The Da Vinci Crock

[nankerphelge]

The Da Vinci Code is a horrible book; Salon does a pretty good job debunking it today

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/12/29/da_vinci_code/index.html

[salinen]

1. The movie'll

be worse.

[Must_B_Free]

139. I loved the book

makes some interesting points, the only thing missing was Oak Island...

[LiberalFighter]

2. It is not a non-fiction book it is FICTION

It is sold as a fiction book.

[nankerphelge]

21. It's bad fiction.

n/t

[Walt Starr]

25. Don't like it, don't read it

I give it five stars and my personal "Most Excellent Novel of 2004" award.

[InvisibleBallots]

26. I think it's great fiction

I also think it's propaganda for the royal families of Europe. Brown got half of his ideas from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" - and that author was pretty open about how these stories were meant to lend legitimacy to the ruling families.

I doubt the timing is a coincidence either - the current royals are dying of old age, the next generation has little respect from the population, so a PR campaign was in order.

I read it, and I'll continue to talk about it.

[annarbor]

138. It was my favorite "read" of 2004

I enjoyed it thoroughly. It's fiction and I treated it accordingly. I also liked "Angels and Demons". Can't wait for the movie!

Ann Arbor

[Arkana]

143. Amen

That and "Angels & Demons" get my vote for best books I've ever read.

[Sara Beverley]

119. It's no worse than the "Left Behind" series.

In fact, it is not as bad.

[jdj]

131. I'd have to agree. "See Dick Run" is better written than "Left Behind"

And Dick and Jane move quicker to, than malachi and esterine and all the hoodoo holies in the "Lost My Mind" crap.

[nankerphelge]

137. I'll grant you that...

but that's not saying much.

[susanna]

159. It's way better.

The Left Behind series was written for a 6th-grade reading level, if that. Not a whole lot of complexity goin' on there. Very linear and predictable. Not all that interesting. But then I think the Rapture is an invention of modern Christianity, not supported by the history of the Christian church.

As far as Angels & Demons and The DaVinci Code, well at least they gave me some interesting info. They actually made me go back over a lot of Italian sculptures/churches and DaVinci works just to take a look and see what the author was talking about. I actually learned something! ;-)

edit: typo

[Raster]

146. go back to your bible, you know, the other fiction.

[LiberalFighter]

172. Bad fiction that was a best seller

Dan Brown has the money and the fame.

[Sara Beverley]

3. Hey, I thought it was good. It is a work of fiction afterall.

I guess it's ok to read children's fiction but not adult fiction.

[InvisibleBallots]

28. since when is it not okay to criticize fiction?

What is with this "don't like it, don't read it" crap? Since when are we not supposed to criticize fiction we don't agree with?

I must assume no one discussed Mel Gibson's Passion here, since it was fiction, right? No? Did people criticize it, even though they didn't like it?

[Walt Starr]

32. It's fine to criticize it

It's STUPIDITY to try and debunk fiction.

Seriously, are you going to debunk The Bourne Identity or Harry Potter?

Debunking fiction is just plain WACKED!

[InvisibleBallots]

35. oh please

Da Vinci Code claims to be based on real history. Some of it is. When someone talks about "debunking" Da Vinci Code, they are obviously referring to many of the claims about real history, not the purely fictional part.

There's no reason to be difficult, I'm sure everyone knew exactly what was meant.

[nankerphelge]

112. Exactly

Read the Salon article, if you're having trouble understanding what the phrase "debunking" means in this context.

[secedeeconomically]

122. I have read a few of his books including The Da Vinci Code

I do agree it is a cheesy story. However, what makes it interesting is his interweaving of history into the story. I personally prefer Angels & Demons.

[neuvocat]

125. Debunking "in this context" means

having a lot of half-truths and "facts" that are not supplied with anything to back them up. I don't care what bias this lady may have, it doesn't give her any sort of credibility (sp?) when she uses the same methods to make her case as she claims Dan Brown does.

[JVS]

84. That's not true! I debunked the shit out of the Wizard of Oz last week

and I plan to get a PhD by debunking Sholokov's "Tiki Don", which is thousands of pages to totally debunk

[Ms_Mary]

90. I'm entirely too easily amused right now. I snorted coffee.

[susanna]

160. I'm as amused as you...

I snorted water. :-)

[King Coal]

91. Actually, The Da Vinci Code debunked the Bible!

:crazy:

[October]

71. It's just weird to call "fiction" a 'crock' eom

[Walt Starr]

76. That Lord of the Rings thing is a CROCK!

Everybody knows Dark Lords don't allow their Rings of Power to be handled by pipsqueak little beings with no real power!

[susanna]

163. No kidding.

I mean, c'mon. HOBBITS?! My goodness. Like there are REALLY hairy-footed tee-niny creatures living in some non-existent Middle Earth. Don't even get me started on Elves or Nazgul!

"I came, I saw, I debunked."

[matcom]

4. i rather enjoyed the book

Angels & Deamons as well

[Squatch]

5. You know what's a worse book?

State of Fear

[RUDUing2]

6. sorry but I really liked it...it brings to light some

things that need to be...like the evilness of the Opus Dei movement in the RCC and the liklihood that Jesus was married and died as much for political reasons and religious ones (which takes away some of the fundies claim that the Jews killed Christ)...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

27. I thought the Opus Dei part was enlightening

made me wonder what Dan Brown's politics were. Scalia is a member of Opus Dei, and so is former FBI director Louis Freeh.

[AzDar]

110. OMFG! Scalia is a member of Opus Dei?? This is a truly scary

organization.

[MADem]

144. So was Robert Hanson, the FBI traitor with the stripper galpal n/t

[maveric]

152. As is Bob Novak.

Scary shit.

[idiosyncratic]

53. Uh . . . it is FICTION. Jesus was never married.

Even if you believe the Bible is fiction as well, it is a better record of Jesus' life.

Are you going to believe Dan Brown over the Bible?

It is because people believe Dan Brown's fictional book that so many pastors have felt the need to write books to debunk the book, since he claims some of his fiction is true.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/078144165X/qid=1104344037/sr=12-1/002-1029194-0469604?v=glance&s=books">Cracking Da Vinci's Code

[librechik]

57. it is FICTION. Jesus never WAS n/t

[jdj]

129. Jesus didn't exist???

I don't see how it could be any worse than the bible, so much of the nt written LONG after Jesus death, and what was written during the time he supposedly lived later dropped.

The bible is a partial record of scholary and clerical manipulation of religious texts, the partial part being that part they decide not to trash.

So I respect anyone who goes back and tries to include what later became politically incorrect.

[librechik]

136. it is my understanding that there was no historical Jesus.

And I have no facts to show otherwise, (also not convinced by most attempts at showing his historical existence) so I'm pretty much stuck thinking of him as an archeological literary construct, a pun, as it were, designed to teach morality through parables, although there were many secret coded messages in his gospels which taught the enlightened different things (see "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross," by John Allegro, translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

I like Jesus, and was raised a Christian, and still have a knee jerk (cursing/praying) relationship with him, but no, I conclude this man did not in fact exist.

[Walt Starr]

58. Sorry, that's similar to this argument

The elves presented in the Dragonlance novels cannot be true elves because Tolkien describes true elves in the Lord of the Rings.

Same argument, different fictitious characters.

[idiosyncratic]

69. Not exactly. Religious faith is not based on Tolkein's work.

Just because some who post to DU are agnostics or atheists, doesn't mean all of us are.

Some of us are Christians.

Please don't denegrate our beliefs.

That is like having a RW friend or relative ridicule you for voting for Kerry. Are you going to change your Progressive ideals?

Wouldn't you rather have them attempt to understand your position, or at least quietly accept it?


Edit for spelling

[Walt Starr]

75. I really don't care about beliefs

having faith that something is factual and that something actually being factual are two completely seperate things, regardless of anybody's beliefs.

[idiosyncratic]

85. That is too bad . . .

Unless you are a RW Fundie, I care about your beliefs. :)

[m0nkeyneck]

102. i'll wait 4 the movie ;-)

[Raster]

147. so you KNOW FOR FACT that Jesus was never married, eh?

please, do share.

[booley]

151. glad I'm a Pagan right now

"Even if you believe the Bible is fiction as well, it is a better record of Jesus' life."

Why? Why is work of duious veracity better then another book of supposedly dubiouse veracity?

And why worry about it anyway? Just be nice and love another as yourself like jesus (probably) said and you'll be fine. And stop worrying about who' s book is bigger..I mean, more true.

Jesus may or may not have been married. However, from what I know, an unmarried 30 year old rabbi in ancient israel would have been strange to say the least. And not a little scandleous.

So what if he was married? Does that mean you shouldn't love your neighbor? Does everything Jesus say about feeding the poor and forgiving your enemies no longer true?

Be good to one another and make the world a better place for others. No matter what Brown's research or jesus's marrital staus, you won't go wrong with that.

Sigh..monotheists....;-)

[InvisibleBallots]

162. yet, the Essenes had plenty of celibates

So, a 30 year old unmarried rabbi being unusual? Depends on which sect they belonged to.

[booley]

170. does it matter?

was jesus an essene and celibate?

And if he wasn't , does that change whether what he did say was true or not?

[maveric]

153. And you are positive that Jesus never married?

Or you just take what you've been told or read in the bible as the absolute truth?

[RUDUing2]

167. must be told by his/her preachers..cause the Bible does not say Jesus

wasn't married.

[RUDUing2]

166. actually the church says it doesn't know if Jesus was married or not..

two things point towards him having been married.

1. The silence of the religious leaders on the issue..it would have been a huge deal for a 33 yr old religious jew, esp. one viewed as a rabbi, to be unmarried..they would have remarked on it.

2. The fact that he was a religious jew and fullfilled all the other requirements of a male religious jew of that time.

The churches official position is that it is unknown if Jesus was married or not, but it is also unimportant as to whether he was or not..that since they have no evidence other way the assumption is that he was unmarried.

I am not believing Dan Brown over the Bible..I am looking at what the Bible does and does not say and what the customs and expectations of the time Jesus lived were. Also who do you think was married at Cana? Why was Mary concerned w/the question of wine? and why did she go to Jesus about it? If he wasn't the bridegroom why didn't she go to the bridegroom about the lack of wine?

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. You don't like the idea

that Jesus was a mortal man who married Mary Magdalene and had children?

[nankerphelge]

22. No

It's just a bad book.

[Greyskye]

67. You keep saying...

...that it's "a bad book" and "it's bad fiction". Perhaps if you actually posted a critique as opposed to an opinion with no backing, people might take you more seriously.

Personally, I thought it was an engaging page turner. I did have a few problems with it (as I have with many books). The most glaring for me is when I figure out the puzzles before the books "experts" do - which happened a couple times for me in The DaVinci Code.

On edit: This topic really should be in the Book Forum - not GD. You'll probably find a number of people over there who would be willing to debate you on this topic, unless they are tired of the 2 or 3 other similar threads that have already happened.

[nankerphelge]

111. Don't need to say any more...

everything I could say is covered in the Salon article.

[gollygee]

8. How does one debunk a work of fiction?

"it isn't true"

big fat DUH

[Virginia Dem]

9. fiction

Thought it was a fun read.

[gollygee]

10. I thought it was a fun read too

I've bought Angels and Demons and another book by him to read next :)

:hi:

[Phentex]

11. It was a crock of fiction to me...

not worth the hype, not worth debunking

[Khephra]

12. Personally, I don't care

The book's writing sucked imo. The Rule of Four, Foucault's Pendulum, and the Illuminatus Trilogy are better conspiracy novels than TDC.

HOWEVER....

The book has lead many people to investigate the origins of Christianity and, as a result, has resulted in opening them up to other sources of spirituality than the misogynistic Church and fire-and-brimstone "holymen". Gnosticism--my personal faith--is experiencing a bit of a rebirth as a result, so I'm quite thankful for TDC...even though I couldn't stand Brown's writing style.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

41. That's similar to what I thought of it

That it is an entertaining, easy-to-read book like you read at the beach or when traveling, with interesting ideas even if he is not the best writer. And that it would spread some new ideas to the masses of people.

Who cares if the ideas are true or not, anything is good that will get people to open their minds and question and speculate for themselves, rather than mindlessly accepting the fear and prejudice of all the "Left Behind" crap.

[hippiechick]

83. Spot on, as usual Bro !

:hi:

ITA ~ the subject matter was MOST interesting, the author's style and predictability in the subplots were lame.

Have you gotten around to Talisman (Hancock/Bauval) yet ?
It's quite fascinating, and I'm still in the 1500's !!

:hippie:

[oneighty]

13. A book of 'what ifs'

is debunked with more what ifs?

It is a make believe if story. Not to be taken seriously as is 'Alice in Wonderland.'

180

[LiberalFighter]

16. Exactly

And no way to corroborate Ehrman's debunk either!!

[MasonJar]

14. I thought that it was a page-turner...good mystery when one does

not want to put it down and turn out the light. What I found most appealing was the enlightenment I got on the origins of various words and ideas. The ending was a disappointment, but I enjoyed the trip there immensely.

[bowens43]

15. It was an excellent book.

It's FICTION so no debunking is needed.

[Killarney]

17. I think writers that spend their time debunking

the DaVinci Code--a book of FICTION--are obviously just jealous of the book's success.

[HuckleB]

19. Or...

Maybe they're just tired of listening to fools at social gatherings talk about it like its contents are non-fiction.

I know I sure am.

[InvisibleBallots]

38. lol!

It's hilarious - we have half the posters saying "how can you debunk it, it's just fiction!" and the other half saying "it really sheds some light on the evilness of this or that".

So which is it people?

[Walt Starr]

42. It's fiction

I've been to a cocktail party where Harry Potter was discussed as if it were true.

Some people are too whacked to seperate fact from fiction.

[InvisibleBallots]

43. does fiction have an effect on culture?

Of course. So, perhaps discussing fiction is relevant? Birth of a Nation was fiction - is debunking the stereotypes and false image of history in Birth of a Nation "whacked"?

[Walt Starr]

45. Well, let's examine what's being debunked

What the whacked are attempting to debunk in The DaVinci Code is a set of mythology that is different from the accepted set of mythology.

To put an apt analogy out there, this would be similar to attempting to debunk Tolkien's presentation of dwarves by comparing that piece of fiction with the presentation of dwarves in Wagner's Ring of the Niebelungen.

In modern internet parlance, this is fanboy logic!

[InvisibleBallots]

52. Opus Dei is fiction?

Trying to have it both ways? It's okay to appreciate the "factual" parts of DVC, but if you try to debunk the supposedly "factual" parts, you're really debunking fiction? Which is it?

[Walt Starr]

59. Okay, here's anothoer analogy

The burning of Atlanta presented in Gone With the Wind bears little resemblance to the historical event.

[jdj]

128. It could get into the national sub-conscious and alter the

current of hatred of sexuality that xtians have by insisting Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child. This is HUGE, it's MAJOR.

So in this way, the veracity is irrelevant. I recently read bios of Charlotte's "30 under 30" which are young execs at the tops of their fields, and MANY listed "The Da Vinci Code" as their most recently read book. I have high hopes about the influence of this book, and I am thrilled beyond measure that Mary Magdalene, Essene priestess, has finally been restored to her original reputation and significance in xtian myth.

[nankerphelge]

113. Exactly right

If one more person talks to me about it and says "it really made me think," it'll make me puke.

[HuckleB]

115. LOL!

:)

[Walt Starr]

116. I read The Da Vinci Code

and it REALLY MADE ME THINK!

:evilgrin:

[jdj]

130. I volunteered to think

I think that's what so offends the dvc detractors.

How dare anyone consider other alternatives to the state-approved fairy-tale.

Remember the saying "In God we trust...All others we monitor."

[DemBones DemBones]

161. Amen! OMG, maybe Jesus married Mary Magdalene!

OMG, maybe pigs fly!

And Opus Dei doesn't run the world, the Illuminati do, as everyone knows. :eyes:

[SpiralHawk]

18. Methinks they doth protest too much

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men (and women) are afraid of the light." - Plato

[The Night Owl]

20. The Da Vinci Code and the book it is based on might be horseshit...

The Da Vinci Code and the book it is based on might be horseshit, but I still think there is a good case to be made for the theory that Jesus married and had children.

[PassingFair]

56. True story...

At the time I read the book, I worked in an office where there was a HUGE turnover. The day after finishing the book, I was scratching off old names on the mail box slots and adding new ones. One new addition was named: Mary Christ. I kid you not.
Got a good laugh out of that one.

[jdj]

132. it's almost like the image of Mary on the grilled cheese sandwich.

[Walt Starr]

23. Um, why would anybody attempt to debunk fiction?

Seriously, by definition, fiction is not true.

:wtf:

Whomsoever would engage in such a ridiculous exercise is a seriously demented individual who is unable to seperate fact from fiction.

:shrug:

[theboss]

31. Because the author has probably had the same dinner conversations I have

It's a work of fiction, but a lot of readers take the "history" in the book to be correct.

It would be the same as if someone wrote a book in which aliens helped to defeat the Confederacy at Gettysburg....and five million people decided that was the real history.

[Walt Starr]

33. The people who consider "history" presented in fiction to be fact

are as whacked out as morons who would debunk fiction!

[theboss]

34. But there's a lot of them

And Brown does state up front that some of the novel is "fact" so...take that as you will.

I find the whole thing odd.

[Walt Starr]

36. Some of the novel IS FACT

Take the layout of the Louvre etc. This is factual.

There are lots of undeniable facts presented about Opus Dei.

Jesus having been married is certainly open to debate because there even having been an historical Jesus is open to debate.

Debunking fiction, though, is just plain whacked.

[InvisibleBallots]

44. "There are lots of undeniable facts presented about Opus Dei."

It thought it was all fiction? So, it presents undeniable facts about Opus Dei, but debunking those facts would be, in fact, debunking fiction?

Which is it?

[Walt Starr]

61. Oh come off it!

Seriously, the book is set in modern history. Factual information must be presented alongside the fiction!

SHEESH!

All in uproar because a man DARES to write a piece of fiction that mocks other pieces of fiction that some people base religious beliefs upon!

:silly:

[InvisibleBallots]

64. yeah, why all the uproad over people criticizing the supposedly

"historical" parts of the work? The double standard here is amazing - we can talk all we want about the supposedly "historic" parts of this novel - but if it's criticized, we're all stupid for critizing fiction?

Yeah, get off of it. He wrote a novel, I read it, and I have opinions about it. What's the problem?

[Walt Starr]

68. Let's see two of the undeniable facts about Opus Dei

It's a Catholic organization.

They ahve a new building in New York.

Same thing happened with Gone With the Wind. Some factual information was presented alongside the fiction to keep it within the setting.

It's a tool of novelists. Happens all the time. The only difference is, this fiction pushed a different mythology than the mythology presented by organized Christianity.

[InvisibleBallots]

77. yes, and the mythology it's promoting?

The mythology that this books is promoting is that the royal families of Europe are the "true heirs" of "King David and Solomon of Ancient Israel" and "Jesus Christ". Part of the long-standing mythology that Jews have "stolen" the identity of "Ancient Israel" and that's it's really the non-Jewish Europeans who are the true heirs to that mythology. It's also promoting the mythology that the royal families of Europe rule by "divine right".

Fiction, and fiction with a slightly dangerous agenda, in my opinion.

[Walt Starr]

78. And the Lord of the Rings promotes a Dark Lord having dominion over all!

:eyes:

Agendas indeed!

[InvisibleBallots]

95. oh please

:eyes:

you are being purposefully disingenuous I suspect.

[Walt Starr]

99. Nope, merely comparing fiction to fiction

What's good for one work of fiction is good for another.

[InvisibleBallots]

101. so, Tolkien claimed his work was based on real history?

I don't believe he did. Dan Brown, on the other hand, does claim his work is based on real history. I think anyone who wants to can understand the difference.

[Walt Starr]

104. Okay, substitute Gone With the Wind for Lord of the Rings

and the analogy holds.

[InvisibleBallots]

105. sure, okay - how is this relevant?

People are "debunking" the claims in the novel that are supposedly historical. No one - NO ONE - is "debunking" the parts that are meant to be fiction. What is the problem?

[Walt Starr]

106. Um, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that bit about Jesus and Mary Magdelene?

Um, THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FICTION!

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

107. Oh, and that bit about Opus Dei involved in some coverup conspiracy...

IS FICTION TOO!!!!!!!

[Walt Starr]

108. Oh yeah, and highly placed Vatican officials involved in a conspiracy

to cover up Jesus marriage...

MORE FICTION!!!!!

The guy used literary devices to create a well crafted mystery/action novel.

It was well done in a classic sense.

It was FICTION.

[roguevalley]

155. this sounded odd to me, Walt. If I used modern things in a novel

of fiction and people who read it construe it as truth, why would that negate the book? Why would it be a problem? People invest in books they like and some books strike cords. That is why books are loved. I wouldn't care if I was Dan Brown. And, he said part was true and it was, the rest being fiction. So what? The world won't end, a few people will be happy and maybe explore more-learning the truth along the way- and the rest of us are entertained.

:+

[Walt Starr]

72. Unless the author creates an entirely fictitious setting

there MUST be some historical portions to the novel. That's how it works.

Tolkien got away with no historical facts at all in his novels BECAUSE HE MADE THE SETTING UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH!!!

This novel is set in Paris for the most part. If the author invented Paris out of whole cloth, nobody would have bought his book!

:eyes:

[Ms_Mary]

93. Invisible, your argument perplexes me.

Most fictional books have some factual aspects. Some don't. But simply because a book is a work of fiction does not mean it contains no facts whatsoever. I could write a story about attending Princess Di's funeral. The funeral could be factual but my prescence would be ficticious, thus making it a work of fiction.

[InvisibleBallots]

94. yes, that's the exact point that I'm making

You have people here debunking the historical claims in the novel - when they do this, people mock them saying "how can you debunk fiction?".

Nevertheless, when some of the historical claims appeal to these same people, they argue that it's factual. How can you have it both ways?

So again - the book is fiction, with plenty of supposedly historical truths in it. When people "debunk it" they are attempting to debunk the supposedly historical truths, not the fictional part. OBVIOUSLY. Is this really difficult to comprehend?

[Ms_Mary]

96. Seems to be so. Did I leave my brain behind today....

[nankerphelge]

114. From the posts here...

I guess so. I thought it made sense, but apparently it is difficult to comprehend. I also agree with the Salon article that it's poorly written. Thus, I'm also trying to debunk the myth that it's a good book.

[roguevalley]

156. I have read books that people hated and loved them, thus making

them in my estimation 'good'. I have read 'good' books that other people have loved and hated them. God! Jane Austen! Its subjective.
One man's cow pie is another man's emerald. I hate it when people try and tell me why a book is 'bad'. I know that myself. Then again, glitterati get all atwitter when you say, "I don't know much about art but I know what I like." Modern art sucks. For me. Debunk that? Nah.

[susanna]

165. Well, you can't stop ignorance. n/t

[Shadowen]

24. No better than the Left Behind series.

And as I understand it, almost as poorly written, too.

[MsTryska]

48. well i wouldn't go that far.....

again, as i said, i haven't read the book, but am quite familiar with the hypothesis.

i would say it's a nice bit of subversiveness for the jesus freaks.



i did read Angels and Demons - didn't liek the ending at all - i felt Dan Brown bent over for the establishment to give everything a happy ending.

[InvisibleBallots]

120. too bad, you should read the first Left Behind book

not a bad story, quite fascinating, and a window into the views of the fundies.

[Shadowen]

134. "Know thine enemy", eh?

Ah, well. I suppose it's a little like Terry Goodkind's work. Goodkind started as quite a promising and talented writer. However, with book 3, his subtle jibes and apparent steals seemed to ballon into blatantly ripping off Jordan, though admittedly, an enemy who uses religion as a primary motivator isn't a big innovation. Book 3 and 4 were enjoyable. As book 5 came around, you started to get a bad feeling...

And by book 6, the full-on objectivism/capitalism philosophy was baldly there, being force-fed into your throat. Book 7 was a creative switch, and a bit of the old glory coming through, though there was much melodramatic speechifying at the end, and then book 8, an obvious anti-pacifism and pro-Iraq war screed, to use one of Goodkind's own turns of phrase, took the "spark of hope" and "plunged it into cold water".

EDIT: Oh, and out of curiosity, I read the first few pages of the first Left Behind book...and perhaps I had the advantage of knowing what the series was about, but I couldn't believe how the idiot was telegraphing the story to his readers. Even if you have a major spoiler on the book's dust jacket saying "This book is about the fucking Rapture!", you should try to keep some mystery about it, at least for the first little while.

I mean, come on. An airplane pilot who finds excuses not to go to church with his Bible-thumping, God-fearing wife and who's eying the hot stewardess, and feels just a little guilty about both?

[LibertyLover]

29. DaVinci Code

I thought it did a good job of exposing people to the idea of Deity as masculine and feminine, as well as the idea that Jesus was married.

[eallen]

30. What's the big deal? It's just adding myth to myth.

[HEAVYHEART]

37. Exactly

I personally enjoyed the book. I've read every single one of Dan Brown's book and I'm looking forward to the next one.

[Bridget Burke]

39. I haven't read the Da Vinci Code.....

The prose samples I've seen were pretty dreadful. And it's the current favorite of those who read one book per year & must tell everybody the entire plotline.

I enjoyed "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" but considered it entertaining speculation. Grail Studies, Templar Studies & other "arcane truths kept from us mere mortals" are great fun. Did you know that Henry Sinclair, friend of the Templars, was also a pre-Columbian visitor to this continent? And that the Canada's Oak Island Treasure Pit is the likely resting place of the Holy Grail? There's lots more good stuff out there.

More serious studies of Mary Magdalene point out that she was neither the prostitute in the New Testament, nor the wife of Jesus, but an important early disciple.

Perhaps the Da Vinci book will cause some readers to go more deeply into history, myth, legend & comparative religion. That's good. Or perhaps it will be replaced by the next book read by those who read one book per year....

[deerhead]

40. It got people talking and thinking...

Which, to me, is a successful book. Whether or not you agree with the ideas, like/dislike the writing style, or admire/hate Italian art, you have to admit that it has inspired people to learn more about the topics in the book and to explore beliefs foreign to their world view. How can that be bad? It's better than focusing on Paris Hilton's latest hair color or Scott Peterson...

[HannibalBarca]

74. My opinion

is that the Da Vinci Code is a fairly pedestrian thriller that at least hints at some long suspected "theories" abot the true history of Christianity that has been simmering at the surface of public awareness for some time.
I would suggest reading "Secrets of the Code" by Dan Burnstein, it is an exhaustively researched book that examines some of the ideas put forward in the Da Vinci Code. The amount of information available regarding an "alternative" Christianity is astounding and I would suggest everyone research it themselves and draw their own conclusions. It has often been the case that history is written rather than recorded by men and women with a specific agenda.

[nankerphelge]

118. I'm not so sure...

It's the literary equivalent of watching the Simple Life.

[MsTryska]

46. haven't read it yet...

waiting for the library to get it for me, however, i knew from what people have been raving about that he bit it almost directly from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which i have read, along with Bloodline of the Holy Grail.


The author of this particular salon piece seems ot have a visceral hatred for Holy Blood, Holy Grail's thesis. I'm not sure why, i thought it was pretty interesting. but i'm a big fan of the Knights Templar, so maybe that's why i dug the book.

[Bridget Burke]

80. He's shocked, shocked that "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was not TRUE!

I enjoyed it--but I read a lot of weird stuff. Especially in the field of the weird & arcane, "non-fiction" does not mean "true." Perhaps he's envious that somebody made a million by writing "Holy Blood, Holy Grail For Eejits." If only he'd thought of it first!

For those interested in fictional* treatments of Ancient Secrets, I'd recommend Umberto Eco's "Foucoult's Pendulum" as more intellectually respectable & "The Illuminatus Trilogy" as having more sex & drugs. And (not previously mentioned) Ishmael Reed's "Mumbo Jumbo"--VooDoo versus The Last Templar, during the Harlem Renaissance.

============================

* Of course, since non-fiction may not be true, "fiction" may actually be revealing the Secrets of the Ages!

[Khephra]

121. Thanks for the reading suggestion

Ishmael Reed's "Mumbo Jumbo"...hmmmmm....never heard of it. How does it stack up with Pendulum and Illuminatus?

[Bridget Burke]

171. Mumbo Jumbo is shorter than the Illuminatus trilogy.

(The Trilogy contains a reference to Papa LaBas & his HooDoo Kathedral--from Mumbo Jumbo!) Haven't read Pendulum.

Mumbo Jumbo is snappy & jazzy & the African-American perspective is refreshing. Also out of print--but Amazon has many used copies.

From the book, a poem from the Wallflower Order (Atonists, all of them!):

Look at them! Just look at them!
throwing their hips this way, that
way while I, my muscles, stone,
the marrow of my spine, plaster, my
back supported by decorated paper,
stand here as goofy as a Dumb Dora
Lord, if I can't dance, No one shall.

Dancing, politics, The Teutonic Knights, The Wallflower Order, the Harlem Renaissance & serious VooDoo coming up from Haiti...

(Oh, yeah--Ancient Egypt, too!)

[HamdenRice]

47. It doesn't debunk Da Vinci -- It debunks Holy Blood/Holy Grail

Let me try to solve the paradox of "debunking fiction". What is weird about the Salon review is that it doesn't really debunk Da Vinci, it debunks Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a bestseller from the 1980s that purported to be non-fiction and that the authors of Da Vinci base their fiction on.

BTW, I read Holy Blood while I was studying part time in a divinity school and thought it was mind-blowing. Too bad that according to Salon it was all bunk!

[MsTryska]

49. I agree.

Seems to me the author's got something personal against holy blood holy grail.


maybe they aren't ready to see jesus married and baby-making.

[Walt Starr]

81. BINGO!

And, if you research it, the points made by the debunkers of Holy Blood, Holy Grail were also debunked.

It all depends upon whom you wish to believe.

[jonnyblitz]

50. highly overrrated crap. his other books are worse. n/t

[Solly Mack]

51. Like it's contents or not, that book rocked the boat

and that's a very good thing.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

54. i am waiting for someone to debunk 'Green Eggs and Ham'..........

until then i will not be satisfied. there are tons of fiction books out there that need to be debunked immediately! :eyes:

[gollygee]

60. LOL

His name was really Dan I Am, not Sam I Am!

[truebrit71]

55. Sorry but I have to disagree..

Fabulous book, makes you think, and certainly brings to light the common thread of subjugating all women (exept one in particular) that permeates the Catholic church...

Highly entertaining, well-paced and a real thrill ride...

[stanwyck]

135. Good point.

more people should know about Mary Magdalene as a prophet. She was later transformed into a prostitute and her writings negated by an anti-female church heirarchy. If nothing else, the book reminds people who Mary Magdalene was and how politically manipulative the church has been.

[killbotfactory]

62. i thought the writing was crap

I could care less about how truthful it was, seeing as it's fiction.

[fob]

63. The author of this story seems a bit overzealous to discredit.

Here's a paragraph of her chastising Brown about how he brings about "facts".

A preposterous idea will first be floated as a guess (it is "not inconceivable" that the Knights Templar found documentation of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's marriage in Jerusalem), then later presented as a tentative hypothesis, then still later treated as a fact that must be accounted for (the knights had to take those documents somewhere, so it must have been the south of France!).

Then she introduces us to a NC Professor who has written a book that puts "truth" to Brown's lies

Fortunately, Bart D. Ehrman, who chairs the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has just published "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" (Oxford University Press), a book-length expansion of his list of 10 errors in Brown's novel, first circulated widely on the Internet.

WOW! What a write-up. This guy must be beyond reproach in his methods, let's take a look;

Ehrman methodically demolishes a sizable chunk of the conspiratorial claims in "The Da Vinci Code," which are mostly cribbed from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."

This is gonna be good. I can't wait to hear his proof!

The emperor Constantine was not involved in establishing the New Testament's canonical texts; it was a process that began before his reign and continued after his death. Jesus' experiences and teachings were not recorded by "thousands" of his followers during his lifetime, as nearly all of them were almost certainly illiterate. It was not unheard-of for a Jewish man of Jesus' time to be either single or celibate, particularly if he was part of the apocalyptic prophetic movement of the day, as Jesus most likely was.


What?!? That part in bold reads exactly like her criticism of Brown from the first snip in this post. Only she manages to move from preposterous idea (It was not unheard of...) to fact (...as Jesus most likely was) in ONE fucking sentence!


Now I thought the book was interesting, and could believe all or none of it with some in depth REAL reporting. I think the idea behind the true meaning of the Holy Grail represents a version of christianity that I could more closely identify than today's version, so if the book brings about any introspection into organized religion that can only be a good thing in my book, as it were.

[MsTryska]

70. This is reading like

the debunking of "ALL OF MICHAEL MOORE'S LIES!!!"

[Pepperbelly]

126. if they are going to debunk Holy Blood, Holy Grail ...

they had better pack a lunch because those guys dotted their 'i's and crossed their 't's. There was some fine scholarship in that work.

[Cleita]

65. Said what I was thinking.

I also think he plagiarized part of his story from an old horror movie. When I read the part about Sophie coming home early from college to find her grandfather involved in a ritual in the underground chamber of his country home, I started having deja vu thoughts.

The contrived plot twists and chase are very formulaic and probably will be very well suited to an action movie. Brown really isn't a very good writer. There is nothing new or creative in this book. It was very cynically written to be a best-seller with movie rights and the author no doubt will become very rich.

My copper penny of thoughts.

[Ramsey]

66. It's a fun fictional book

That's all, nothing more. I think the guy at Salon needs to lighten up. I enjoyed reading the odd theories in the Da Vinci Code, but I didn't believe most of the them were literally true. Hey, it made me go look at some Da Vinci paintings I hadn't thought about in years too!

The book was a quick, enjoyable read. You are free to not have enjoyed it, but it certainly shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[Pepperbelly]

127. read Holy Blood, Holy Grail ...

it's not a quick and easy read but it is substantive.

[LizW]

73. "Boo, hoo," cries Dan Brown, en route to bank (n/t)

[msongs]

79. The whole JESUS thing is fiction, ....so whats the deal?

the whole christian religion is based on concepts borrowed or stolen from previous religions and philosophies. all of it, the virgin birth, the resurrection, everything.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

BTW Jesus is now moot as GW Bush is taking over the church.

[oc2002]

82. Who cares? Salon has nothing beter to do nowadays?

ITS FICTION! Salon beter buy a clue.

[musette_sf]

87. well, let's not forget

that Farooz what's-his-name also debunked election fraud as "fiction".

So why not spend time and column inches "debunking" actual fiction?

It's not like they have anything better to do.

[maveric]

86. Another threatened, persecuted Christian?? Oh my!

Its fiction and it poses another view other than the judeo/xtian bullshit that has been rammed down our throats.

I personally beleive the theories in the DVC more than the fairy tales of the bible.

Chill, will ya!

[nankerphelge]

140. What gave you this idea?

I'm not threatened; I just think it's poorly written. I can come up with much more interesting fictional theories than the one the book presents. If the book had presented the theory that Jesus was married to one of his male disciples in a big gay wedding, I could have really gotten behind the book.

[Walt Starr]

141. NOW YOU'RE TALKING!

Homosexual orgies with all the apostles. Judas is a jilted lover who turns on Jesus. Great plot mechanisms.

When you add in the outrage from the religious right, you could be talking bestseller!

[nankerphelge]

150. I'm going to start writing it tomorrow

I can give Dan Brown a run for his $.

[Ms_Mary]

88. When a guy at church said it "blasphemed the sinless life of Christ"

I went out and bought it to read. He, of course, never read the book because that would be blasphemy and all... It was interesting fiction. I enjoyed it and it made for a quick read. I never have been able to stand not knowing what the controversy is about. All that excitement over FICTION is just not justified. FTR, I'm Christian and if Jesus had been married, it wouldn't change anything for me.

[Cleita]

89. So why would married sex be considered sinful?

I really don't get it.

[Ms_Mary]

97. I'd like to know. I didn't get that either.

[roguevalley]

154. because St. Augustine said so, the mysanthropic son of a bitch.

[susanna]

164. LMAO

That was priceless. Thanks!

[davidinalameda]

92. some people need to get a life

or at least better hobbies

Repeat after me folks--The Da Vinci Code was a piece of fiction

but Harry Potter is true

[Fleshdancer]

98. I liked it. It's a fun read. n/t

[Generator]

100. It was a LOT better than than the bible

[Dover]

103. Kinda like eating fast food......a quick cheap fix but not very nourishing

in the literary sense.

But it did ignite the curiosity of many and sent them searching for more information on Da Vinci and the arts, religious roots, and other historic info. Which ever side of the argument you find yourself on, it does point out how little we know about these subjects and how little is available to the layman.

[AzDar]

109. Lots of facts buried in that work of fiction; at the very least it

challenges ridiculous concepts held so guardedly by the Church. It was an entertaining NOVEL; although the ending was so hackneyed it would make Barbra Cartland blush.

[secedeeconomically]

117. Between tastes, there’s no war.

[maxsolomon]

123. it was & is a POTBOILER

a trifle, a divertissement. it is not a work with lasting literary value & it was not intended to be so.

that so many believe it is not a measure of its evil hypnotic power, it is indicative of a subconcious realization that something is very wrong & worship of the feminine is missing from our culture.

give dan brown a friggin break - his goal was not to destroy christianity, it was to make money. so relax.

[fedsron2us]

124. Glad to see that old rogue Pierre Plantard

getting some credit. I remember seeing him in the original BBC Chronicle documentary about this subject back in the 1970's. One of the producers of that program went on to contribute to the 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'. At the time I was quite impressed. Later when I studied the world of Late Antiquity at university I realised that were a wide variety of different beliefs about the humanity or divinity Jesus within the early Church. Plantard had just happened to pick up and embroider upon one of them. There is no doubt that the early Church fathers did actively seek to suppress the literature that suggested that Jesus nature was entirely human. However, they also persecuted those who believed Christ was entirely divine as well as sundry Gnostic and other heretics. Of course their views were often more esoteric and did not possess the sexual frisson of a possible relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, so they were never going to make good copy for a modern writer seeking to make a fast buck out of a credulous public.

[roguevalley]

133. no one will know the real truth about Jesus because he's buried

under layers of politics and bullshit. Poor Jesus. I hope he was married and had a life too. I would hate to think that the picture that survives is correct.

[allalone]

142. how do you debunk fiction? just asking

[DemBones DemBones]

157. The article debunks the parts of the book that

Brown claims are nonfiction, the whole "Jesus married Mary Magdalene and their descendants live today" storyline. It's an old storyline that others have explored and, having read Brown's "Angels and Demons," I suspect they did so much better than Dan Brown ever could. He's just a bad writer.

[Raster]

145. And while we're "debunking" fiction, anyone care to give the bible a shot.

Talk about fiction. Instead of attacking a book that makes NO CLAIM that it is truth, why not attack a book that is OBVIOUSLY a collection of fairy tales and is masquerading as the word of Gawd. People have and are dying because the bible is trumpeted as truth, even though it's about as historically accurate as Peter Pan. And don't even mention relevance.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nankerphelge]

149. I'm nankerphelge

You'll find it printed in all my posts.

[DemBones DemBones]

158. It's depressing to see that so many people want so badly

to believe the Bible is a lie that they rave over "DaVinci Code" as if it were an intellectual tour de force instead of a potboiler.

C'mon, folks, at least find better writers to support your anti-Christian views.

[Bridget Burke]

168. Many of the DaVinci Code fans are Christians...

They get to learn about all this ancient Catholic stuff--which definitely fills a need for those in the more sterile, narrow sects. And then blame the whole thing on the Church!

One co-worker has been spending every spare minute telling everybody the plot details of the novel--when she's not praising the most recent Krauthammer column. She's nominally Christian & Catholics are among those she dislikes.

[Raster]

169. it's not that so many people want the bible to be a lie, it is just a way

of dealing with the disconnect. If you are not a christian, and do NOT take the bible on faith, then all kinds of things within the "good book" get downright silly and obvious. When you don't read the bible as some type of acolyte, it's very obvious that many individuals tried their hand at writing scripture, and that a multitude of "best interests" are attempting to be served. In other words, the bible is obviously more myth and fiction than word of god. And let's talk about the biblical god, shall we? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and with the manners of a badly spoiled five year old child.

It is no wonder that people question the bible's relevance, especially when it is shoved down everyone's throat at every twist and turn. All Dan Brown did is make it a feature in a WORK OF FICTION, emphasizing its many... *ahem*... inconsistencies.