Saw DaVinci Code

[Mistwell]

Are you.... aaargh...

Brown has a freakin' disclaimer in the front of the book, claiming that parts of it are FACT. How more obvious can it get? Does that cease to be true, just because Barnes and Noble puts it on a shelf labeled "fiction"?

Also, while Wagner might have been a racist bastard, AFAIK, his racist views weren't represented in the notes of his music in any significant way. On the other hand, Brown is a liar and a quack, and his book is an expression of those lies and quackery. Apples and oranges.

His book is fiction. It's not lies and quackery, it's just fiction. Sure, parts ARE fact. Most fiction books have parts that are fact. That doesn't make them non-fiction or a trick or a lie.

I have the book and there is no disclaimer on the front. Perhaps his PR people later put there to drum up more controversey on some obscure copy, but that doesn't actually make it non-fiction in any way. In fact, here is a link to the current cover (no disclaimer):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385504209/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8258444-7312040#reader-link

Brown's views are not represented in the notes of his book either...in fact there IS no notes section. It is not presented as fact, it is not generally marketed as fact (there is no murder, there is no albino, and there is no secret da vinci discovery). If you need to turn to interviews with the author to make your case, I think you've actually just made mine instead.

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.

 

[mmu1]

And just to remind this is about the "movie" and not personal views of the author or any other peripheral beliefs. Leave it be on these boards please. If you don't like the movie, then that's fine, as you've said as much. Just because someone asks you why you don't like it, still doesn't condone going off on a tangent. You don't enjoy this authors views or creations....leave it at that.

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.

 

[mmu1]

His book is fiction. It's not lies and quackery, it's just fiction. Sure, parts ARE fact. Most fiction books have parts that are fact. That doesn't make them non-fiction or a trick or a lie.

I have the book and there is no disclaimer on the front. Perhaps his PR people later put there to drum up more controversey on some obscure copy, but that doesn't actually make it non-fiction in any way. In fact, here is a link to the current cover (no disclaimer):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385504209/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8258444-7312040#reader-link

Brown's views are not represented in the notes of his book either...in fact there IS no notes section. It is not presented as fact, it is not generally marketed as fact (there is no murder, there is no albino, and there is no secret da vinci discovery). If you need to turn to interviews with the author to make your case, I think you've actually just made mine instead.

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.

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)

 

[trancejeremy]

Yeah, well, maybe it's because that in reality, the author actually went to great lengths to convey the impression that, while the book was about fictional characters and events, the history underlying the story was based on hard, historical fact? That he did so repeatedly while doing publicity for the book?

He might not be saying that the Roman Catholic Church employs fanatical albino monks to keep certain things secret by killing people, but he certainly does make the claim that based on historical evidence, the Catholic Church has been lying about all the major tenets of Christianity, and covering up any evidence of the truth.

Well, that second claim is true, partially. There was no single Christian movement in the early days, there were quite a number of them. But Catholic Church did win out and suppress the beliefs of others. This really isn't in dispute - as the early Catholics wrote about this (Irenaeus's Against Heresies series of books http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers.htm )

Luckily, some of the old manuscripts and books of those early believers survived by being hidden away and were recently (relatively) found. Like the Nag Hammadi library

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Some early Christians did view Jesus as being married to Mary Magdalene. See the Gospel of Phillip from the link above, for instance. That branch of Gnosticism believed that the soul had two aspects - masculine and feminine, and when the soul came into the world, it was broken into two. And by marriage, it was reuinited.

OTOH, Catholics aren't lying or covering up the "truth". They just happen to have differing views on what the major tenets are. People sometimes have a tendency to think that people of a religion secretly believe another religion is actually right, but are for some reason simply lying about their own beliefs. But in truth they try to suppress what other's say because they don't think it's worth talking about.

Much like how many Scientists treat UFOs. They aren't really trying to suppress any study of them, they just don't think it's worth dealing with. But it's fun to imagine conspiracies and such.

 

[Dagger75]

Nope... Not going to see it, ever. (well, that's not quite true, if I was told I'd get to hit Don Brown in the nuts with a baseball bat after the screening, I probably would)

The book managed to insult my intelligence, offend my vestigial religious sensibilities, and bore me, all at the same time. I tossed it in the garbage, because I don't have a backyard to burn it in.

Well DON Brown wrote the Duh Vinci Code maybe you picked up that book.

DAN Brown wrote Da Vinci Code

 

[trancejeremy]

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.

 

[A2Z]

I have the book and there is no disclaimer on the front. Perhaps his PR people later put there to drum up more controversey on some obscure copy, but that doesn't actually make it non-fiction in any way. In fact, here is a link to the current cover (no disclaimer):

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.

 

[Eosin the Red]

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 are right - the Mona Lisa is a fake! It is the biggest hoax in history.

It simply says the rituals (mostly pagan but also some flagelation (sp?)), the art, and the organizations are real. As far as I can tell all of those things are true - they are real (or once were) organizations and real rituals.... I don't think you mean to dispute the reality of the art, do you?

Just for entertainments sake - what, on his very narrow list, do you think is a lie he made up? (remember he doesn't assert that anyone actions or the beliefs he attributes to them are real; just that the pictures, rituals, and organizations are real.)

 

[Eosin the Red]

I'll be seeing it next monday or tuesday.

My father, who I think is a fairly intellegent person, enjoyed the book (though he said Angels and Devils was much better).

I liked Angels and Demons much better myself.

 

[Piratecat]

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)

A fine idea. And as part of that, mmu1, let me say that you're violating forum etiquette and rules here. Let me say why.

The only moderation folks should be doing is self-moderating (and clicking on the "report a post" function when something seems wacky.) People should not be attacking other people, and conversely people should not be taking comments as personal insults when no insult is intended.

Look, gang, there's a reason that we don't discuss religion on these boards. While I'm aware that it's difficult to divorce discussion of this movie from the subjects of history and religion, you will do so if you're going to discuss it here. If that's difficult for you because it's something you feel very strongly about, then please spare your friendly moderators the hassle of having to holler and simply don't post in this thread.

Thanks, all!