DaVinci Code

[Spriggan]

I believe the mystery lies in why they were so dang popular--why they were a fad.  and the search for a piece of the true cross is also conjecture--it was assumed that was what they were looking for, but as they weren't really open and trusting people it is not a solid fact.  I believe that that is what the grail theory is based on.

The cross wasn't conjecture, they found "it" but most people believe it was fake.  In fact it's believed that the cross was planted by a high level person in the Templars to raise moral since after several years there they found nothing.

As for why they were popular, well in that time Christianity and "defending" the faith were all the rage.  So you had a group of people that were doing that, remember that the Templars started as a group to protect Pilgrims in the Holy Land, and several people got a lot of notoriety.  What more appealing to a nobleman then being really famous from some grand war against what was perceived as a great evil (the Muslims taking the Jerusalem).  It's not really that hard to understand if you take a bit of time to study what was important in Medieval Europe at the time.

[House of Mustard]

you would

I always do.

Akeyata, did you read my earlier post?  You didn't respond to it.

[Fellfrosch]

I think we should all follow Akeyata's example and not get offended by things that disagree with our world view.






/sarcasm

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

THat's what I've built my life on.

What do you mean "sarcasm?"

[Spriggan]

Like Cheese.  Cheese disagrees with my world view, what with it's delicious yellowness tempting all who pass by.

[Skar]

I never said that Dan Brown was right and major religions are trying to degrade women.  If you a)read the book or better yet b) saw the movie, you will see that Dan Brown himself doesn't even say that.  the scene in which Teabing and Langdon are explaining the legends to Sophie it is made very clear that there are two very different views to the same set of facts.

I did read the book.  I have not yet seen the movie.  I'm starting to think that you have done neither.  In the book major Christian religions, most prominently the Catholics, are accused, by everyone concerned, of suppressing a belief in the divine feminine, of deliberately obscuring Magdelene's prominence in the early church in order to preserve a patriarchal order (patriarchal means male-dominated).  If changing history so males can stay dominant over females isn't degrading women I don't know what is.

The meetings that Dan Brown claims were held to decide whether or not to say Christ was divine or not are fiction.  Meetings held to decide on "official" doctrines and how to change the historical record to suit the new dogma are fact.  All Brown did was add a "fact" here and there, sprinkled in among established history.  We know the meetings took place we don't have a copy of the minutes.  People whose only exposure to the history concerned is Dan Brown's novel and what they've heard in the mass media and at parties will have trouble telling the difference.

[caiticlu]

In the book major Christian religions, most prominently the Catholics, are accused, by everyone concerned, of suppressing a belief in the divine feminine, of deliberately obscuring Magdelene's prominence in the early church in order to preserve a patriarchal order (patriarchal means male-dominated).  If changing history so males can stay dominant over females isn't degrading women I don't know what is.

When I first read the book, that is the point that stuck with me. That is the point that my friends and I discussed. And it prompted a lot of great discussion. I have a wide group of friends, pagan, catholic, jewish, and we all sat down and shared ideas and talked about the book and the "facts" but mostly the ideas. Why they were intriquing, why they were crap.

I think that is really the point of this book. To spark discussion. And look at how well its done here thus far! I believe I read in an interview Dan Brown himself said that if it gets people talking he did what he wanted. (I cant recall his exact words or where the interview was sorry)
So what if hes a crackpot, and his ideas are faulty, it still entertains, it still sparks discussion.

This world is way too uptight on discussing religion, I love that because of this book I can talk about religion with people, find similarities and differences in belief systems. But that requires both parties to have a somewhat open mind and not be so set in their ways they refuse to hear another point of view. And if they liked this book, but are still very religious and think its all crap, then they should be cool to talk to.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

actually, I think the point of the book was to make dan brown money. It's good for it to spark discussion, because that's like free advertising.

But maybe I'm just cynical. After all, I think rock is just a way to make money too.

[House of Mustard]

This world is way too uptight on discussing religion, I love that because of this book I can talk about religion with people, find similarities and differences in belief systems.

One of the best responses to this controversy came from a Catholic priest back east (Pennsylvania, I think?).  He said that he was very pleased with the book, because it got people asking questions about Christ, and getting legitimately interested in their religion, rather than just going through the motions.

[Akeyata]

soo, because I have yet to argue points for or against the priory of sion I didn't read the book either?  If you want me to argue for or against every single point in the story to prove I have read it I will, but I think that would be a waste of time.  I have been arguing the points that have been most debated among the people I know.  If you want to debate that point we can.

Yes, mustard I did read your post, but most of it was calling me a liar and a reactionary so I didn't feel I needed to respond to it.  

my point about being offended, is that if you knew the subject matter was not your thing, why did you see/read it in the first place?  and if you did anyway, why should a piece of fiction have such a great impact on you that you are offended?  

also, there seems to be a great amount of debate about Dan Brown's writing skills.  From what I know of some of the people saying these things, I have to wonder if it is merely jealousy.  So he's not the best writer.  I have yet to disagree with that point.  He has made boatloads of money writing a best selling novel.  what's wrong with that?  your comments that other movies got better reviews because they were that good considering what they are should certainly hold true for this one.  if you agree that the story the movie was based upon was melodramatic and patchy, then the movie was certainly the best it could be.  

also, mustard, since you want a reply, it must really really irk you to have had to change your next book to be more like this psuedo-intellectual trash.  

[Fellfrosch]

He wasn't calling you a liar. Certainly a reactionary, though.

[Akeyata]

well, the liar part was in a different post.  

[Parker]

Akeyata, I can see why DVC appeals to you.  It's a bunch of wind trying to pull off an intellectual tone that ultimately falls flat.  Seriously, who are you, and why should I listen to you?  Yes, I've read the book.  I've even gone to scholarly panels at conferences focused on the book.  Where did you do your research?  What qualifications should I have to believe your opinion over anyone else's, let alone people with PhDs in history?  I can see you having an opinion about things, but nothing you've said so far is helping your case.  Anyone can say "I've done a lot of research on this, so I know."  I've done a lot of research, so I know that the earth is actually flat instead of round, like all you idiots believe.  See?  Easy.  Back it up instead of throwing out insults and jibes, if you want any respect at all.

Oh, and because it's one of the comments that irritated me the most:

your comments that other movies got better reviews because they were that good considering what they are should certainly hold true for this one.  if you agree that the story the movie was based upon was melodramatic and patchy, then the movie was certainly the best it could be.

The quality of adaptations for the most part has little to do with the quality of the work being adapted, and everything to do with the skill and motivations of the adapters.  In DVC's case, I'd say the main reason the movie was made was to make a boatload of money.  When that happens, a work of art is rarely the result.  And just so I don't fall into the same hole I criticized you for, I've written and studied adaptation extensively, going as far to write my Masters thesis on the subject.

I'll see DVC when it comes out on video, because from what I've heard, I don't feel like shelling out $14 to see it with my wife.  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't think reactionary was out of line either. It seems accurate by your own description of how you prepared your post.

[Akeyata]

no, reactionary was my posts a long time ago regarding tim burton.  


why should you listen to me?  why should anyone listen to anyone on this site?  Why should I listen to you? because you're a few years ahead of me in college?  I haven't written my masters thesis yet, so your views are obviously superior to mine.  I must have missed the day we all submitted our credentials for review.

and I don't recall that I insulted anyone.  I made general comments that if someone took to mean them personally that's their fault.  I have not ripped into anyone personally this entire thread and I resent the implications that I have.