The Da Vinci Code

[Fellfrosch]

He's right in saying that it's more of a history lesson than a novel--that's 100% correct, and it's the novel's biggest failing. The next biggest failing, of course, is that it's all made-up history designed solely to support the novel. The end result is an artificial background propping up a fun but poorly-written story.

[Shir Hashirim]

Well said, Fellfrosch.  Here's some sites I found very helpful after I read the book:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=20376

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=20376

http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=7017

[Entsuropi]

Just so you know, you might like to try finding more secular sites. Quoting a handful of religious sites in response to a book those religions are pre-disposed to dislike doesn't really help a case.

[Shir Hashirim]

Haha.  Good point.  *remembers why she isn't very good at debating*

[Connectz]

Also, when it comes to debunking conspiracy theories, who makes the skeptic or debunker the automatic authority on the subject?  

I find that relying solely on skeptic/debunker's final say regarding anything that has to do with history or "conspiracy theories" is not a good thing to do because a lot of times, these debunkers/skeptics are using the "safe and proven fact-base" to debunk such alternative knowledge.

I have done some studying on the things Dan Brown presents in his book MANY years before the book even came out (since about 1994).  Truth be told, yes, some of the things he mentions in his book are fiction (much regarding the Priory is misconstrued purposely I believe) but a lot of it is not.  Do your research on the Pagan and Ancient Egyptian religions and you will understand.  The Council of Nicea was a real and documented event.

I find that many people who try to debunk this book are hard-core christians that will not even attempt to have an open mind.  (This is in no way an attempt to Bash the christian religion or any of its followers.)

[Shir Hashirim]

True, but one could say the same things about the other side.

[Parker]

I find that many people who try to debunk this book are hard-core christians that will not even attempt to have an open mind.

I went to a panel at the National Popular Culture Convention on this book two or three years ago.  The panel was comprised of well-respected grail scholars, and it pretty much boiled down to one thing: Da Vinci Code was poorly researched garbage.

I've read the book and enjoyed it, but only as popcorn fare.

[Spriggan]

I find that many people who try to debunk this book are hard-core christians that will not even attempt to have an open mind.  (This is in no way an attempt to Bash the Christian religion or any of its followers.)

I'm both a Christian and a student of history and while the Da Vinci Code is an interesting conspiracy theory its like any other conspiracy theory in that there's absolutely no evidence to support it.  Also another thing that goes to debunk it is that this "conspiracy" has only been around for about the last 20-30 years and wasn't one that was around at Da Vinci's time.

The thing about the book is it combines true events, Nicean Council, with fictional ones to try and make it more realistic.  Most Christians have heard of the Nicean Council so when they read that it subconsciously tells them that "oh this I know about so that other thing might be true too".  It's a fairly common trick in historical fiction.

[Connectz]

Not about to get into a debate about what is or isn't true in about the book.  You are free to believe whatever you please.

Have a good day.

[Lieutenant Kije]

** Lt. Kije sets this thread on fire and sneaks away grinning

[42]

The only thing I know about the Da Vinci Code is that the art history community is cringing over it. It simply teaches bad art history. It makes reference to portions of art works that don't exist and give bad interpretations of art works.

[Harbinger]

The only thing I know about the Da Vinci Code is that the art history community is cringing over it. It simply teaches bad art history. It makes reference to portions of art works that don't exist and give bad interpretations of art works.

Aha! Proof that you're reading TWG when you should be gaming!
Bad player! No cookie!  

[The Jade Knight]

My History emphasis is Western Medieval History.  I disliked the Da Vinci Code on several levels:
a) The plot and characterization are very poor, as has been discussed.
b) Many of the simple events in the book are clearly unresearched.  In fact, within the first chapter the killing that occured struck me as highly unrealistic.  (He died from a stomach wound how quickly, with very little blood loss?)
c)  The history is largely BS.  He took a few speculative theories or pseudohistorical works and ran with them, inventing or borrowing theories where history didn't fit his storyline well enough.  It scares me that so many Americans accept it as accurate.

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

/me throws diesel on as Kije sneaks out.