived as cleverly done if it wasn't for the fact that the central theory in the book is not in fact his (coined for the first time in a similar book in the 80s*) or for the fact that most of his interpretations are false and that there is no real basis for any of his conclusions. It could also be because you have to think when you read the book. I don't think it is an intelligent book, though.

I think it is inevitable that any book with a message and enough art and history references will be seen as intelligent by society in general. A little bit of intelligence by association, I guess.

Is Pratchett's work intelligent and why would it be? The knowledge, the references, the message? Frankly, I don't know. I think it is, because of the detail and the depth, but for a large part it depends on your perception and definition of intelligence.

Edit: crosspost

*Pretty popular book, so this wasn't even the first time this theory was presented to the public.

Well, in my opinion The Matrix was still an original idea. I'm not saying the Matrix was the first time anyone suggested we were controlled by something, or even that we were being controlled by computers - the former idea has been around probably since the first person thought "How come we're here, anyway?", the latter has been the subject of science fiction novels for years. I'm just saying that the basic ideas implemented in the Matrix were original, such as the humans being used for energy, and the tools the 'free people' (I don't know if they gave themselves a proper name? :?) used to gain access to the Matrix.

Also the idea that deja vu meant a glitch in the Matrix. I love that idea.

Yeah, the being controlled by computers/virtual reality was what I meant by the unoriginal bit (I'm not back-pedalling, honest!). There is a lot of clever and original stuff in it, but the main concept isn't new. If it was very unoriginal, I doubt I would have bought the DVD. 8)

Very cool.

Too cool for school. 8)

lol! Anything cooler than broccoli is too cool for school. And in fact, even broccoli itself is probably cooler than school... 8)

Upon reading that, I laughed so hard I nearly threw up.

Glad you find me so funny.

The matrix was many young people's first introduction to rudimentary concepts of philosophy. Most of them aren't even that "deep", but given that the average youth of today has been given as much encouragement to read and expand their knowledge as the average Hun was encouraged to PLEASE sack our cities, we really don't enjoy living that much after all, it's not that surprising that so many people thought the matrix was original, deep, or... i dunno, meaningful.

I found it quite alarming that after the Wikowski (whatever their name is) brothers were sued for and found guilty of stealing the whole plot to The Matrix from some old woman who'd submitted it to a publishing company they worked for years ago, all the little Matrix fanboys who'd been praising these ripoff artists as genuises and possibly prophets turned with unbridled venom upon the woman who actually wrote it, and said she was just in it for the money and trying to slander the names of their heros.

I wish I could say that sort of pathos was original, but the stupidity inherent in the human species is the only thing that's remotely meaningful in all of this.

The Da Vinci code is, from all i've heard, a nice little work of fiction. It brings up the Merovingian legends again which we hadn't heard of in a while (and, surprise surprise, were ripped off for the Matrix sequels), and it probably, from what I can tell, touches on the Cathars a bit as well.

The thing is, it's fiction. and yet you've got hordes of braindead suburbanites thinking that Jesus got it on and populated the world with superbabies.

Sure, why not. while we're at it, Zeus peed on a woman in a sea chest and Persius came about from it and killed a gorgon sister.

Now THAT was original.

But that doesn't mean it wasn't an original idea.

Look! the simple but effective Matrix-Bob, as devised by my brother -



He looks kind of angry... :o

No, the bits where I said it wasn't an original idea and relied on other, fundamental principles of various philosophical movements means it wasn't an original idea.

If you want originality in your sci-fi, read Azimov or Clark, or even Verne and Wells.

If you want originality in your philosophy, read Neitzche, Socrates, and Plato.

If you want simplistic, trendy derivative bullshit, go to the movies.

edit: added the bold word.

edit: fixed the bold word.

edit: fixed the stupid bold coding AGAIN.