Everyone hates the Da Vinci Code...
 

Well, we all know that Christian's everywhere are giving out stink about the recent movie adaption of Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code, with even demands for a boycott even coming from top Vatican officials. Such a movie does not go down well among Christians, especially not on learning that one of its stars are one of them satanist/atheist/whatever types. Well recently the Muslim community have taken some time out of their busy schedule of burning down embassies over cartoons of some vaguely arabic-looking guy, to join in the whining about a work of fiction.

But such behaviour is not limited to mono-theists with too much time on their hands. Oh no. It seems that albinos have joined in fighting the good fight. Dan Brown has responded that, "although the albinos featured in my work are entirely ficticious, it still remains a historical fact that all albinos are an utter bunch of assholes".

And of course the authors of "pretend historical books" also hate the Da Vinci Code for ripping off their ideas. I vow to never write a World War Two novel, lest I get sued for plagarising history. Or maybe only fake history can be copyrighted.

Star Wars fans are next in line to declare their hatred for the Da Vinci Code, due to the unmistakable parallels in plot. Too close to be described as anything other than a rip off apparently. (ok, well, at least this one is a joke).

In addition to this, Chinese people have wisely taken to hating the Da Vinci Code. The government has banned discussing it, or even mentioning it by name. So you see, there can be at least some benefits to living in a country with rampant government censorship.

But who is the biggest victim in this major shit storm? That's right. It's us, the viewing public!


So, does anyone else out there hate this supermarket thriller?

Wow. I hated the book because it stunk, not because of the all the political BS surrounding it. Can't people just take the book as the poorly written piece of fictional entertainment that it is?

He's got a point, there.

But I'm a Roman Catholic Christian, I enjoyed the book, I intend to see the film, and I know the difference between fiction and doctrine. Too many don't...

You just had to post that didn't you CSfilm?
...thanks ALLOT man....
...now I have to like it... :|

Shouldn't they be thanking Dan Brown? This all seems like a wonderfully unifying force.

I thought the book was okay. The thing that really annoys me is that so many people forget that it is fiction and NOT THE TRUTH.

Some people are really dumb.

Wait! Are you making fun of the dumb? :D

I read the book. It was crap. I couldn't care less about the christian political garbage. If I got worked up every time the church got worked up, I'd have a cardio pulminary failure every 3 or 4 seconds. It's just another way for people to try to fill their lives with meaning. "Beware the book of satan!"

As they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity. (Ok, maybe being an ambassador for Scientology isn't such a hot idea)

The insulted parties need to get their message out, the producers need to create a buzz, the media needs content and we need distraction. It's all one colossal circle jerk.

It's up to you whether you want to lend a hand.

The reviews are bad too. Tom Shales said Hanks acted like a zombie. And I don't remember any zombies in the book. Silas was kind of a zombie, but not really.

I've read three of his books. DaVinci, IMO, is the worst of the lot. The ending was a little soft for me. Angels and Demons was better, but still has that 'everything happens in 24 hours' motif. Deception Point didn't use that motif, or any of the same character, but still had that setup to make you think one person is the villain when it's actually somebody you thought was a good guy, and vice versa.

My wife wants to see the movie, but the reviews are worrying me.

I read the Da Vinci Code a week ago today. Despite it's total lack of characters and terrible writing style, I enjoyed the book and thought that some of the stuff in it was worth thinking about. I espeically liked figuring out things way before Langdon did.

I justified the terrible style to myself by this: People don't read essays.

Brown obviously enjoys researching, and research generally leads to essays. The problem is that people don't read essays and essays demand truth. If you present your ideas in the form of a fiction, you remove the need to use proper citations, definitive statements and the claim of truth.

And while I don't know if I buy the whole Jesus and Mary Magdalene thing, but I do think that there's a lot of truth in the fact that Christianity stole a lot from paganism in order to supress it. My personal research has lead me to that conclusion.

Speaking of conclusions, yes it sucked, but at least it ended better than Angels and Demons. If we're going with my essay theory, I can't blame Brown. I suck at conclusions too.

Well I just got done reading the Da Vinci Code, I enjoy the book.. But depending on what your opinion on religion and political side of it opposes you may not enjoy it.. This book was based on same facts and theorys which I somewhat agree with... You can't say the book was TOTAL fiction even though a lot of it was.. Priory of Sion was and MAYBE still is a secret society.. Opus Dei is real organization,( off the record I personally sound of more of cult to me, but just my opinion). So there were some facts that could make it possible... It would make more sense to me about something if Jesus and Mary Magdalene was infact some kind of relationship, plus in studies back in their time it was nearly a sin back then for Jewish men not to be married. And correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Jesus a Jew... My problem with the whole thing and the bible.. I guess this is more of me going off topic is, that there are about 60 gosples and we only have gotten to read a few of them... and that just make me feel like the church is hiding something.. Plus where is the context about Jesus living as a man.. there to many parts skipping around... there just to many what ifs when it comes to religion....

I apolgize if I offended anyone.. I was only expressing my opinion.. once again offending someone is the last thing on my mind.

I don't think your post is offensive, but you've got your facts wrong.

The Priory of Sion was founded in June 1956 by Pierre Plantard, who at that time was working as a draftsman at the Chanovin works in Annemasse. As for the 'Dossiers Secrets', they were forged and filed with the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris by Pierre Plantard in the 1960s. The French journalist Jean-Luc Chaumeil unmasked Plantard's forgeries in the 1980s and published several books on the subject. He also collaborated with BBC2 on a TV show which was broadcast in 1996, and which presented evidence debunking the whole story.

Opus Dei is a Catholic institution for lay people and diocesan priests. It isn't a cult, and there aren't any monks. This article is Opus Dei's response to Davinci Code's depiction of the prelature.

The 1945 Nag Hammadi find included many of the so-called "secret" gospels, such as The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Apocalypse of Paul, The Letter of Peter to Philip, The Thunder, Perfect Mind, and Testimony of Truth.

Remember that the canon of scripture was formed well before the council of Nicea. The Gnostic Gospels were not hidden or suppressed, they were not included because of the theology the represented. The church fathers referred to Gnostic precepts in their writings, and simply rejected them. The Gnostic bibles were not suppresed, rather, they were not included because they present a theology that is heretical to Christian theology:

Christian:

Salvation comes to all who put their faith in Christ

Jesus died on the Cross for sins of humanity

Christ was God in the Old Testament who entered humanity

Jesus was God from eternity past, dwelling in flesh


Gnostic:

Salvation comes to those who attain secret knowledge (Gnosis).

Jesus did not die on the Cross, a phantom or subsitute died on the Cross

God of the Old Testament is a demon who has trapped spirit being in physical bodies

Jesus came into existence from All-father and Sophia (Goddess).

The USCCB (Council of Catholic Bishops) has a good website: http://www.jesusdecoded.com. They cite their sources, so you don't have to take their word for it...

I enjoyed the book immensly and plan on seeing the movie opening weekend

While I thought that the book was good and that Brown is really good at story telling (he gets you wrapped into it) I think that he is a horrible writer (technically - choice of words, grammer)

I have a friend who is a librarian (masters in information services IIRC) and has, from what I've seen, a solid head when it comes to what is quality literature and what is not (both fiction and non-fiction). She has essentially echoed these points to me regarding The Da Vinci Code. Basically, she enjoyed the story but did not think very highly of Brown's execution at all. One thing I remember her specifically mentioning was the fact that so often she DID figure things out long before the characters would, and this was a great source of annoyance for her that something was so obvious (from a character perspective, as opposed to a reader perspective) and the characters would still take a great deal of time before discovering it. She also grew tired of redundency in the novel as well. But, she did find the fiction itself to be entertaining. (I'd give my own opinion, but I have not read the novel yet due to time, more important books I'd like to read, and the fact almost all my friends who have read it have commented on the terrible writing style of the author.)I think the reason this book has caused so much controversy is precisely the point SirLance and Carno allude to: many people who have read the book DO take some of it as fact. When it comes to things involving religion, people have a tendancy to think entirely irrationally, and that goes for people who defend it and people who like to criticize and question it.

People who feel the need to defend it are speaking out in hatred of The Da Vinci Code for being anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Jesus, you name it. It's a work of fiction! I don't think I need to elucidate why their reactions are mostly irrational.

But wait. It says in the beginning that it's a work of fiction but the descriptions of documents, etc are factual. Problem is they're not (as SirLance pointed out, for example). If you want a quick overview of just how untrue the whole deal regarding the Priory of Sion is, there is a good summary of the hoax if you have access to the April 30, 2006 episode of 60 Minutes. In fact, I'd bet the transcript can be found online.

Still, let's be totally honest here, most people get their ideas about history, etc from sources in popular culture...and when they read a book that says it depicts documents accurately, MANY people do allow things written in the book to cross the barrier from fiction to fact. Well, Dan Brown is hardly a historian. Just as those who feel the need to defend religion see what they want to see, those who feel a need to criticize it do so as well. There is cognitive dissonance everywhere.

It is because of this that my librarian friend (who does not adhere to any particular religious mindset) recommended another book to me to be read alongside The Da Vinci Code. Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code is written by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, who is a highly respected religious historian and the chair of religious studies at UNC-Chapel Hill. To sum his opinion up in one sentence: the book is highly entertaining and *highly* flawed in it's history. He did not write his book out of any theological agenda (he is agnostic), but he wrote it out of the recognition that no matter how much we all say "I know it's fiction," we still have a tendancy to let the things we may read effect our feelings and opinions on matters. There's not much better evidence for this than the fact a number of museum guides in Europe had to actually be trained in responding to questions regarding the works of art featured in The Da Vinci Code because, as the book became popular, more and more people asked about the claims that were made.

Since I have no delusion that more than maybe 2 of the people who read this will actually look at that book, I highly recommend this interview with Dr. Ehrman. Another good link to check out would be his list of the main 10 factual errors in The Da Vinci Code.

Point is, there's not much basis for hating the book itself (unless you think being poorly written makes it worthy of such a strong emotion as hatred). There is basis, on the other hand, for being frustrated by the effect the book has had in terms of spreading terribly inaccurate information into the minds of so many people and in creating a movement of people who feel the need to defend their religion. Both groups feed off the other: taking as fact what is not causes people to feel the need to defend and the staunch defense makes more people become interested in reading it. After all, perhaps the lady doth protest too much, right? Not really.

the only problem I have with his 10 facts that are wrong is number 9
how does HE know she wasnt? People say there was no proof he married her, I ask...was there proof that he didnt?

Historical opinions aren't formed on what is DISproven - it's simply completely unreasonable to do such a thing. What is reasonable, though, is to point out that in the most historically reliable documents there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that such a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have existed, and the absence of such a relationship is not an unusual thing by any means whatsoever.

Likewise, the reason the assertion that Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the crucifixion (let alone with Jesus' child) is laughable is because there is absolutely no reliable historical evidence to the point. The point is not that it's categorically false, it's that there is no good reason to hold a belief that it might be true. Short of doing all the historical research yourself and becoming one of the leading scholars on early Christianity and the historical Jesus like Prof. Ehrman has done, there's not much reason at all to place doubt on his opinion and research in favor of that of Dan Brown, an author of already otherwise historically inaccurate fictional books.

BTW, Oxford University Press has a page with some writing by Prof. Ehrman regarding Mary Magdalene (I believe it is an exceprt from his book, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend). NPR's "Fresh Air" also has a very good ~40 minute interview with Prof. Ehrman available online in which he speaks quite a bit about the issue as well.

I have only read the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas but to me the Gnostic beliefs dont really entail what you have listed. It might just be me though or my lack of reading the other Gospels.

Also I think the other Gospels were suppressed weren't they? I mean in second century (100ish) a.d. werent most of the other Gospels thrown out and burned and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were left to be canonized? Isn't that why the other Gospels were not found until fairly recently? I may not have my stories straight but thats what I remember hearing from somewhere.

the part about the suppression of the other Gospels in 100 a.d. or so came solely from the national geographic special I watched on the Gospel of Judas.

It wasn't until the mid-to-late-300s that the New Testament canon was firmly decided on. Furthermore, John was written around 100-120 AD, so whatever your source for the idea that Gnostic texts were "suppressed" around 100 AD, it's incredibly suspect.

In short, the version of Christianity that survived did so primarily because they were just better at arguing their points, not because of any book burnings or systematic suppression like that. Gnostic texts were lost for two main reasons: 1) they lost the debate, and were a fringe group anyway, so few people cared about them after awhile and their texts stopped being manually copied and 2) SirLance is correct that Gnosticism is based on "secret knowledge." In fact, SirLance is generally correct in his entire description of Gnostic beliefs (although it's far more complicated than those basic statements). The Gnostic texts, btw, were all written after the 4 canonical gospels and are, from a strictly historical standpoint, less reliable (but that's not to say they're entirely useless, they just need a much more careful reading than the already careful reading that is necessary for the canonical gospels).

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with the depiction of the Gnostic texts in this thread. Many of the Gnostic texts were written to criticize the canonization of Christian doctrine in general, and many of these texts were written by fringe monks, and they openly acknowledged that their texts were completely made up and in no way divine texts. Therefore, it's not accurate at all to state that they actually believed in any firm dogmatization of religion such as "secret knowledge" and so forth. For the most part, that was their problem. Most of the "secret knowledge" stuff is a criticism of emerging Catholicism's tendency to claim that they, and only they, knew the true gospel of Jesus, while the gnostics were more inclined to say, "Jesus said a lot of stuff, and all of it can be applied to our lives in different ways, and we should use the bits that help us live better lives, not the bits you tell us to." In all truthfulness, the gnostics were influenced by both the teachings of Jesus and buddhist teachings, hence they didn't really believe in absolute divine knowledge and an absolute way into heaven... they just tended to say rely on the teachings of Jesus that can lead you to enlightenment, and here are some of our made up stories of how we think that might be achieved, by following the general gist of what we think (but you should make up your own mind) Jesus was getting at... but ultimately it doesn't really matter how, as long as you are enlightened in the end.

If asked, I would venture that it was with similar intentions that Dan Brown set about writing his highly entertaining and terrible prose. It doesn't really matter what bits are true, just think about this stuff, and if it helps to enlighten you about the aim of religion with regards to the individual and independent soul, so be it, and if not, then at least you were entertained in the process.

Good story but poor dialogue and thin characters? Sounds like a screenplay to me!

Seriously, I've read it twice, and yes, the writing isn't great. Brown is in love with exclamation points and his dialogue is stiff but my impression (both times) was "here's a guy writing a book that he really hopes is made into a movie". The chapters were like 2 pages each. The whole thing moved at the speed of a summer movie. I'll go see it, it will probably be sorta fine, but it's just a summer movie, not Schindler's List.

Everyone hates the Da Vinci Code? Finally, a bandwagon I can get on!

I saw it last night. I didn't hate it

I enjoyed the book--it wasn't The Grapes of Wrath, but it was okay for what it was.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be seeing the movie. USA Today called it "melodramatic and lifeless". Mmm... I'll pass.

Awesome. The moment I knew who was cast in this movie I knew it was going to be crap. Then I saw the advertisements and called it out as being crap, but nobody believed me. And now it turns out that it really is crap. Yay for Jonathan!

I guess every dog has his day.

I listened to it on tape a looooong time ago so I only have a vague recollection of the story. I remember enjoying it at the time, but it was just like a blockbuster movie that I rushed through. After reading some of his other books I recognized his poor writing style and all of that. I think if I re-read the DaVinci Code I would probably have a fairly low impression of it.

It wasn't as bad as Alexander.

it's doing good at the box office. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196314,00.html

I'm not a fan, haven't read the book or seen the movie, but 30 million is very good for an opening. Especially for how bad of reviews it's getting.

I'm glad everyone is judging the movie by the reviews instead of seeing it. That's cool.

I just saw it. I went in knowing about the bad reviews before hand.
That being said. It was ok. I don't think it was as bad as it's made out to be. I was entertained and it didn't feel dragged on. This movie will make about 20 million on just the bad publicity alone. Ron Howard and the studios should send everyone that spoke negitive about the movie a basket of fruit!

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I will. I'm one of those who enjoyed the book. I thought it was good story telling. I wasn't expecting literature, so I was able to enjoy it.

I'm of the mind that with certain movies destined to be box office hits, critics will pan it out of cynicism. I could be entirely wrong, but this is what I believe. I think if you lower expectations, then you can enjoy certain movies or books.

I thought the book was utter crap - it was so poorly written as to be painful at times.

I have no idea why this is so popular - I even tried to read a couple of Dan Brown's other books, Angels and Demons and Deception Point thinking maybe I'm missing something. But no, they were crap too. Angels and Demons was probably the worst book I ever read. Just badly, badly written.

I heard the movie is just as awful. I can't imagine paying any money to see it.

I read a book by that guy, and the writing was utter crap.

For that reason, and because this seems such a formulaic way of making money, I have no intention of seeing the film (or reading it). Ok - one day when it's on DVD I may borrow it. Perhaps.

I just read a letter from the Catholic Church today and the deal that they have with Dan Brown is that he CLAIMS that what he writes is true. Sure it is a work of fiction but aparently he says that its based on facts, that is what is getting the Church's panties in a knot. (I am a Catholic if anyone was wondering)

I'm going to see it, regardless of the reviews, with a completely open mind.
I enjoyed the book. Yes, it wasn't very well written, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable if you take it for what it is.
I've seen films that have been badly made, but I've enjoyed them.
And I still don't understand some people's/group's reaction to the book. I distinctly remember going to the fiction section when I bought it. It's a story, get over it!

I saw it yesterday. It wasn't great, but I feel it deserved better reviews than what it has been getting. It's 149 minutes long, but didn't feel that long, so I must have been amused. But, people get off on attacking the popular, for some reason. Punish success.

I find this whole debate regarding the Da Vinci code and the Bible quite interesting. In my mind, both works are fiction (much like McKellan commented on last week).

I suppose this debate hinges on where each individual draws the cutoff line from fact to fiction. By this I mean, how many historical inaccuracies or myths can you tolerate in a work before you mentally shift it from the mental "factual" or "true" category, to the "fictional" category.

For people like me, who consider both the Bible and the Da Vinci code as fictional literature, there isn't really any conflict to be had.

Mmmm... These words of mine are delicious... I just loooove eating them...

The only down fall in the movie was Tom Hanks if you ask me. I liked the rest of it. The beginning wasn't very good, but once they got to Lee's house it really picked up and everything started going off without a hitch. It was a fairly decent way to spend 2 hours.

I dont have much to add to this thread other then:

1) I simply loved the movie, it was great entertainment. The actors were pleasant, the scenes were well played, and it kept me latched on waiting to see what happens next.

2) To all the religious nutjobs who fear this movie is against them, ITS A MOVIE.

3) Did I mention this is a movie? A little thing called fiction. Then again so is your precious bible in my mind, so I am quite biased I suppose.

There were people PICKETING outside my theater when my gf and I went and saw this friday, come on folks. Its sad if anything.

There was a great editorial page cartoon over the weekend: a couple is exiting the theater with "The DaVinci Code" on the marquee, and the man says to the woman, "I hated the book more". :lol: