Saw DaVinci Code

[Pseudonym]

I'll go see it, because my wife read the book and enjoyed it and wants to see the movie. I haven't read the book, and am largely ambivelant about it, but I'll go because I enjoy going out with my wife, and I've enjoyed most every movie Tom Hanks has done that doesn't have Meg Ryan in it.

I'm dragging my wife to see X-men, so I'm willing to make a tradeoff. Plus, I'm hoping that Divinci Code will have a trailer for Superman.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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 funny really. I read the SR novel, so when the novel was hitting real big, all I could think of was "I already read this, and hated it!".

 

[Rackhir]

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.

Don't forget there is also a Ignore option as well. mmu1 got on to my ignore list a long time ago for just this sort of thing.

 

[Mercule]

I will probably go to see it. I suspect it won't thrill me, but I'll go with an open mind (as much as possible). I rather enjoyed Dogma, so this might be fine.

Whether intended or not, the book has gotten some people confused about the history of Christianity. That's unfortunate -- considerably moreso if malice existed on the part of the author.

 

[Eosin the Red]

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.

You are mistaking Browns claims for the fictional characters claims. Internal to the book there are a ton of wild conspiracy claims much like Foucalt's Pendulum, Steve Jacksons Illuminati, or the dirth of Area 51 books. Should we stop reading those books as well? Like Brown they take a piece of the truth and weave interesting fiction around it. I believe the Priory of Sion about as much as I believe the New World Order but that doesn't mean that it does not make good fiction. Maybe we should get rid of all Arthurian literature since so many are confused and believe that Lancelot, Percival, and Kay hung out in full plate sometime during the 11th century.... they were chasing after the grail also.

Nothing in your quoted website indicates that the claims on the interior of the cover are false. There is some wild fiction inbeteen the covers but his "asserted facts" remain facts. What he does with those facts is what makes it fiction. It is ashame that so many are so easily mislead; it speaks volumes about our culture and our ability to think for ourselves. I would consider many of the sited effects a condemnation of our education and social conditioning rather than laying at the feet of some book.

[ADDED] Oh yeah, I would still like to see where he lied on the interior cover. Show me a document, ritual, organization, or piece of art that he covers in the book that is not real.

 

[Piratecat]

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.

Darth, Rackhir: I've already addressed this up-thread. Please don't reopen the can of worms now that we've asked that personal animosity be excluded.

Thanks.

 

[Banshee16]

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.

Haven't read the book or seen the movie....but is there no factual background, at all? Because we all know the church tells the truth about everything, and that nowhere in all the writing that went into creating a 3000 year old book is there any chance that maybe a few inaccuracies crawled in?

Banshee

 

[mmu1]

[ADDED] Oh yeah, I would still like to see where he lied on the interior cover. Show me a document, ritual, organization, or piece of art that he covers in the book that is not real.

Did you actually read the article? It specifically lists one set of documents he claims were factual, that were in fact shown to be fakes. (as well his listing of the Prisory of Sion as a real organization)

As for confusing things... No, I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing anything. I'm not trying to debate whether his disclaimer would hold up in a court of law, just saying that it's clear that (as a marketing device) he worked very hard to create an impression of factual accuracy where there was none.

 

[mmu1]

Haven't read the book or seen the movie....but is there no factual background, at all? Because we all know the church tells the truth about everything, and that nowhere in all the writing that went into creating a 3000 year old book is there any chance that maybe a few inaccuracies crawled in?

Banshee

I see... You make an unsupported assumption and I'm supposed to try to prove it wrong... At which point, in response to any argument I can muster, you can just make another appeal to ignorance. No thanks, not interested in playing that game.

 

[Mistwell]

Did you actually read the article? It specifically lists one set of documents he claims were factual, that were in fact shown to be fakes. (as well his listing of the Prisory of Sion as a real organization)

The document is real. The fact that it turned out to be not what it seemed doesn't make in unrreal. He didn't make it up, it's not a fictional thing, it's a real object with real words.

He never said in his disclaimer that organizations were real. If you can show me where in the disclaimer he claims the organizations are real, I am happy to listen.

As for confusing things... No, I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing anything. I'm not trying to debate whether his disclaimer would hold up in a court of law, just saying that it's clear that (as a marketing device) he worked very hard to create an impression of factual accuracy where there was none.

Worked very hard? It's a disclaimer in the interior of the book which I, and I suspect most people, totally ignored. It's no big deal. If you had not pointed it out, I would never have even remembered it. And it's so far holding up.

I think it serves your purpose to exagerate Brown's beliefs and pick and choose interview statements out of context and highlight a minor note in the book to try to prove your contention. But I think if you look at the book and movie as a whole, you get the impression it is a fiction book, a fiction movie, and that both are intended as such.

Anyway, I am not sure where this debate is going at this point. You don't like the book or the author. Okay, fair enough. But I am not getting why you are so passionate about those beliefs. Have you even looked into the motivations and claims of most authors you read? Have you looked deeper into any other "historical fiction" novels that you like to see if they also hold up under close scrutiny? Why are you so passionate about THIS novel?