Saw DaVinci Code

[Mistwell]

I was actually referring to the "all organisations, works of art and secret rituals portrayed here are real" note as the "disclaimer", I'm pretty sure all versions of the book have it.

However, let's just say we agree to disagree, since we clearly aren't bothered by the same issues. (and I won't pretend to know how most of the planet feels about a movie based on a book most of the planet probably hasn't read)

It's the fastest selling book in a single year, ever.

That includes the bible.

It's one of the few times where one can honestly say you know at least something about how most of the planet feels about a book.

That's certainly not to say the entire planet loves the book or anything. But I think the notion that this is being marketed as nonfiction, when it's clearly a fiction book, is a minority view.

Let me put it another way. If we polled people who read the book and asked them "do you feel this book is a book of fiction, or nonfiction" how do you think the majority of people would answer that question?

 

[Mistwell]

What I find amazing about this is why it's so popular. I mean, it's nothing new. The book that the Davinci Code was based on came out in 1982, I think. And the whole Templar/Holy Grail thing was very popular in the early 90s (which I first got into it), which even spawned a Shadowrun novel with the very similar premise of the DaVinci code (including things being hidden in his paintings). It's such a rehash.

It's not really based on that earlier book. And the courts actually declared that to be a legal fact recently.

I think it's popular because, in my opinion, it's a well written fast-paced novel about an interesting subject matter. It's not classic literature, but it isn't marketed as that. In essence, it's kinda like Star Wars. Star Wars was not a new plot, nor did it contain particularly original characters. But it was a well done, creative, fast paced movie about an interesting subject, and so it caught on.

 

[Mistwell]

It's not on the cover but on one of the first pages. After the copyright or something, but it is there. Fact is even written in capitals to draw attention to it. You can defend him all you like but Dan Brown's 'facts' are anything but.

You really think that is why people are buying the book, because of something written after the copyright? The actual copyright page (which comes first apparently) says "All characters and events in this book are fictious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental".

I am not defending Dan Brown. In fact, I am not focusing on Dan Brown at all - you are. All I said was I liked the book and want to see the movie, and that *I DO NOT CARE WHO THE AUTHOR IS OR WHAT HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE*. Much as I do not care if Wagner was a big fathead, as long as I like his music (which I do - Der Ring des Nibelungen is a work of genius).

And what exactly is the lie you think he is telling? Spell it out for me. It apparently says ""All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

So okay:
"All descriptions of artwork...in this novel are accurate." Is that false? I recall several descriptions of artwork (painting, sculpture, fresco), all seemed accurate to me, and I have seen most of the actual pieces.
"All descriptions of architecture...in this novel are accurate." Is that false? Several famous buildings described, some less famous structures, all seemed accurate. Have you been to some old church in England or something that looked different than the way he described it?
"All descriptions of documents...in this novel are accurate." Is that false? Most of the referenced documents are public Da Vinci documents, and they all seemed accurate based on the pictures I have seen.
"All descriptions of secret rituals...in this novel are accurate." Is that false? A few ancient rituals described, some modern ones, all seem pretty accurate to me.

What is the false claim?

 

[mmu1]

Here's one article that lists a fair number of things that Brown either claims outright are historical fact or implies they are, which apparently have little or no basis in reality:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060522/22davinci.htm

And BTW, just to head off a likely objection, please don't tell me that having a fictional character make ahistorical and untrue claims on the basis of a real document actually meets the letter of Brown's disclaimer, since, after all, it's the document that's real, even if the character makes conclusions it doesn't support... Intentionally using a true statement in a misleading context is no different than lying.

The main reason I'm offended by all this is not actually the religious angle, but because I've read a fair amount of good historical fiction, and I hate to see this piece of junk included in the same category. It's bad history, bad research, packaged and presented in a sensationalist way designed to stir up controversy. It's hard to even call this thing a book. It's a product. Like something extruded oozingly into a mold in some kind of industrial process.

And I really don't care how many people bought it, just as I won't start eating at McDonalds on a regular basis based on how many people they've served.

 

[Starman]

The main reason I'm offended by all this is not actually the religious angle, but because I've read a fair amount of good historical fiction, and I hate to see this piece of junk included in the same category. It's bad history, bad research, packaged and presented in a sensationalist way designed to stir up controversy. It's hard to even call this thing a book. It's a product. Like something extruded oozingly into a mold in some kind of industrial process.

So, you read it, didn't like it, but other people did, lots of them in fact, so now you hate it. Is that about correct?

I guess I'm a little baffled by your feelings toward the book. I've read lots of bad books. I know that there are a lot more like them out there. The fact that they were bad never offended me or drove me to extremes of emotion whether or not somebody else liked them.

 

[gray stranger]

It's the fastest selling book in a single year, ever.

That includes the bible.

It's one of the few times where one can honestly say you know at least something about how most of the planet feels about a book.

well, the book that has the most copies in print on this planet is the IKEA catalog, I realize this doesn't say much because you said fastest selling, just wanted to say it

About the da vinci code, I think angels and demons is way better and honestly, I think Dan Brown is a one trick pony.

in retrospect, angels and demons and the da vinci code are almost the same, and they look alot like the 2 other books (digital fortress and something else, I forgot the name)

And dan brown claims that alot of the technologies, art, conspiracies, whatever in his books are true, visit www.wikipedia.org to see the what is left of those 'facts'

I also predict that the fifth book is going 'solomon's key' is going to be the same as the da vinci code as in, Freemasons take over the earth via secret puzzle, Langdon and a girl skilled in mathematics save the day, woohoo

yes, I am a bit upset about the book

 

[CrusaderX]

You are free to see the world through your filter, but I think most of the planet recognizes this as purely a fiction mystery movie, and you have to really stretch to pretend this is being portraryed as a factual movie.

*Ahem*

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Here's one article that lists a fair number of things that Brown either claims outright are historical fact or implies they are, which apparently have little or no basis in reality:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060522/22davinci.htm

And BTW, just to head off a likely objection, please don't tell me that having a fictional character make ahistorical and untrue claims on the basis of a real document actually meets the letter of Brown's disclaimer, since, after all, it's the document that's real, even if the character makes conclusions it doesn't support... Intentionally using a true statement in a misleading context is no different than lying.

And yet, with the exception of the Priory of Scion (and you will find some who still disagree with the experts about it being a hoax), the organizations, art and rituals are based in fact. And please lets all remember that when it comes to ancient rituals, there is often disagreement on the "facts."

I read the book, I read the disclaimer, and I was easily able to make the distinction between fact, pure fiction and speculation (which is what I think a lot of the controversial items in the book are). I enjoyed the book as a yarn and didn't find it offensive to my Catholic sensibility. It made for some interesting conversations with my mother and father (both attended Catholic scools) as we picked apart various aspects of the book and looked at how Brown wove together the various elements to make a story that sounds believable on the surface.

Reading my last line, I realize that maybe that is what has some people annoyed, "a story that sounds believable on the surface." I am currently reading Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear. The science within the book is all based in fact, along with a whole bunch of speculation. Does the fact that it is difficult to tell where fact ends and fiction begins bother me as a scientist? No, as a matter of fact I enjoy the ideas and trying to find that fine dividing line.

 

[mmu1]

...as we picked apart various aspects of the book and looked at how Brown wove together the various elements to make a story that sounds believable on the surface.

Reading my last line, I realize that maybe that is what has some people annoyed, "a story that sounds believable on the surface."

No, what has some people (well, me anyway, but at least I'm only extrapolating from myself to "some" people, not a whole planet, so I figure I'm ok) annoyed is that so many apparently rational people read it and decided it "sounds belieavable on the surface". Unless by "on the surface" you mean "for about two pages".

It's not like my faith was shaken by Brown's clever storytelling, ok? The whole idea of Christ's bloodline and mortal descendants isn't new at all. Hell, there was a computer game about it a while ago (Gabriel Knight 3, specifically), that managed to be more intelligent and have better puzzles, despite having vampires thrown into the mix.

 

[Darthjaye]

Here's an even better idea: leave it to the moderators to determine forum etiquette, and mind your own business. (in particular in threads you hadn't posted in, other than to try to lecture someone else)

If Mistwell didn't feel like continuing the conversation, I'm sure he'd have indicated as much.

Well, mine was not a personal attack, but yours was. I find this insulting and your attitude bad. I would ask that you attempt to be a little more polite next time.