DaVinci Code? SmaVinci Toad! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 12-05-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

The announcement this week from Hollywood that Tom Hanks will star in the film adaptation of Dan Brown's thriller The Da Vinci Code may have excited the book's millions of fans around the world. But in France, there was a collective sinking of hearts.

The English journalist stood outside the church of St Sulpice, her heart pounding.

It was dusk and if memory served her well, it was just 20m up the 200 steps into the darkened nave.

That number had been precisely counted by the church's medieval architect to chime in with the ritual of the pagan goddess once worshipped on this site until the elders of the Christian Church claimed it as their own.

Her footsteps echoed on the cold flagstones.

Inside, the elderly Frenchman who went by the name of Monsieur Michel Rouge would be waiting for her. She sensed it might be a difficult encounter.

Perhaps he alone could unravel the secrets of the dark arts practised by the American author Dan Brown. The man whose quest to write a bestseller had so angered the French that even now mysterious forces were gathering to denounce him.

She looked up at his face in the half shadow, illuminated only by the blue of Mary Magdalene's robe in the stained glass window looming above them.

Then she took a deep breath and asked..."So what exactly is it about The Da Vinci Code that's upset you so much in France?"

Fact or fiction?

Michel Rouge was silent as he weighed his words carefully. But the journalist could see what he was thinking.

Perhaps it was because Dan Brown was American, perhaps it was because his bestseller mixed fact and fiction so successfully that the Da Vinci tourists flocking to France took every word as Gospel truth - their naive gullibility irritating the rational, logical French.

In fact, Michel Rouge is a tour guide at the church that is used as the site of one of the key secrets of The Da Vinci Code, and one of its most brutal killings by Silas, the albino Opus Dei monk and murderer.

Except that Opus Dei, the Catholic organisation, does not have monks. Nor is it a sect. And St Sulpice does not hide the secret that Dan Brown describes.

Michel smiles as he explains that he does not actually mind, as long as the grail-hunting tourists are not abusive when he tells them that the book is not true.

Like 17 million other people across the globe, he has read The Da Vinci Code and enjoyed it.

But what worries him is the introduction, which claims that all descriptions of artwork, architecture and secret rituals are accurate.

Well, up to a point.

Unswerving beliefs

St Sulpice undoubtedly exists. But it is not the site of a Roman temple. Nor, Michel Rouge says, does the obelisk there hide a secret cave. Nor, indeed, is the obelisk Egyptian.

So fed up is the church with tourists asking to see where the fictional nun was murdered that it has put up notices to make it clear that while the church is real, the events in the book are not.

Some visitors, though, simply do not believe it... and they keep stealing the notice.

They tell Michel Rouge that he is covering up for the Catholic Church but that now, thanks to Dan Brown, they know the truth - that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had children whose descendants became French kings.

Michel shrugs, and raises a sceptical eyebrow.

Despite everything, he says, he is glad more visitors are being drawn to the church, whatever their motives.

Religious rebuff

The Gallic shrug approach is also taken by Opus Dei, described in the novel as a rich, powerful and violent Catholic sect.

I speak to their press secretary Arnaud Gency on the phone, so I cannot tell whether he is an unusually large albino monk, nor if he is wearing a spiked belt around his thigh to mortify his flesh.

It does not sound like it though, as he laughs while discussing the impact of a book in which his employer is one of the main villains.

Arnaud read The Da Vinci Code, but admits that to him, its popularity remains its greatest mystery.

He directs me to the Opus Dei website for their wonderfully understated riposte: "We hope that Da Vinci Code readers interested in Christian history will be motivated to study the scholarship in the NON-FICTION section of the library."

And yet, in this secular age, what is it about a novel based on religion and sacred signs that has captured so many imaginations?

Arnaud Gency agrees that perhaps many readers are seeking a spiritual side to life, especially those who do not have - as he puts it - much historical knowledge or culture on which to base their beliefs. Americans, he means.

But how does he explain the book's popularity in France?

"When you read the book," he says, "you have the feeling that you are learning a lot, and the French love that. But when you realise that what Dan Brown writes is actually wrong, it is a bitter disappointment. At least in France..."

It was dark outside as the English journalist left the church... and for a brief moment, she thought she could hear voices.

"Dan Brown is publishing a sequel," they whispered.

"Oh no", she thought, and she could almost hear the groans of French agony resonating through the ancient paving stones.

From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday, 4 December 2004 at 1130 GMT on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...nt/4065895.stm

I've never read any of Dan Brown's books, so I can't really comment on whether they're entertaining or not. I'm generally not a fan of fiction anyway (apart from being a sucker for Iain M Banks SF novels!).

But I do realize that the Da Vinci Code is not factual and I'm constantly surprised at how many people seem to believe it's true.

Mr Mephisto

spindles · 12-05-2004, 05:00 PM

I was watching the ABC (in OZ) last night. They had a show called "My favourite book" where they got viewers to nominate their favourite. Anyway, the da vinci code was #8 (I think). The panelists discussing included James Oloughlin (or however you spell his name). He said he thought it was a terrible book - he said something like "if the plot is just completely unbelievable I can't keep reading".

For each book in the top 10 they had a little intro. This was done by Matthew Reilly who is an Aussie author who excels in writing "page turning" crap bestsellers

He said something like - this is a great book - it is really hard to write page turners.

Chris from The Chaser topped off what I thought when he said (paraphrased) "if this top book thing was done in a years time this book would not appear".

I guess you have to be able to disguish between a good book and a good read. I think a good book is one you can re-read and enjoy, while I think a good read maybe only read once.

People who pick up a work of fiction really have to realise that is what they are looking at. It is like looking around for robots in Chicago after having seen "I robot" at the movies.

I think that the author saying "this book is filled with facts" is just the beginning of the fiction.

Mephisto2 · 12-05-2004, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindles

I guess you have to be able to disguish between a good book and a good read. I think a good book is one you can re-read and enjoy, while I think a good read maybe only read once.

Perhaps one of the most intelligent things I've heard in some time.

Very well said.

Mr Mephisto

ARTelevision · 12-05-2004, 05:18 PM

I read it because I have a student who is doing a paper on it. I thought it was embarrassingly bad.

TexanAvenger · 12-05-2004, 07:32 PM

It was an interesting read... to a point. After a while I got so caught up in the utter incorrectness and unreality that I couldn't continue it anymore. However, if I have one complaint about it, it's that I have had to tell numerous people, numerous times, that this book is simply not true. It's still a mystery to me as to how so many people took this book as gospel truth and hold onto it like miser with a nickel. At first it was kind of fun to have discussions with people about it and show them which parts were true and which weren't, but now it has just gotten to the point where I want people to do their own research instead of believing everything they read.

Charlatan · 12-05-2004, 07:45 PM

The book is a page turner... it isn't all that different from any other popular novel...

The problem is that for some reason people expect the novel to be well written. The writing, for those who know good from bad, is really quite pedestrian. That said, if you can get over the awkward writing, it is a compelling thriller.

I think people have set it up as a brilliant piece of work for the usual reason that many confuse popularity with excellence.

guthmund · 12-05-2004, 08:04 PM

I am amazed at the the stupidity and snobbery coming from both sides about that stupid book.

To be honest, I put little faith in what book "critics" have to say in the first place. Enabling panels to discuss the merits and values of books in order to make a list of latest and greatest....well, it seems a bit absurd.

Stop reading a book because of inaccuracies and unbelievable plots?

For some reason I am reminded of this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Simpsons

Frink: Yes, over here, m-hay, m-haven... in episode BF12, you were battling Barbarians while riding a winged apoluser (?) yet in the very next scene my dear, you're clearly atop a winged arabian! Please do explain it!
Lucy Lawless: Uh, yeah, well whenever you notice something like that.. a wizard did it!
Frink: Yes, alright, yes, in episode AG04..
Lucy Lawless: Wizard!
Frink: Oh for glaven out loud..

The purpose of reading books like these is enjoyment. In order to enjoy these books sometimes you have to silence the inner cynic and stop picking apart the story long enough to read the story. That's the only way it works. The only way to be a part of the magic that is good storytelling is to suspend your disbelief of magic temporarily.

I read it. I enjoyed it. I'm smart enough to realize that although there may be facts in the book, it is not a book of facts.

Charlatan · 12-05-2004, 08:40 PM

My comparisson on this would be the film Speed...

Many watching the film would say, "No bus could make that jump! No way, never!"

Did those people get up and walk out? Nope. Are there people who wouldn't go see this film because it isn't their type of film? Sure.

There isn't much difference between most modes of pop culture: film, books, music, etc. They are entertaining. They appeal to a mass audience.

Why some critics choose to judge pop culture as they would a work of high art, I don't know. My guess on the DaVinci code is that they take this approach because the book is so close in content to Foucault's Pendulum and plays in the realm of high art...

pig · 12-05-2004, 09:42 PM

Dan Brown's books are about the equivalent of John Grisham...I think they are essentially on the level of Harlequin romance novels. They're not bad for the back of the jon, but they're not really written to appeal to a literature buff. I guess I can see some intellectual value in the book if it gets someone to think...but it's generally not a good idea to base serious theological/historical arguments on accounts that are outright fictional works.

Speaking of John Grisham, I don't think I can ever read another one of these things after I pulled my way through The Chamber.

Mephisto2 · 12-05-2004, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guthmund

I'm smart enough to realize that although there may be facts in the book, it is not a book of facts.

That's the whole point.

It's not that "the critics" are complaining about the veracity or liklihood of the events depicted in the book; everyone agrees it's fiction.

But what grates is the fact that so many people believe it and that the book purported to relate certain things as fact, when they are simply untrue.

So it's a combination of basic dishonesty (or remarkable ignorance) on the part of the author combined with breathtaking gullibility on the part of a vast number of readers.

Mr Mephisto

pig · 12-05-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

But what grates is the fact that so many people believe it and that the book purported to relate certain things as fact, when they are simply untrue.

I honestly can't remember the context of the "historical facts are true" bit in the book (in fact, I can't really remember much about the book at all...except I thought it really started falling off when the Scottish guy showed up), but in line with the above post from spindles...if a book of fiction states that the historical facts are correct, does that even count?

spindles · 12-05-2004, 10:35 PM

I haven't read the book. The "fact" line is in the intro:

Quote:

In an introductory note, author Dan Brown tells us that "all descriptions of documents and secret rituals . . . are accurate."

I got this from "Da Vinci Code Decoded" on amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

smooth · 12-05-2004, 11:27 PM

strange to hear negative commentary.

I've only heard positive things about this and his other books. the people were criminologist professors and grad students, and they are fairly on top of how to tell fact from fiction. but I haven't read the book myself, so I don't have a perspective on it myself, other than to say I planned to read it someday (and Angels and Demons was recommended to me, as well).

tisonlyi · 12-05-2004, 11:30 PM

The resentment comes from those who believe it as gospel.

Heh. Gospel. Some people believe those as well...

No, really.

guthmund · 12-06-2004, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

That's the whole point.

It's not that "the critics" are complaining about the veracity or liklihood of the events depicted in the book; everyone agrees it's fiction.

But what grates is the fact that so many people believe it and that the book purported to relate certain things as fact, when they are simply untrue.

So it's a combination of basic dishonesty (or remarkable ignorance) on the part of the author combined with breathtaking gullibility on the part of a vast number of readers.

Mr Mephisto

I just don't seem to understand why the big stink about this particular book? There are countless books filled to the brim with conspiracy theorys about...well, concerning just about everything and everyone. What makes this book different? Is it because we (the readers) have intensely focused on this book or rather we've been focused intensely on this book?

Yes, Dan Brown was certainly a bit dishonest about people, places, things, etc and there are certainly some gullible folks out there who are willing to believe just about everything. But the fact is there are hundreds of thousands of books that fall into the same category. Lots of books with lots of fans who believe that aliens are in the White House, a secret cabal or LBJ killed Kennedy, that the illuminati, the tri-lateral commission, the freemasons are all trying to shape the world to their own ends. What makes this book so different?

I think it's the focus that's been put on it. Critics are as much to blame for the "Da Vinci" maddness that they like turning their noses up at. I knew a ton about this book from other sources before I even picked up the book. Articles were everywhere, related material in Time and Newsweek and afterwards a couple of television shows "investigating" the claims made by Brown, one on prime time ABC, no less. You mention the gullibility of the "vast majority." How many millions of books did this guy sell? How many of his millions of readers carry round dog eared copies, threaten tour guides or write nasty letters to the Catholic church? Not many, I'd bet. He's sold millions of books and reached a very big audience. It stands to reason that his "nutball" percentage is going to be a bit higher, but the "vast majority?" I don't think so.

I think if the "critics" had left this book alone and simply treated it like every other piece of fiction that runs across their desks, it would've died out to it's cult following a long time ago. But they haven't and with a movie coming out their not likely to start ignoring the source material anytime soon.

By the way and completely off topic....I've yet to see a bad Tom Hanks film. It is certainly interesting that he was cast in the hero's role. It just seems an odd fit.

pig · 12-06-2004, 11:25 AM

smooth:

Personally, I thought that The DaVinci Code was much better than Angels and Demons...another one of these books that came out recently that I read was The Rule of Four, which got great "reviews" - and I really thought it was horrible. I think you can only read so many of these things before the cheap thrill is completely gone...it's kind of like the reason I can't watch "Walker : Texas Ranger" anymore.

/can't wait to watch the movie in three years on USA

ratbastid · 12-06-2004, 01:20 PM

I thought it was a fun book. It's not high literature. And it does leave the reader with certain inaccuracies. But there really is a branch of biblical scholarship that supports the Jesus/Mary Magdalene relationship. That part isn't made up at all. They're pretty fringey, of course.

lurkette and I went on a Dan Brown kick for a while earlier this year. I can recommend Deception Point for another fun, adventuresome read. Angels and Demons was decent. Stay the hell away from Digital Fortress at all costs.

Here's what we noticed. They're all the same book. When I met a character in the first two sentences of Deception Point's prologue, I knew that character would be dead by the end of the prologue. And he telegraphs the "whodunnit" by making the villain be the character he went to the most trouble to make you like.

YES, I have a degree in English Lit. I'm just not a snob about it, is all.

Bill O'Rights · 12-06-2004, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I have a degree in English Lit.

So...um...how's that workin' out for ya?

Just givin' ya shit.

At least you've got your degree.

Mephisto2 · 12-06-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guthmund

I just don't seem to understand why the big stink about this particular book? There are countless books filled to the brim with conspiracy theorys about...well, concerning just about everything and everyone. What makes this book different? Is it because we (the readers) have intensely focused on this book or rather we've been focused intensely on this book?

Because it has been so very popular. I'm not the only one who finds this noteworthy.

It has spawned an entire industry in follow-up books. It is also notable enough to have had an effect on tourism in the places depicted in the book.

That's what makes it different.

Quote:

I think it's the focus that's been put on it. Critics are as much to blame for the "Da Vinci" maddness that they like turning their noses up at. I knew a ton about this book from other sources before I even picked up the book. Articles were everywhere, related material in Time and Newsweek and afterwards a couple of television shows "investigating" the claims made by Brown, one on prime time ABC, no less. You mention the gullibility of the "vast majority." How many millions of books did this guy sell? How many of his millions of readers carry round dog eared copies, threaten tour guides or write nasty letters to the Catholic church? Not many, I'd bet. He's sold millions of books and reached a very big audience. It stands to reason that his "nutball" percentage is going to be a bit higher, but the "vast majority?" I don't think so.

Well, I never said "vast majority" and I searched this thread and no one else did either.

The point is, and I'm not the only person saying this, is that this particular book seems to have hit upon a resonance in current "Western" readers; particularly those in the US (though this may simply be because it's sold so well there).

Quote:

I think if the "critics" had left this book alone and simply treated it like every other piece of fiction that runs across their desks, it would've died out to it's cult following a long time ago. But they haven't and with a movie coming out their not likely to start ignoring the source material anytime soon.

Well, I don't think the critics "made" this book. I think, as I said above, it seems to have come at the right time. It plays on peoples fears (vast conspiracy), their yearning for some kind of modern spirituality, the uneasiness after 9/11 etc. These are not only my suppositions, but those of several commentators.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 12-06-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

YES, I have a degree in English Lit. I'm just not a snob about it, is all.

I have no degree whatsoever. Unfortunately I've got nothing to be snobby about!

One of the last remaining autodidacts here... We're a dying breed.

Mr Mephisto

spindles · 12-06-2004, 02:34 PM

Maybe it is getting more attention because it has a religious focus. Nothing better to get people worked up than questioning their religious beliefs.

kd4 · 12-06-2004, 08:57 PM

Quote:

They tell Michel Rouge that he is covering up for the Catholic Church but that now, thanks to Dan Brown, they know the truth - that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had children whose descendants became French kings.

yep its truth, thats why its in the fiction section

Catmandu · 12-07-2004, 08:14 AM

Having read it, I have an opinion. I think the book was written from a formula. It was designed to do exactly what it did; sell billions of copies. It feeds off of the short-attention-span mentality that exists today. We're talking 2-3 page chapters here, folks. Every chapter ends in a cliffhanger. Give me a bit more depth and narrative, please.

Avail · 12-07-2004, 04:42 PM

I think they are going to have Mel Gibson play the leading role in the Da Vinci Code movie.

joeshoe · 12-08-2004, 10:56 PM

Apparently, if you write an introduction that says, "This is book is true," people will believe it. Hmm... time to make some profit

-Ever- · 12-09-2004, 03:49 PM

Listened to it on CD while taking a long drive. I enjoyed the story, but I'm really glad I didn't chose to actually read it

teflonian · 01-22-2005, 03:54 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._da_vinci_code

I was pretty sure that their was a thread out there with discussion about who was going to star in the Da Vinci Code, but I can't seem to find it. In any case, looks like Audrey Tatuou is going to be playing along side Tom Hanks. I think that is a great choice and with actors like those, the movie has to be good.

Suave · 01-22-2005, 03:58 PM

Every time I talk about that book I end up calling it Da Vinci's Inquest.

RCAlyra2004 · 01-23-2005, 01:05 PM

OK Here is the real Problem:

The Davinci code is no more real that the Bible is. .... Seriously. In much of the davinci Code Dan brown admittedly (check HIS website) has changed facts around, but the basics of the DaVinci Code are Spot on....correct. Dan changed facts in order to make a page turner. but the issue is larger than this....

Many people consider the Bible to be a form of divine revelation. Evidence clearly states that it has been tampered with, and by many differing authors over time. Just ask the average theologian how many authors they believe wrote the book of Genesis. This tampering has fouled the evidence, it has allowed the application of political motive for gain to cloud any divine revelation held within it. I used to believe that the Bible was the revealed word of God. The problem is that I would have to force myself to place faith in scripture without any evidence. I will no longer allow myself to do this. For scripture to be true it must pass the toughest of tests, corroboration.

That is where the whole Davinci Code debate begins... were the historians correct? Was Leonardo Davinci Correct in his private assertions about Gnostic Scripture?

According to many historians Constantine formed the Nicene council in 325 AD and members voted on what was to be included in the sacred texts. All historians seem to agree this was a "very political" process that was intended to solidify the church and Roman empire. There have been more than a few different councils formed over the ages to either include or exclude scripture from the Bible. None of these councils have ever had the means by which to verify many of the scriptural statements as true or false! They could only say whether or not a document agreed in concept with another document that was in question.When other documents, such as Gnostic texts were found to disagree with the chosen text they would vote them out off of the list. Political motive is overwhelmingly apparent. Remember that these councils convened hundreds of years after the death of Christ.

I am sure that Jesus of Nazareth existed in flesh along with a number of other people who referred to themselves as "The Christ", as was disturbingly common in those days. There are quite a few corroborating extra-biblical documents that discuss Christs presence, he and other jewish people rubbed shoulders with other cultures. As for Jesus being the Son of God, I cannot corroborate this.

This is a matter for faith alone.

Frankly I could care less is the "French" think that the Davinci "Beleivers" are annoying... There is no promise that their version of history is much more accurate... especially based on the politcal pressure exerted on those who would dare to disagree.

ryfo · 01-23-2005, 01:12 PM

i read fiction books to escape from real life for a while, otherwise i read non-fiction. I think the fact this book is in the fiction catogory tells its own story. btw i read just about anything and its not as bad as some.

M.T. Promises · 01-23-2005, 02:31 PM

Hey, on the very first page, right above the copyright info it clearly says;

"All of the characters and events in this book are fictious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental"

Getting upset because there's so many uniformed idiots amongst our population is a utter waste of time. I know a few people who've read the book, I don't think any of them took it as anything other then fiction. I read it myself, I thought it was a good quick read, with a poor ending.

Ella · 01-23-2005, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.T. Promises

I read it myself, I thought it was a good quick read, with a poor ending.

Yep...my thoughts exactly. Couldn't put the damn thing down!

Jay You Dee · 01-24-2005, 02:09 AM

It had been 10 years since I had read a book of any sort until last week when my girlfriend handed me The Da Vinci Code. I sat up all night reading it, and loved it. So, instead of sleeping I had to go buy the first book in that "series"(for lack of a better word) Angels and Demons. Loved that book too.

One thing I noticed though.. it felt like I was reading a Mad-Libs book that had been filled in by two different people. If I had read one book and not the other I would have considered one of them to be the best book of all time - now i'm just kind of disappointed, so I quit reading again in order to spend more times browsing forums!

arch13 · 01-24-2005, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeshoe

Apparently, if you write an introduction that says, "This is book is true," people will believe it. Hmm... time to make some profit

You failed to phrase this right.
Step 1. Write book. Make sure intro states that certain descriptions are true, but be vaugue about which ones.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Profit

For the record I really enjoyed this book, and happen to subscibe to the idea that much of christianity is a blatant rip-off of Pagan ritual rebranded and resold for a new purpose.
A fair amount of this book is not Dan Brown's ideas. It is a theory that has exists since before the creation of the United States actually. At one point in history, the catholic church did in fact pursue and kill those who preached that theory. Both the fairly obvious nature of how the catholic church "borrowed" some cerimonies and locations and the theory that there was a Mrs. Christ and she was the challace predate even some of the Bible editions used today.

Mr. Brown's actuall acomplishment, was not writing an amazing book. It was delivering a theory to many that the "church" has spent an amount of money not measurable in modern exchange rates over history to eradicate. He introduced an idea that was new to many who thought they had a handle on the history of christianity, and many more who simply never thought of it, and profited.
Good for him I say.

Edit: It would appear that me and RCAlyra2004 share quite the similar thought proccess and view of how we arrived at modern religion.

Cervantes · 01-24-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeshoe

Apparently, if you write an introduction that says, "This is book is true," people will believe it. Hmm... time to make some profit

Was just thinking the same thing... hehehe!

Seriously though, I read the book and it was a good read despite its infantile writingstyle and constant embarrasingly obvious "hooks" and cliffhangers. It's one of those books that made me think "What if?" but not for a second did I take it for anything but fiction. It doesn't have any re-readability value at all to me thanks to the overuse of dramaturgical tricks.

I feel sorry for those who take it for truth though, to be so easily suggestible into thinking fiction is fact must be somewhat of a social handicap.

spindles · 02-27-2005, 07:33 PM

Well, having just read the book, I feel better qualified to discuss it. I don't think my view has changed. It's fiction. I don't think it is going to change the world and it was not even close to being included my "favourite books" list. As has been said above, the ending was poor at best.

In the copy I borrowed, they include the beginning of Angels and Demons. I think you could be mistaken for thinking you are reading the same book - hero gets woken in middle of the night in hotel room, shown pictures of a murder with funny symbols in it by a policeman and is dragged off on wild adventure - both books start exactly the same. Do I hear the word formula?

I must say I'm not rushing out to get a copy of the other book.

drakers · 02-27-2005, 09:12 PM

I've read the book and thought it was really good. I'm a Catholic and I just feel sorry for people who actually believe all of this or certain parts are even true. People really should read the sign that is hanging above them when they buy a book, if it says it is a non-fiction book, then obviously even the author acknowleges the untruthfulness of the book itself.

pig · 02-28-2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindles

In the copy I borrowed, they include the beginning of Angels and Demons. I think you could be mistaken for thinking you are reading the same book - hero gets woken in middle of the night in hotel room, shown pictures of a murder with funny symbols in it by a policeman and is dragged off on wild adventure - both books start exactly the same. Do I hear the word formula?

I must say I'm not rushing out to get a copy of the other book.

Personal Opinion : Angels and Demons is worse than DaVinci. My mom loves these books. I read them. They're pretty good for reading on the can.

SecretMethod70 · 02-28-2005, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakers

I've read the book and thought it was really good. I'm a Catholic and I just feel sorry for people who actually believe all of this or certain parts are even true. People really should read the sign that is hanging above them when they buy a book, if it says it is a non-fiction book, then obviously even the author acknowleges the untruthfulness of the book itself.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume you mean to say if the sign says "fiction"

That said, I wholeheartedly agree. It seems critical thinking skills are growing seriously deficient among the general populace as of late.

wsuprincess · 02-28-2005, 07:35 PM

I loved The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons, though I would never say that I thought that either were anything but based in fact. I don't think I'd go to St. Sulpice and believe that a nun was killed there by an albino monk named Silas. However, the theories he's covering are very interesting, and have been widely researched for the most part. I couldn't put the book down when I read it initially, and I have read it quite a few more times since buying it. So I chose to research some on my own. I find the Gnostic Gospels and the Priory of Sion fascinating, and there has been speculation that the Holy Grail is, indeed, not a chalice. So I loved it.

There are things that are there for entertainment. I enjoy them for their entertainment aspect. I have a degree in history, and I could easily not like these books, but they weren't meant to teach you history. They were meant to entertain, and if your interest is piqued, then research it some more.

12-05-2004, 05:00 PM	#2 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	I was watching the ABC (in OZ) last night. They had a show called "My favourite book" where they got viewers to nominate their favourite. Anyway, the da vinci code was #8 (I think). The panelists discussing included James Oloughlin (or however you spell his name). He said he thought it was a terrible book - he said something like "if the plot is just completely unbelievable I can't keep reading". For each book in the top 10 they had a little intro. This was done by Matthew Reilly who is an Aussie author who excels in writing "page turning" crap bestsellers He said something like - this is a great book - it is really hard to write page turners. Chris from The Chaser topped off what I thought when he said (paraphrased) "if this top book thing was done in a years time this book would not appear". I guess you have to be able to disguish between a good book and a good read. I think a good book is one you can re-read and enjoy, while I think a good read maybe only read once. People who pick up a work of fiction really have to realise that is what they are looking at. It is like looking around for robots in Chicago after having seen "I robot" at the movies. I think that the author saying "this book is filled with facts" is just the beginning of the fiction. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

12-05-2004, 05:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I read it because I have a student who is doing a paper on it. I thought it was embarrassingly bad. __________________ create evolution

12-05-2004, 07:45 PM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The book is a page turner... it isn't all that different from any other popular novel... The problem is that for some reason people expect the novel to be well written. The writing, for those who know good from bad, is really quite pedestrian. That said, if you can get over the awkward writing, it is a compelling thriller. I think people have set it up as a brilliant piece of work for the usual reason that many confuse popularity with excellence. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-05-2004, 08:40 PM	#8 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	My comparisson on this would be the film Speed... Many watching the film would say, "No bus could make that jump! No way, never!" Did those people get up and walk out? Nope. Are there people who wouldn't go see this film because it isn't their type of film? Sure. There isn't much difference between most modes of pop culture: film, books, music, etc. They are entertaining. They appeal to a mass audience. Why some critics choose to judge pop culture as they would a work of high art, I don't know. My guess on the DaVinci code is that they take this approach because the book is so close in content to Foucault's Pendulum and plays in the realm of high art... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-05-2004, 09:42 PM	#9 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Dan Brown's books are about the equivalent of John Grisham...I think they are essentially on the level of Harlequin romance novels. They're not bad for the back of the jon, but they're not really written to appeal to a literature buff. I guess I can see some intellectual value in the book if it gets someone to think...but it's generally not a good idea to base serious theological/historical arguments on accounts that are outright fictional works. Speaking of John Grisham, I don't think I can ever read another one of these things after I pulled my way through The Chamber. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

12-05-2004, 07:32 PM	#5 (permalink)
TexanAvenger Born-Again New Guy Location: Unfound.	It was an interesting read... to a point. After a while I got so caught up in the utter incorrectness and unreality that I couldn't continue it anymore. However, if I have one complaint about it, it's that I have had to tell numerous people, numerous times, that this book is simply not true. It's still a mystery to me as to how so many people took this book as gospel truth and hold onto it like miser with a nickel. At first it was kind of fun to have discussions with people about it and show them which parts were true and which weren't, but now it has just gotten to the point where I want people to do their own research instead of believing everything they read.

12-05-2004, 11:27 PM	#13 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	strange to hear negative commentary. I've only heard positive things about this and his other books. the people were criminologist professors and grad students, and they are fairly on top of how to tell fact from fiction. but I haven't read the book myself, so I don't have a perspective on it myself, other than to say I planned to read it someday (and Angels and Demons was recommended to me, as well). __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

12-05-2004, 11:30 PM	#14 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	The resentment comes from those who believe it as gospel. Heh. Gospel. Some people believe those as well... No, really. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

12-06-2004, 11:25 AM	#16 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	smooth: Personally, I thought that The DaVinci Code was much better than Angels and Demons...another one of these books that came out recently that I read was The Rule of Four, which got great "reviews" - and I really thought it was horrible. I think you can only read so many of these things before the cheap thrill is completely gone...it's kind of like the reason I can't watch "Walker : Texas Ranger" anymore. /can't wait to watch the movie in three years on USA __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

12-06-2004, 01:20 PM	#17 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I thought it was a fun book. It's not high literature. And it does leave the reader with certain inaccuracies. But there really is a branch of biblical scholarship that supports the Jesus/Mary Magdalene relationship. That part isn't made up at all. They're pretty fringey, of course. lurkette and I went on a Dan Brown kick for a while earlier this year. I can recommend Deception Point for another fun, adventuresome read. Angels and Demons was decent. Stay the hell away from Digital Fortress at all costs. Here's what we noticed. They're all the same book. When I met a character in the first two sentences of Deception Point's prologue, I knew that character would be dead by the end of the prologue. And he telegraphs the "whodunnit" by making the villain be the character he went to the most trouble to make you like. YES, I have a degree in English Lit. I'm just not a snob about it, is all.

12-06-2004, 02:34 PM	#21 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	Maybe it is getting more attention because it has a religious focus. Nothing better to get people worked up than questioning their religious beliefs. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

12-07-2004, 08:14 AM	#23 (permalink)
Catmandu Insane Location: Seattle	Having read it, I have an opinion. I think the book was written from a formula. It was designed to do exactly what it did; sell billions of copies. It feeds off of the short-attention-span mentality that exists today. We're talking 2-3 page chapters here, folks. Every chapter ends in a cliffhanger. Give me a bit more depth and narrative, please.

12-07-2004, 04:42 PM	#24 (permalink)
Avail Crazy Location: Richmond, VA	I think they are going to have Mel Gibson play the leading role in the Da Vinci Code movie.

12-08-2004, 10:56 PM	#25 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	Apparently, if you write an introduction that says, "This is book is true," people will believe it. Hmm... time to make some profit

12-09-2004, 03:49 PM	#26 (permalink)
-Ever- Junkie Location: San Francisco	Listened to it on CD while taking a long drive. I enjoyed the story, but I'm really glad I didn't chose to actually read it __________________ Embracing the goddess energy within yourselves will bring all of you to a new understanding and valuing of life. A vision that inspires you to live and love on planet Earth. Like a priceless jewel buried in dark layers of soil and stone, Earth radiates her brilliant beauty into the caverns of space and time. Perhaps you are aware of those who watch over your home And experience of this place to visit and play with reality. You are becoming aware of yourself as a gamemaster... --Acknowledge your weaknesses--

01-22-2005, 03:54 PM	#27 (permalink)
teflonian Appreciative Location: Paradise	http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._da_vinci_code I was pretty sure that their was a thread out there with discussion about who was going to star in the Da Vinci Code, but I can't seem to find it. In any case, looks like Audrey Tatuou is going to be playing along side Tom Hanks. I think that is a great choice and with actors like those, the movie has to be good.

01-22-2005, 03:58 PM	#28 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	Every time I talk about that book I end up calling it Da Vinci's Inquest. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

01-23-2005, 01:05 PM	#29 (permalink)
RCAlyra2004 Crazy Location: North of the 50th Parallel	OK Here is the real Problem: The Davinci code is no more real that the Bible is. .... Seriously. In much of the davinci Code Dan brown admittedly (check HIS website) has changed facts around, but the basics of the DaVinci Code are Spot on....correct. Dan changed facts in order to make a page turner. but the issue is larger than this.... Many people consider the Bible to be a form of divine revelation. Evidence clearly states that it has been tampered with, and by many differing authors over time. Just ask the average theologian how many authors they believe wrote the book of Genesis. This tampering has fouled the evidence, it has allowed the application of political motive for gain to cloud any divine revelation held within it. I used to believe that the Bible was the revealed word of God. The problem is that I would have to force myself to place faith in scripture without any evidence. I will no longer allow myself to do this. For scripture to be true it must pass the toughest of tests, corroboration. That is where the whole Davinci Code debate begins... were the historians correct? Was Leonardo Davinci Correct in his private assertions about Gnostic Scripture? According to many historians Constantine formed the Nicene council in 325 AD and members voted on what was to be included in the sacred texts. All historians seem to agree this was a "very political" process that was intended to solidify the church and Roman empire. There have been more than a few different councils formed over the ages to either include or exclude scripture from the Bible. None of these councils have ever had the means by which to verify many of the scriptural statements as true or false! They could only say whether or not a document agreed in concept with another document that was in question.When other documents, such as Gnostic texts were found to disagree with the chosen text they would vote them out off of the list. Political motive is overwhelmingly apparent. Remember that these councils convened hundreds of years after the death of Christ. I am sure that Jesus of Nazareth existed in flesh along with a number of other people who referred to themselves as "The Christ", as was disturbingly common in those days. There are quite a few corroborating extra-biblical documents that discuss Christs presence, he and other jewish people rubbed shoulders with other cultures. As for Jesus being the Son of God, I cannot corroborate this. This is a matter for faith alone. Frankly I could care less is the "French" think that the Davinci "Beleivers" are annoying... There is no promise that their version of history is much more accurate... especially based on the politcal pressure exerted on those who would dare to disagree. __________________ Living on the edge of sanity

01-23-2005, 01:12 PM	#30 (permalink)
ryfo Psycho Location: melbourne australia	i read fiction books to escape from real life for a while, otherwise i read non-fiction. I think the fact this book is in the fiction catogory tells its own story. btw i read just about anything and its not as bad as some.

01-23-2005, 02:31 PM	#31 (permalink)
M.T. Promises Upright	Hey, on the very first page, right above the copyright info it clearly says; "All of the characters and events in this book are fictious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental" Getting upset because there's so many uniformed idiots amongst our population is a utter waste of time. I know a few people who've read the book, I don't think any of them took it as anything other then fiction. I read it myself, I thought it was a good quick read, with a poor ending.

01-24-2005, 02:09 AM	#33 (permalink)
Jay You Dee Tilted Location: Cleveland, TN	It had been 10 years since I had read a book of any sort until last week when my girlfriend handed me The Da Vinci Code. I sat up all night reading it, and loved it. So, instead of sleeping I had to go buy the first book in that "series"(for lack of a better word) Angels and Demons. Loved that book too. One thing I noticed though.. it felt like I was reading a Mad-Libs book that had been filled in by two different people. If I had read one book and not the other I would have considered one of them to be the best book of all time - now i'm just kind of disappointed, so I quit reading again in order to spend more times browsing forums!

02-27-2005, 07:33 PM	#36 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	Well, having just read the book, I feel better qualified to discuss it. I don't think my view has changed. It's fiction. I don't think it is going to change the world and it was not even close to being included my "favourite books" list. As has been said above, the ending was poor at best. In the copy I borrowed, they include the beginning of Angels and Demons. I think you could be mistaken for thinking you are reading the same book - hero gets woken in middle of the night in hotel room, shown pictures of a murder with funny symbols in it by a policeman and is dragged off on wild adventure - both books start exactly the same. Do I hear the word formula? I must say I'm not rushing out to get a copy of the other book. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

02-27-2005, 09:12 PM	#37 (permalink)
drakers Psycho Location: IOWA	I've read the book and thought it was really good. I'm a Catholic and I just feel sorry for people who actually believe all of this or certain parts are even true. People really should read the sign that is hanging above them when they buy a book, if it says it is a non-fiction book, then obviously even the author acknowleges the untruthfulness of the book itself. __________________ Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!

02-28-2005, 07:35 PM	#40 (permalink)
wsuprincess Upright Location: Pullman, WA	I loved The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons, though I would never say that I thought that either were anything but based in fact. I don't think I'd go to St. Sulpice and believe that a nun was killed there by an albino monk named Silas. However, the theories he's covering are very interesting, and have been widely researched for the most part. I couldn't put the book down when I read it initially, and I have read it quite a few more times since buying it. So I chose to research some on my own. I find the Gnostic Gospels and the Priory of Sion fascinating, and there has been speculation that the Holy Grail is, indeed, not a chalice. So I loved it. There are things that are there for entertainment. I enjoy them for their entertainment aspect. I have a degree in history, and I could easily not like these books, but they weren't meant to teach you history. They were meant to entertain, and if your interest is piqued, then research it some more.