DISCLAIMER: I am going to talk about the book, and I am going to say whatever I want. If you haven’t read it, but plan to, don’t read this.

I will admit, I am the last person on the planet to read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. I would go so far as to say that the book has been more than a little hyped, so you’ll have to forgive me for saying that I thought it was mediocre at best.

First of all, the way it was written was cheap. Cliched devices - like about 412 cliff hangers - forced dialog, it had it all. I suppose it is difficult to create a suspenseful novel that will appeal to today’s jaded, television savvy, audience but seriously, tone it down a tad there Dan.

I could deal with that though, because honestly once I turned my brain off I was really enjoying the ride. Therein lies the rub though, because I’m pretty sure that everyone who read that book also turned their brains off, and as such seem to have lost track of the fact that this book is a work of fiction.

fiction: a literary work based on the imagination and not necessarily on fact

Okay now, is everbody clear on that? Here’s a news flash, all of the stuff said in the Da Vinci code, like Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene, having a kid etc. has been around for years. Just because Leonardo Da Vinci believed it doesn’t make it true. Leo was an artist, and an inventor, but as far as I know he never invented a way to travel through time and as such is no better a source of information on historical facts than anyone else. Oh, Leo painted The Last Supper with Mary Magdalene on Jesus’ right, so they were married and had kids. We know this because Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius, and anything he painted was 100% historically accurate. Oh yeah, unless you count that in the same painting Jesus is a white dude - as are most people born in the middle east.

If you want to believe that Jesus had a wife and kids, go hard, it doesn’t offend me in the least. Just don’t quote a work of complete fiction as the source for your belief. Bah!

What’s more, it’s not even good fiction. Here’s something: the clever twist at the end was complete garbage. It was only a surprise because it made absolutely no sense. Wooo, tricky writing there Mr. Brown.

Let me spell it out for you:

• Thebing (hereafter “Teabag”) was motivated to find the grail because he felt that history had been wronged when the secret was not revealed at the change of the millenium.
• Teabag was not motivated by money (he was quite wealthy), greed (he wanted to share the grail with the world), or ego (he never claimed to be searching for personal glory).

Now tell me this - why the hell would he try to kill people who were helping him find the grail? Seriously, even if they said “we don’t want to tell people where the grail is” he could just dig it up anyways. But no, he has to go to incredibly elaborate means to keep his identity a secret so that he can publicly reveal the grail and incriminate himself for all of the shady business he’s been up to.

The only reason this is a suprise is because it makes little to no sense. And why, pray tell, does his butler - who is in on the whole deal, planting bug and doing intense surveilence of all members of the Illuminati as well as the police force currently tracking Langdon - approach Teabag - who is the mastermind behind this entire plot - to tell him Langdon is on the run from the law? They already know this, they have a bug listening in on the police investigation. Could it be that at this point in the novel not even Dan Brown had figured out the twist? I think yes.

Okay, so the Butler tells Teabag some information he already know, and Teabag says “play it cool sucka, we’re after the grail here” (paraphrased) and the butler gets pissed. What? No. What? How did this slip through the editing process. Oh yeah, and somewhere in here Teabag calls Silas to come and steal the grail - from himself. So that Silas can give him what he is already holding in his damn cripple hands! What’s the motivation for this? Why would he not want other people there when he finds the grail if his intent was to tell the world?

Dan Brown just tacked the twist on. Period. At some point he was like “oh hey, the whole Teacher thing is a bit of a loose end sooooo Teabag is the teacher. Yeah, that ought to work.”

And now Tom Hanks is in the movie and I’m still left sitting here wondering: am I the only one who noticed that this book is retarded?