• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I'm thinking about reading " The Da Vinci Code ".....

After I read DVC I thought: Clive Cussler and Anne Rice collaborated on a story. At some point they considered receiving advice from Umberto Ecco, but forgot to call. Too much absinth. While Foucault's Pendulum is not a quick read it illuminates and entertains.
 
Well, I just came back from a shopping trip and I nought the big hardback version for £20:00.
 
Pauliesonne said:
Now, I watched a documentary about the book on BBC4 last night and I learned about the book and they completely debunked the book's supposed facts, while showing that the people who believe the book to be factual, badly misinterpeted the book.

Anyway, I believe as long as I don't take it as fact, it could be a thrilling yarn along the lines of " Indiana Jones " and things like that.

So what do you think?
Click to expand...

Sure. I read The Celestine Prophesies and enjoyed it immensely as fiction.
 
I read The Da Vinci Code a couple of years ago, and hated it. Not because of the subject matter, mind you, but because of the shoddy writing and tired cliched characters. I gave my copy to my sister, who promptly fell in *love* with the book and read Angels & Demons right away. I can't speak for that book, but if it's anything like The Da Vinci Code, I want no part of it. :p
 
Angels and Demons - preposterous fun. The climax was seriously over the top. The story line also takes place during a 24 hour period. I don't remember any attempts by the book to be taken seriously. Definately a plane trip read. Bottom line - even more poorly written than DVC.
 
Is there a code that needs to be broke is it true that its hidden. If so can someone pls post a link where i can see it to break the code.
 
I didn't care for it.

The prose is simplistic and formulaic. It seems designed to entertain commuters, with short chapters ending in soap-operatic cliffhangers. Lots of expository dialog. No character development.

Perhaps the popularity comes from the general public's fascination with the seemingly shocking religious material, the exotic locales, the sinister Opus Dei, and the purported historical secrets.

But to someone who'd heard it all before, the book was very flat. I finished it, though, b/c it was a quick read and my sister-in-law was very excited about the book.
 
emph said:
I don't care to read it either, however I do want to break the code.
Click to expand...
There is no code. Dan Brown's work is based on fraudulent documents and hairy old conspiracy theories. Breaking this code would be like breaking the code that reveals how the US government covertly planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. It's all a bunch of hooey.
 
It would have made a good episode of "Young Indiana Jones" if you edited it down (with a chainsaw) and simplified the ridiculous leaps in the "code".

The basic pattern, as Piggy's described already, is:
-> chase to a scenic locale
-> tension (usually hiding from someone, creeping around)
-> HAMMER OF EXPOSITION
-> revelation of the next step of the puzzle
-> which is a set up for...
-> cliffhanger
-> Which leads to a chase scene (see above, rinse repeat)
 
Alliebubs said:
I read The Da Vinci Code a couple of years ago, and hated it. Not because of the subject matter, mind you, but because of the shoddy writing and tired cliched characters. I gave my copy to my sister, who promptly fell in *love* with the book and read Angels & Demons right away. I can't speak for that book, but if it's anything like The Da Vinci Code, I want no part of it. :p
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

If there has ever been one book that could incite me to a book burning it's this book.

It's terrible in so many ways...
 
Alliebubs said:
I read The Da Vinci Code a couple of years ago, and hated it. Not because of the subject matter, mind you, but because of the shoddy writing and tired cliched characters. I gave my copy to my sister, who promptly fell in *love* with the book and read Angels & Demons right away. I can't speak for that book, but if it's anything like The Da Vinci Code, I want no part of it. :p
Click to expand...
**spoilers*** spoilers*** you have been warned***
I read it a couple of years ago as well, but I can't say I hated it. Didn't like it either. I simply wasn't impressed.

I read through it in 2 sessions, well the sessions was interupted by me reflecting how incredibly dense/stupid the protagonists were 'how can they fail to recognize mirrored writing???? I thought the main dude knew stuff about Da Vinci???. And pondering things like 'doesn't a GPS chip/transponder require "clear line of sight' upwards?' and of course exclaiming 'Peanut oil isn't salty!'

My elder brother and his SO loved the book however, and seemed to be affronted when I told them what I thought.

I M O not worth re-reading.
 
I'm right smack in the middle of reading it. I've found it to be somewhat entertaining, though not particularly well written. Some continuity-type errors and problems with time-line issues.

Dan Brown doesn't claim that the whole thing is true, just that the descriptions of the art, writings, etc. are factual. Which I unfortunatly can't speak to.

While the main contention in the book is certainly speculation on his part, it is hardly new and original. There has been a belief in a child of Mary and Jesus for centuries by some sects.

The most important thing to me is that it brings up some issues about the early church, Constantine's role in the beginnings of xianity and the bible, the transference of pagan religious figures and symbols into xian ones, the Deep Sea Scroll and Gnostic Gospels, etc. These are all facts and ones that most xians aren't aware of and should be. I'm hoping that more people will be opened up to the possibility that their precious fairy tale may actually be just that.

(By the way, that figure in The Last Supper sure does look like a woman. I'm just saying...)
 
wolfgirl said:
The most important thing to me is that it brings up some issues about the early church, Constantine's role in the beginnings of xianity and the bible, the transference of pagan religious figures and symbols into xian ones, the Deep Sea Scroll and Gnostic Gospels, etc.
Click to expand...
You mean the "Dead Sea scrolls"?

It's true that DVC touches on some of these issues, but since the primary focus of the book concerns claims based on forged documents, and on valueless conspiracy theories, it's better to seek other sources for an understanding of topics such as Roman adoption of the Xian religion, canonization of Biblical texts, appropriation of pagan rites and symbols, the relationship between central dogma and gnostic heresies, etc.
 
Piggy said:
You mean the "Dead Sea scrolls"?

It's true that DVC touches on some of these issues, but since the primary focus of the book concerns claims based on forged documents, and on valueless conspiracy theories, it's better to seek other sources for an understanding of topics such as Roman adoption of the Xian religion, canonization of Biblical texts, appropriation of pagan rites and symbols, the relationship between central dogma and gnostic heresies, etc.
Click to expand...
Oh, my god, did I actually type DEEP? (I'm a scuba diver, so I guess I just think "deep" whenever I think "sea." Better than thinking "dead"!)

But yes, you're right, it's certainly better to seek other sources, but the vast majority of the people who have read this book or will see this movie have not and will not do so. At least this gives them some exposure to those ideas that they have probably never heard before.
 
I'm still trying to figure out if I want the movie to do really well to piss off the Christian Right or for it to bomb to piss off the people who think The DaVinci Code is the greatest book ever.

Ok, I'm rooting for a hit...pissing off the religious trumps all.
 
Dan Brown doesn't claim that the whole thing is true, just that the descriptions of the art, writings, etc. are factual. Which I unfortunatly can't speak to.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

And it is an extremely poorly written piece of work.

Film is getting poor reviews.
 
Has anyone here ever read any of the medieval grail quest writings?

I finished the book Monday night. I agree that it's a quick page turner, and it's not an incredible piece of literature. However, I'm surprised that no one in any DVC thread has mentioned the quest for the Holy Grail.

It's not incredibly profound, or extremely deep, but Brown did a very good job of making a modern grail quest, which I'll explain in a spoiler section.



The grail quest stories involve a set of knights out to find the Holy Grail. Most of them are looking for a cup. The one who finds it is the true knight who is looking, not for a cup, but for a true understanding of his relationship with God, as expressed through the act of Holy Communion. When Percival comes to understand the true meaning of communion, he finds the grail. The grail itself is but the vessel. It is found when one understands the contents. In the only version I've read cover to cover, the keeper of the Grail explains it to the successful knight, who incidentally also finds the cup, although he doesn't reveal it to the world, because it is only for those who understand its secrects.

Erase Christianity, and assert that human relationships are the highest goal of mankind. The "sacred feminine" becomes the Holy Grail. To attain spiritual fulfillment, one must truly grasp that ultimate human relationship, the relationship between man and woman.

Langdon, the Bishop, Teabring, and Silas are all on a quest for the Holy Grail. The Bishop wants it to get personal power. (He wants to be reinstated as a prelature of the Church.) Teabring wants it primarily to attack his enemies, the church. Silas doesn't know why he wants it. He just is told to find it.
Langdon, the worthy knight, has studied the sacred feminine. He seeks it out. He stumbles on the actual grail quest, which had up to that time been an academic diversion, but his research was on the sacred feminine. At Rosslyn Chapel, he finally completes his comprehension (perhaps by falling in love. I'm not sure.) and as a result, meets the grail-keeper, Sophie's grandmother. She gives him the final knowledge needed to find the actual artifact of the grail, but that is an anti-climax. The actual discovery, which he does not reveal to the world, is incidental to the true completion of the quest, which is the comprehension of the spiritual mystery of the sacred feminine.

I'm not sure how Sophie fits in. I think that Sophie and Langdon would have to be one "knight", since it would take a man and a woman to make a complete being.

It makes me want to go back and read the quest for the holy grail (I read a translation of an 11th century French version) and see if the unsuccessful knights have parallels to the other characters,



So, while I don't think it's an incredible book, I think most people are missing something when they read the book. It might not be great literature, but there is a cleverness that people are overlooking, in my humble opinion.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I see your point. I guess it's where you draw the line. And maybe in this case, it's hard to draw. And I suspect Dan Brown likes it like that.

But when he says there are "facts" in the book, I took that to mean that, The Knights Templar are real. The places in the book are all quite real. Jesus was real(?). DaVinci really painted the Mona Lisa. Etc...

Of course he might have to fudge a bit to make the story, i.e artistic license. For example, the Mona Lisa does not hang in the same gallery as some of the other pictures he describes. In fact, it is in a gallery by itself. So is that fact or fiction?

In the end, who cares? I enjoyed it. And the woos will continue to be woos. Nothing Dan Brown could possible say would change that.
Click to expand...
Of course there is thing Dan Brown could have done. It might simply be a marketing trick, but there are very clear implications that Dan Brown want's the book to be taken seriously. You're quite right that the pseudoscience of the book shouldn't be taken seriously, but Dan Brown is partially responsible for the fact that some people do take it seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom