Dan Brown; Out of his senses? Or saying Sense!

[Nasser]

I have always neglected reading the Davinci Code.
But this morning i picked it up, and people, guess what!
i Cant believe what im reading.. Is it All true?

[stella]

well i have the book ... but i havent read it yet i dont know why ...i watched the movie though ,interesting & entertaining but true ,i guess not.

[AimusSage]

Moved this to general literature, where it belongs and will get more responses.

[Niamh]

I've never read the book but have seen the movie. Alot of what is in the book is based on theories that have been around for along time but have never been proven.

[NickAdams]

Dan Brown; out of other's senses? Or making other's sense.

The movie romanticized the book and added a lot of mysticism.

The book dramatized the ideas found in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

If you're interested, read Holy Blood Holy Grail and bypass the unnecessary thriller .

[Granny5]

I have always neglected reading the Davinci Code.
But this morning i picked it up, and people, guess what!
i Cant believe what im reading.. Is it All true?

I've read Devinci Code and found it entertaining but it is a book of fiction. As NickAdams said, if you're interested in the idea the book was based on, read
Holy Blood Holy Grail.

[Dark Star]

And if you want to read the book that The Da Vinci Code is directly based on, read Lewis Perdue's Daughter of God.

For reference: http://www.davincilegacy.com/Infringement/PerdueBrown-Forensic-Linguistics-Institute-PrelimAnalysis-9JAN2004.html

[amalia1985]

It is entertaining, though-provoking, and interesting, based on theories that have been developed throughout the years, as Niamh said,but true? I wouldn't be so certain...Fiction is called fiction for some reason, is it not?

[NickAdams]

... but true? I wouldn't be so certain...Fiction is called fiction for some reason, is it not?

That's like saying the spanish civil war isn't true, becuase Hemingway wrote about it.

[JBI]

I have found historical inconsistencies throughout the movie. I assume, based on the critics and 100 pages of the book I have read, that the novel is no different. Read Foucault's Pendulum. Eco is someone who actually knows what he is talking about, and can actually write.

[Old Crow]

Dan Brown as a novelist/entertainer is a hack, Dan Brown as a historian is laughable, and Dan Brown as a social theorist/commentator is pathetic. No, the book is not true, and the only true question it provokes in me is "How do people actually enjoy this?" I'll second JBI's suggestion of Umberto Eco for well thought out literature of this sort.

[applepie]

It is an interesting book, but it is really just a fictional novel based on a conspiracy theory. I enjoyed the book, but I like the prequel, Angels and Demons, even better. They're interesting and faced paced, but like most everyone else has said, they're fiction. Enjoy the books, but don't take them at face value. They are a good application of the theory, but they are not fact. They do use ideas that people have gathered to support the idea that Christ did have a child, and its done a pretty good job with it.

[stlukesguild]

Dan Brown as a novelist/entertainer is a hack, Dan Brown as a historian is laughable, and Dan Brown as a social theorist/commentator is pathetic. No, the book is not true, and the only true question it provokes in me is "How do people actually enjoy this?" I'll second JBI's suggestion of Umberto Eco for well thought out literature of this sort.

Indeed! If I want literature that blurs fiction with history I'll read Eco... or Gore Vidal or Robert Graves or Nikos Kazantzakis or Victor Hugo... or anyone who can actually write for that matter.

[Old Crow]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who still reads Hugo with interest, not counting the people who cracked the first ten pages of Les Miserables juct because they liked the musical. Hugo is one of my absolute favorites. I can't say I've read any Gore Vidal, though. I'll have to hunt that down.

[amalia1985]

That's like saying the spanish civil war isn't true, becuase Hemingway wrote about it.



No, it's nothing like that. I know Hemingway's works very well, one of my most successful university projects was an analysis of "For Whom the Bell Tolls". It is totally different, writing about something that everyone can "verify"-although I hate to use that word here-and an other thing writing about something that may or may have not happened 2000+years ago (if Jesus was married or not married, or I don't know what else).There is a big difference.

When Brown presents his work as "fiction", I can understand. If he ever openly claim that what he writes is "true"-that it did happened-I would look for some evidence. If he can provide it, I will "believe", although I never believe easily in anything. If he cannot provide any evidence, this means it is pure and plain and silly fiction, and I will laugh...And I am not biased, because I am not a Christian in the traditional meaning of the word.


Dan Brown as a novelist/entertainer is a hack, Dan Brown as a historian is laughable, and Dan Brown as a social theorist/commentator is pathetic. No, the book is not true, and the only true question it provokes in me is "How do people actually enjoy this?" I'll second JBI's suggestion of Umberto Eco for well thought out literature of this sort.

Indeed! If I want literature that blurs fiction with history I'll read Eco... or Gore Vidal or Robert Graves or Nikos Kazantzakis or Victor Hugo... or anyone who can actually write for that matter.



Extremely well said!

[stlukesguild]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who still reads Hugo with interest, not counting the people who cracked the first ten pages of Les Miserables juct because they liked the musical. Hugo is one of my absolute favorites. I can't say I've read any Gore Vidal, though. I'll have to hunt that down.

I actually read Les Miserables one summer while still in college... actually while on the job. :lol: