Da Vinci Code

[Ned]

Why aren't there any threads on this topic? It is hot right now. Many are predicting that the new movie will be the biggest box office movie of the year.

The Church hates it. Calls it a lie. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....8elxm53p.html

In my opinion, however, it is the Church that is the liar as Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. Rather she was from a prominent family (only women of prominent families had last names) and was all but married to Christ. It would be remarkable if she did not have a child.

(But, let me stop there as there may be some who have not read the book and who would rather enjoy the movie without knowing too much about the plot.)

[Jon Miller]

Don't tell me you think the book is correct also?

From Wiki:
The book generated criticism when it was first published, due to speculations and alleged misrepresentations of core aspects of Christianity, the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and descriptions of European art, history, and architecture. The book has received mostly negative reviews from Catholic and Christian communities, as well as historians. Critics accuse Brown of distorting and fabricating history.

The book opens with the claim by Dan Brown that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"; but this claim is disputed by many academic scholars in the fields the book discusses. As widely noted in the media, there has been substantial confusion among readers about whether the book is factual. Numerous works have been published that explain in detail why any claim to accuracy is difficult to substantiate, while two lawsuits have been brought alleging plagiarism in The Da Vinci Code.

Da Vinci Code should have just been another thriller. The fact that people have taken it as fact is the reason that a bigger deal has been made of it (despite the fact that it is mostly speculation, and what speculation academics have facts about, it is wrong).

Jon Miller

[SlowwHand]

It's all fabricated bull**** along the lines of Blair Witch Project.

[Jon Miller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code

JM

[Solly]

Rubbish.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code

JM

Although the book is readily identifiable as a thriller – a work of fiction – and not as a historical tome, Brown does preface his novel with a page he calls "Facts" and has published a page on his website titled "Bizarre True Facts from The Da Vinci Code," which repeats some disputed claims. Although Brown's website makes use of words such as "alleged," "rumored," and "seem to be," some critics consider the qualifiers misleading.

[alva]

Although the book is readily identifiable as a thriller – a work of fiction – and not as a historical tome, Catholics do preface his novel with a page he calls "Facts" and has published a page on his website titled "Bizarre True Facts from The Bible," which repeats some disputed claims. Although Catholic websites makes use of words such as "alleged," "rumored," and "seem to be," some critics consider the qualifiers misleading.

Fixed

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by alva

Although the book is readily identifiable as a thriller – a work of fiction – and not as a historical tome, Catholics do preface his novel with a page he calls "Facts" and has published a page on his website titled "Bizarre True Facts from The Bible," which repeats some disputed claims. Although Catholic websites makes use of words such as "alleged," "rumored," and "seem to be," some critics consider the qualifiers misleading.

Fixed

[Lorizael]

I never read the book because I was a bookseller at the height of its popularity and it just seemed dirty to associate with that novel. On the other hand, this looks like a good movie with good peolpe in it. Sure, I'll see it.

[Richelieu]

I would recommend Foucault's Pendulum over The Da Vinci code any time. But then again, if you read the first you will probably have problems finishing the second. I know i did.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I read Da Vinci Code first. it was enjoyable until I read Angels and Demons which made me realize how much Dan Brown was a One Trick Pony in hindsight.

[Cort Haus]

I started reading Angels and Demons then thought "hang on, I've read this before" and put it down. It's the same thriller format as Da Vinci Code, with too much non-stop tension for my taste. Reading it is like playing an Adventure Game with too many timed sequences.

The central theme of DVC is a rip-off of Holy Blood, Holy Grail IMO, even though Baigent & Leigh lost their case. Trouble is, the central premise is all based on a surrealist hoax - the planting of fake documents in the French National Library with the alleged bloodline. There is no Priory of Sion.

The most accurate of the claims is probably the one that Magdalene's history has been tampered with by the church - ie she was not a hooker and was close to JC.

[Elok]

I've only read a brief fragment of it--all of one page. And that was enough. Never have I seen such heartless and unwarranted cruelty towards the English language. That page contained a previously unknown type of metaphor that takes exciting and mysterious concepts and makes them as boring and mundane as a trip to Cleveland.

Oh, and I suspect the claims made by the book probably are BS too. I'm not gonna read it to find out though. That'd be like drinking a whole vat of acid just to prove there's no candy at the bottom of it.

[Q Classic]

I couldn't read the book. THere was the popularity factor, but then there was the writing style which reminded me too much of...

Left Behind.

A chapter shouldn't be shorter than 10 pages unless it's a book for 4th graders. Period. Cliffhangers do not have to be spread out over every single chapter.

[Thorgal]

I stopped reading it when in the first pages a guy menaced a policeman with tearing the Mona Lisa canvas when anybody with a MINIMAL knowledge knows it is painted over a table.