I totally agree. It is acaptivating read despite the style. And of course, it's not the place to look if you are interested in real templars, Priory of Scion, Holy Grail etc.Originally Posted by Broken
I totally agree. It is acaptivating read despite the style. And of course, it's not the place to look if you are interested in real templars, Priory of Scion, Holy Grail etc.
I've read both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. I love them both alhtough my dad couldn't get into the Da Vinci code claiming it was too verbose.
Anyway I'm Wiccan so i wasn't offended at all by the books. In fact it gave me great scope to throw back at some Catholic girl at school who likes to lecture me about my religion.
I read a good article in The Observer about The Da Vinci Code. It was by Peter...Peter...not Carey...another Oxfrod Don...can't remember who, and it's gone in the bin since...anyway - he talked about how the book is an analogy for contemporary theological/ideological battles; the battle between an older 'socialist' church and...anyhow, it's very interesting - I don't know if The Observer Review is online, but if it is it's worth a read. Very interesting. Perhaps I will read The Da Vinci Code. Heh! I am a snob - I thought, "Ah! Holiday reading!" and then I thought, "Nah! I'll look like a right coit reading that- why don't I just buy a Jeffery Archer box set and be done with it." I'll read it in secret sometime. Just as soon as I've finished my Maeve Binchey.
That's the nice thing about this book, you can read it so fast that people don't have long to catch you reading it. Everyone reads at a different speed, but just for a frame of reference: I got through the book in a little under three hours.
On another note, Truth Untold mentioned Angels and Demons, and I'd suggest that that book has a more intriguing storyline and is slightly less unpleasant to read.
To say open-minded is quite frankly stupid. If one accepts everything different saying that they are being open-minded, they are clearly the ones who are the most dogmatic, because they accept the conflicting ideas- not because they believe them; but simply to be 'open-minded', and therefore believe nothing (which is the funniest thing i have heard recently, besides Bill Cosby) and truly accept nothing. So in truth, the 'open-minded' ones are the ones who stick to one view. That isn't to say one ought to ignore other views; but to seek ONE truth.
I really don't see how the storyline is so intriguing either. Is it this obsession for contraversy? Dan Brown is a git, who really doesn't have a place in decent literature.
Sorry mate don't agree. Semantics- you can believe in things, without 'believing' i.e. maintaining a reality tunnel that is impervious to change, any form of real analysis etc. because you have let the lord into your heart, or whatever.
I have always been a little wary of reading a book because everybody else is, so I never read The Da Vinci Code, was I mistaken? Is it indeed a worthy read?
"I don't care what you believe in, just believe in it."
Shepherd Book, Serenity.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Russell
"The no-mind not-thinks no-thoughts about no-things"
-The Buddha
Unfortunately, the book wasn't a clear view of the catholic religion.
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
ok, open minded isee as meaning just accepting everyone no matter what they believe ina religious snese and respecting their viewpoints.
i know there was no clear view of catholicism but it managed to give me akind of inner glow, esp after studying the Reformation in history so her taunts don't bother me any more
i would recomend everyone read the Da Vinci code, my uncle bought me my copy as we have this kind fellow shcoalr thing going on (only 2 in the family going to uni/been etc) I picked up angelas and demons out of curiosity and would agree that it was easier and more intriguing but not through any error in writing but due to all the hype it had had.
as for it not being Dan Browns original idea.
if we are meaning the Holy Bloody Holy Grail authors sod them! They wrote their book as a work of theological fact in their opinion. Dan Brown merely took a non fiction book and incorporated it into his fictional novel. Why don't we criticise all historical novels while we are at it?
'We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry becasue we are members of the human race.'
- Mr D. Keating Dead Poets Society
I really didn't enjoy the novel. I'd agree with the person (sorry, don't remember who) who said that Dan Brown is rubbish. I've read the Da vinci code and angels and demons and the guy is obviously not a good writer. Sure, the plots are entertaining (angels and demons was a lot more entertaining though).
YOu do have a lot of people going to Europe trying to find places that don't even exist. Ignorance is bliss...
And to the person above, Dan Brown tried to pass this off as non fiction...
so in conclusion, if you're looking for some light, entertaining read, read angels and demons.
If you're looking for a good well written read, steer clear of Dan Brown.
While Brown tried to pass it off as non fiction, it is still labeled fiction. I don't think he cared much about the legitimacy of the story after it became such a huge seller. I am a Christian and read the book. I liked the fact that the chapters were short (after reading some larger books) and it was pretty fast paced.
As for the story, well it is not the best one out there. Notice how all the other Jesus/controversys came out afterwards. I am not going to go screaming from my soap box that "Dan Brown is working with the devil" but I could understand how some witnessing christian leaders could feel the movie is misleading. I think if you are a strong christian, then the book won't turn you, but some newbies and non believers might have a problem.
I think the book was okay, it didn't make my favorites list, but I am not going to burn it or exorcise it.
I am not catholic though, so I don't know if they view that differently.
"So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss, and my heart turns violently inside of my chest, I don't have time to maintain these regrets, when I think about, the way....He loves us..."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5xXowT4eJjY
I myeslf loved the book. I thought it was very interesting. And also...I, being a non-believer didn't much care for The Passion of Christ being out in theatres..so why should christians have a problem with The Da Vinci code. Brown makes many good points. I've done research on da Vinci works and found the symbology freakishly accurate with the paintings. So....yeah.....
the story of the DVC is alright for me, i liked the novel and because it was a thriller it kept me wanting to know what happened next.
true, a lot of controversy stirred up after the DVC. and the way the book was done it's easy to forget it's fiction, maybe because it uses real places and history. looking at the last supper is never the same again, and neither is Da Vinci's legacy.
the showing of the movie here in the philippines is so controversial right now. but grace, you are right-if your faith is strong then there's no problem. but for the philippines, a catholic country, it is a huge probem. just today they finally decided that the movie would be r-18, much to my disappointment. the first to oppose the showing of the DVC was Opus Dei. (expected.) i don't see why everyone is making such a fuss; THE DVC IS FICTION. they're working to prove that it isn't fiction, but hey, for now, it is FICTION.
...don't need therapy to rehabilitate my smile...
http://profiles.friendster.com/6239700
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4985812.stmThe Da Vinci phobe's guide
By Finlo Rohrer
The Da Vinci Code is one of the greatest phenomena in the history of fiction publishing and the juggernaut rolls on with the arrival of the movie version. But why are we so profoundly obsessed with a thriller about the Church?
It has sold more than 40 million copies across the world, transforming author Dan Brown into a spectacularly wealthy man.
For the few who don't know, it is a thriller telling the story of a race to uncover a massive conspiracy engineered by the Catholic Church to obscure the feminine nature of early Christianity and a shocking secret about Jesus and the Holy Grail.
The Da Vinci Code has been assaulted in equal measures by both historians and theologians, while the critics have sought to emphasise the role of the book's clever marketing to explain the mind-boggling success of a seemingly humdrum thriller.
But as cunning as its marketing has been, Brown's real success has been to effortlessly generate a wave of press coverage and internet discussion.
As Giles Elliott, charts editor of industry magazine the Bookseller, notes, the book has benefited from the Holy Grail of publishing, word-of-mouth.
"It has got that key ingredient - people don't want to be seen not to have read it."
The vehemence of some of the criticism of the book has prompted some to wonder whether there might be some factual elements to this work of fiction.
Mr Elliott continues: "It is a page-turning thriller and apart from anything else, for an agnostic like myself, I find the theories quite interesting and at least as plausible as the official church line first fed to me as a child."
There is no doubt it has tapped into a Zeitgeist that publishers have flirted with for some time.
Mystical topics like the Holy Grail, Dead Sea Scrolls, Knights Templar and the Freemasons have a history of popularity in both fiction and fact. The book makes a direct appeal to women readers, regarded as the big market in fiction, while appealing also to men, with the book feeling as much like non-fiction as a novel.
Modern disrespect
And most of all, the novel taps into the love of conspiracy theories, never stronger than in the age of 9/11, Diana and JFK.
Bishop of Winchester Michael Scott-Joynt, whose cathedral allowed scenes from the movie to be filmed there, believes there is both a modern disrespect for authority and also experts.
"There is a huge attraction in strange stories and cover-ups - it didn't happen like the authorities said it happened, who's been pulling the wool over whose eyes?
"There is a substantial cynicism of the motives of those in authority."
The money from the filming was partly used to produce an exhibition, which runs until 21 July on the scriptural and historical contradictions of the code, and a series of lectures.
Michael Wheeler, who gave one of the lectures, is a visiting professor of literature at a number of universities and a lay canon at the cathedral.
"It is a symptom of our generation. We live in an age of anxiety, of a post-modern sense that we have lost our moorings, a crisis of choice where anything goes. If you choose it, it must be true. Conspiracy theories are very attractive to people. We live in an age of suspicion and anxiety.
"As Tony Robinson [who made a documentary deconstructing the book] said, whatever people believe, they do respect the Gospel. To turn it upside down or deconstruct it is sexy."
And there is perhaps an argument to be made that the book, particularly in Britain where regular churchgoing is a minority activity, is filling a spiritual void.
Professor Mike West, chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral, where filming also took place, believes the book has given a chance for both the Church of England and Catholic Church to engage with people who were previously indifferent.
Nerves touched
"It has made people a little bit more interested in the Jesus story. I don't know how much it would matter if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene but there is no sensible evidence that that is the case.
"But we think [Brown] touches a few nerves we need to address about the role of women in the Church, about the nature of the Church and how open it is."
Both the Anglicans and Catholics now know better than to expect to harm a Hollywood product with boycotts and protests. Instead, the UK Catholics' Da Vinci Code Response Group's description of the book as "fun and harmless in so far as it is treated as fiction" speaks volumes.
Critics know that many fans regard parts of the book as fact, and Brown has done his part to encourage this.
The opening page is labelled "fact" and is followed by the statement: "The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization."
But as Bishop Scott-Joynt insists: "All this stuff about the Priory of Sion is a 20th Century fantasy." And sadly for Brown, historians seem to side with the bishop, dismissing as a hoax the very documents the author cites as proof.
The "fact" page goes on to assert: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Art historians have gleefully jumped on Brown's interpretations, and in other details many readers will spot errors.
Harry Potter
But above even the disdain of the churches, and the mockery of historians, perhaps the greatest ire comes from literary figures, possibly angry at a book they see as utterly lacking in literary merit dominating water cooler conversation from here to Timbuktu.
"The first page is terrible. It is so badly written, it couldn't be read by anyone who respects the English language."
Former minister, and now broadcaster and author Edwina Currie also said she had found it impossible to get past the first page.
"It is extremely badly written - full of cliches. It was actually painful to read. My husband, who does a bit of buying and selling on ebay, said he would sell it to the first bidder."
Along with Harry Potter, it is the typical favourite novel of people who do not read novels. And there are many who believe this makes it a godsend.
The Bookseller's Mr Elliott says there is a standard elitist view of the book.
"It's as if the health of the nation is at risk from this evil author - they should all be reading Ian McEwan. We think slightly differently. It is making lots of non-traditional readers read books. They will move on to other books, reading will be seen as something not elitist."
Oedipal roots
Dr Jennifer Wallace, who teaches literature at Cambridge University, admits she has not read the book but is wary of snobbery.
"The Gothic novels of the 18th Century were the pulp of their day and we regard them as literature now. As far as I can make out it is a great detective novel, a secret is hushed up by institutions. The appeal of detective fiction goes right back to Oedipus finding out the truth about his past. It is arguably the first detective story."
For those who do want the same elements but with a more literary bent, she suggests 18th Century anarchist William Godwin's Things as They Are, or the Adventures of Caleb Williams.
"Conspiracy theories have always appealed to the public because they feel it exposes institutions of power and helps them in their own feeling of powerlessness."
And before the Da Vinci Code was a twinkle in its author's eye there was a compelling tale of Church conspiracy, littered with erudition - Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. It even got the Hollywood treatment courtesy of Sean Connery.
As Bishop Scott-Joynt notes: "Umberto Eco is a philosopher of real distinction. [It is] a beautifully crafted, and extraordinarily clever [book] and it doesn't have a page at the beginning that says fact."
Prof Wheeler is happy to give the Da Vinci Code its due, albeit while damning with faint praise.
"As a literary work it's good for nothing. He is not a good writer, it's not been properly edited, but he has a wonderful gift.
"It is in a way an airport novel. The literati like myself wouldn't normally read it. But I find it a page turner and an exciting thriller. It was full of ideas of interest even though I didn't agree with them. At the heart of it there's no historical basis for that view but it is extremely interesting and provocative."
And whatever people's views on the Da Vinci Code, they had better get used to seeing a slew of mystical conspiracy books on their shelves.
The Bookseller has coined a term for it: "Brownsploitation".
Titles such as the Magdalene Cipher, the Lucifer Code and the Last Templar, even when conceived before the blockbuster, are benefiting from the Brown effect.
And when the Archbishop of Canterbury is forced to address the issue in his Easter sermon, you know people's need for mystical conspiracy theories is here to stay.
As he notes: "It's almost that we'd prefer to believe something like this instead of the prosaic reality."
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
That was a very good text you quoted!
I´ve read the book DVC and thought it was good for entertainment, a good thriller, and "wrote to be filmed". But, is it true? No. Is it literature? Not the classic-type, not everlasting, but... readable.
Come on, who has never read an Agatha Christie book? It is full of clichés too, good for entertainment too, but we love it. What´s wrong with that? As long as we don´t take these books as the Gospel itself, but for what they are - entertainment - , it´s all right. And reading this kind of books doesn´t keep me from reading other books, the very good ones.
And, by the way, The Name of the Rose is a much better "Church conspiracy book" than DVC. And better written, too. And for Harry Potter... that´s entertainment too, and I liked it a lot (not to mention that many many children started to read and loved it with HP books. They have to begin with something, don´t they?).
"It´s our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities"
Albus Dumbledore, in HP and the Chamber of Secrets - J K Rowling
My crafts website (in Portuguese): www.terracotabolsas.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
