DaVinci Code

[House of Mustard]

And I didn't insult my brother, I quoted him.

In the same sense that Dan Brown quotes history books.

[Akeyata]

if quoting you is an insult...

[caiticlu]

And I didn't insult my brother, I quoted him.

Ah, well I was unaware of that. perhaps quotations would have been helpful?

[Akeyata]

he wants us to swallow all of his bull, embrace his anti-establishment conspiracies, and then use pseudo-intellectualism to accuse skeptics of being "unthinking Christians".  But maybe that's just me.

here.

[Akeyata]

ok.  

so nobody likes the movie, or the story, or the author, or the theology.

I think we've established that.

I think we have also established that once again, my abrasive mannerisms have failed to win me friends.  I'll cry over that later (if I remember).

but we have also established that the arguments against my posts have all fallen prey to the criticism usually leveled against me, that they attack the messenger, not the message.  All anyone has done with my arguments is say that either I am lying, I am not credible, or I am simply incompetent.  I find that extremely interesting.  get back to me when you can argue my points.  

[House of Mustard]

That refers to your pseudo-intellectualism, not Brown's.  I thought that was fairly obvious, but my apologies if it was misconstrued.

neither does Dan Brown

Ah...  So Dan Brown doesn't claim it's true, but you still do?  I think I get it.

[Faster Master St. Pastor]

Ok, think I have the best idea concerning this thread; let it die. All we have here is redundant arguments (on both sides) and it's really annoying.

[Akeyata]

ah, so Dan Brown doesn't claim it's true, but you still do?  I think I get it.

try reading what I write next time

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

so nobody likes the movie, or the story, or the author, or the theology

Entirely not true...
In fact if you read the review a little better you might have caught this...

All of these elements make The Da Vinci Code more watchable and entertaining than its harshest critics have suggested. In fact, the film holds your attention most of the way through, and is mildly diverting. This is, in most respects, a pretty well-made film.

So....2 out of 4 stars is an entirely watchable movie...

Its just not in the opinions of the reviewers a great movie. Im not really sure why you take issue with this. Instead you were at least mildly insulting to the reviewers. All you had to say was I liked it and I dont agree. The way you phrased it was almost designed to be a slap in the face.

Dale Browns "research" has been picked apart on many many threads already quite successfully I may add. The problem is that you seem to be taking it as seriously as the hyper religious people who object to its showing in the first place. Look, its fiction, and a good story. But its hardly a great novel, or a great movie. Doggedly clinging to the idea that its historically true, is just well sophmoric. At the most its historical fiction, you know based on history. Thats ok and doesnt make it a bad thing. In fact no one is saying its terrible (at least here).

As far as Dan Browns word on the subject I think you need to read this from  his website.

HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.

It is a work of fiction Q.E.D.

[Spriggan]

try reading what I write next time

That would be too easy.

[caiticlu]

"My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history. "

I knew I read somewhere that he wanted it to spark discussion! yay Im not insane (well not completely that is)!

[Spriggan]

Just saw this on the local news, supposedly Dan Browns next book is going to deal with Mormons.  He was in SLC investigating the Temple and early church leaders.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

and their conspiricy to cover up the Catholic churches secret practice of multiple marriage .... to LLamas... all painstakingly proven through science.

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

ok, i'm gonna pick this apart here:

The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.

I will now cite some experts that should satisfy even Akeyata's demand for intellectual rigor. These people are professional, published scholars in the fields of medieval history, literature, and study. Read these quotes, because the smack Brown in the face on this exact claim that he has made:

I am not sure if I am understanding your post correctly.  Most of us here are familiar with the actual history and development of the Holy Grail legend, unlike Dan Brown and the authors of HBHG (whose names
escape me at the moment).  In the original story about the graal, "Perceval" by Chretien de Troyes, the term "sangreal" does not occur, not even "san greal" (and certainly not "sang real!!").  In Perceval, there is a "graal" that is holy.  This "graal" is turned into "The Holy Grail" or "San Greal" by later writers.  At some point a later (but still medieval) author probably picked up on the "San/Sang" pun and connected the graal with the blood of Christ, and the crucifixion, and the last supper, and the mass, and so on.

But originally, these were not a part of the story.  The story of "The Holy Grail" did NOT start out as the story of "Holy Blood".  It started out as a story about a graal (a type of dish) that was holy.

Brown's descriptions of Leonardo's works are often inaccurate.  His description of the Last Supper has inaccuracies in it (e.g. that's not a "dismembered hand" it is very clearly Peter's hand).  His descriptions of the two versions of the Madonna of the Rocks are also very
inaccurate--he tries to convince us that there are HUGE differences in these two when in fact the two set side by side are almost identical, sort of like those "spot the difference" games on the backs of cereal boxes.  Dan Brown for example says that Leonardo switches the placement of Jesus and John the Baptist in the two versions, but in fact Jesus and John the Baptist are in exactly the same places in both versions.

Many of the practices attributed to Opus Dei are not true.  Opus Dei, for example, does not have monks.  And certainly doesn't have any albino monks that it sends out as hitmen.

And the Priory of Zion was in fact invented in the 1950s by a French Nazi Sympathizer with a criminal history named Pierre Plantard.  It did not exist in the middle ages, as Dan Brown claims.  And therefore just about everything else Dan Brown says about this organization is false

(to be continued)

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

That needs little exposition, but let me point out again that Brown claims this organization is/was real (not at all), that his descriptions of the art is accurate (not at all), and the etymology of the very basis of the book is not only suspect but completely untenable. while he doesn't state specifically that he believes this particularly theory was real, the whole purpose of trying to pull any of it off as real is to lend credence to the quest, which, in my opinion, is his worst sin.

another quote discussing the Last Supper painting that supposedly has Mary in it:

To this one could add that most depictions of the Last Supper, especially before the 13th century, are of the scene from John 18--they rarely show a Grail-like chalice or the moment of the institution of the Eucharist; rather, they depict the accusation of Judas, and they
emphasize the dishes on the table and especially the one shared by Jesus and Judas. Since Jesus was supposed to have had 12 named male apostles, one of whom is the boyish John, and Leonardo depicts 12 men one of whom is boyish, it is pretty odd to suggest that he "bumped" poor John out of the picture to replace him with Mary. The only tenable theory is that EVERY depiction of the Last Supper ever painted shows Mary Magdalene disguised as John (I have seen this argued on the web) and that sort of makes the theory less secret and less exclusive to Leonardo.

More detail for why this was the only tenable theory is given in the post. Note that all of these can be found on the Arthurnet archives. They were posted today.

It should also be noted that even these scholars make the joke about pigeonholing McKellen to one role (one of them calls him Magneto, in fact). This is because they have a sense of humor.

Nearly all of the detail quoted there can be referenced more completely at www.smu.edu/arthuriana/lacy.pdf
(you'll note that this is a published paper by a medieval scholar at a university).

I want to close with a Roger Ebert quote:

Dan Brown's novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard's movie is preposterously entertaining. Both contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them. I know there are people who believe Brown's fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane.

Which adequately sums my opinion on those who think any of the "history" in this book was real.