DaVinci Code

[Fellfrosch]

I'm glad we have akeyata around to fly off the handle at every little thing. It makes our discussions so much more lively.

I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the book, and if the movie's plot is at all similar I think the review was actually quite forgiving of its underlying stupidity. It was certainly a fun story, but utterly ridiculous on virtually every level.

[darkjetti81]

I find it interesting how many people are only too happy to jump at critisizing Dan Brown for Davinci Code.  

It may have been written at the 7th grade reading level, but that's describing *every* work with the expectation of selling to the American Masses today.  

Afterall, it says New York Times #1 best *Seller*, not best *writer*.  

It is about time we had a new author with the balls to offend a complacent religious society.  A society that blames all their problems and mistakes on a God that expressly granted free-will, which therefore places you fully responsible.  

We are condemned to existance and responsibility, and everytime someone points that out we rise up in protest!   Why, because it's embarrasing to think that we might have misunderstood our own moral code.  We don't take the time to think for ourselves, or reflect upon our beliefs.

Most people accept what the media/society tell them.  Why?  Because it's easy.  It requires no thought.  We tend not to do any research in order to confirm truth about what we have been told to accept.

What really bothers me though, is how people without even reading the book from front to back *know* absolutely that the book is about crushing religious belief or defeating the Vatican.  That simply is not true.  It is a fiction expressly intended to provoke discussion about faith and the exceptions we make in the face of dogma.

We shouldn't judge what we haven't saught to understand.  (For lack of a better expression.)    

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

Preface to my post: I've not read nor seen the Da Vinci Code. Nor do I have any intention of ever doing so. It hardly seems like my cup of tea.

ok, random points:

-I find it funny that Jetti thinks it's a new or gutsy thing to do something religiously offensive (whether DVC is or not). Because, seriously, I see that all the time. If you think this is new, you must be living under a rock.

-the "truth" of DVC. He claims the history in it is true. That's inarguable. The claim is in print is at the beginning. However, his history, as far as I can tell, seems to be the sort of stuff that only fringe whacko historians even consider. No historian in their right mind can swallow that stuff whole. His numbers are off, and most of the rest of it is sketchy conjecture.

-"offense" at DVC. This is for the petty and the jealous. So a bad writer made a lot of money. Even taking that as a given (again, I haven't read it, so I can only say that the most rational arguments I've heard about the book convince me that he is. However, I don't know) it's a sign of small character to be angry about it. Which apparently, 90% of Arthurnet is. I wonder why these people don't spend more time doing their research. Oh yeah, it's because arguing about obscure etymologies and whining about how someone who writes fiction is making more money than those who just analyze it is more fun... or something.

In the end, it's just a book, and a movie. One that has made a man very rich. I'm sure that gives him an ego boost. I don't particularly care. There are bigger egos on wealthier people that have earned neither their accolades or their money. If you want to go on a crusade, pick on one of them. By discussing it in earnest, you're contributing and encouraging the very culture that has created the thing you vilify. If Dan Brown bothers you, the best thing you can do to stop him is shut up about him. If you like Dan Brown, carry on.

[42]

Point 3--this is a minor irritation to be sure, but an irritation nevertheless.  Sir Ian McKellan has done so much more with his life than one insignificant trilogy, it seems slightly off-putting to pidgeon-hole him that way.

Wrong, we also pigeon-hole him as Magneto. So that's two "insignificant" trilogies. And by insignificant I assume you mean highly relevent and forever altering popular culture.

[Spriggan]

Let's not forget the only physical document that suggests what the Code says is a hoax a really rich, and board, Frenchman made in the 60s and then gave to the French National archives.  He admitted about 10 years latter that it was a hoax, this document was the first ever recorded instance of a group of people set up to keep the secret of the "grail" and is where DaVinci fits into all this since his name was on it.

My problem with this book, and I haven't read it either, is that Brown takes every chance he gets to push it as history when in fact it's not.  He's being dishonest to sell books and a lot of Americans and Europeans are gullible enough to believe him.

[Akeyata]

actually, the history is, unfortunately, fact.  yes, the idea that mary magdalene is the "grail" is a theory, but the story of the Knights Templar, the meetings to decide the fate of christianity, etc, is all true.  That is history, as any history professor will tell you.  What the Templars actually did, what they were looking for and what they found is complete conjecture, but the fact remains that they went to jerusalem incredibly poor, they dug around for a long time, and then suddenly went back to Rome with untold wealth and power.  For all we know they simply found a lot of money that the Jews tried to hide from the crusaders.  Basically, the search for the grail, where it is and what it is is certainly a "fringe" study, but the history that is stated in the book as actual history is, history.  Look it up.

I called it an irrelevant trilogy based on the rest of his body of work.  

[Akeyata]

My problem with this book, and I haven't read it either, is that Brown takes every chance he gets to push it as history when in fact it's not.  He's being dishonest to sell books and a lot of Americans and Europeans are gullible enough to believe him.

It's a book.  Better yet, it's a NOVEL.  it's not supposed to be truth.  what he says at the beginning of the book clarifies very well what in the book is fact and leaves the rest up to you.  if the entire thing was supposed to be true it wouldn't be a novel.

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

actually, the history is, unfortunately, fact.  yes, the idea that mary magdalene is the "grail" is a theory, but the story of the Knights Templar, the meetings to decide the fate of christianity, etc, is all true.  That is history, as any history professor will tell you.  What the Templars actually did, what they were looking for and what they found is complete conjecture, but the fact remains that they went to jerusalem incredibly poor, they dug around for a long time, and then suddenly went back to Rome with untold wealth and power.  For all we know they simply found a lot of money that the Jews tried to hide from the crusaders.  Basically, the search for the grail, where it is and what it is is certainly a "fringe" study, but the history that is stated in the book as actual history is, history.  Look it up.

I called it an irrelevant trilogy based on the rest of his body of work.  

*sigh*
I really shouldn't argue with you, but I'm of weak will when I come to this sort of thing.

You think that's all the history in the book? What about the "facts" about the Catholic church that are in no way relevant to actual records? Have you *read* Holy Blood, Holy Grail? It's the book Brown says he got his history from. This book is considered, at best, "Dodgy" by any respected historian. Most of them will tell you it's outright trash. Dan Brown's claims about history go *far* beyond the mere existence of the Knights Templar. If you think that's the only "history" he claimed to use, then no wonder you think it's solid.

And you didn't say "irrelevant," you said "insignificant." How you can justify that as a logical statement makes no sense. Yes, he's done a lot more, but arguing that LotR was either irrelevant OR insignificant to his career is at best uninformed. Yes, he's done much, much, more. He's not just gandalf. He's a great actor independent of that, but it sounds like you're just taking offense at a single joke line to try and show how much you know.

[House of Mustard]

Akeyata, regarding your points:

Point 1:  Yes, it's fiction.  But since when did being fiction make something inoffensive?  So we can belittle any group, person or idea, and as long as we do it in a fiction format, no one can be offended?

But more importantly, did you read the review, or are you just assuming that everyone who dislikes the movie dislikes it for the same reasons?  The review specifically states that the reviewers were "bordering on getting offended" "until Hanks delivered a monolgue that assuaged some of our fears."  In other words, they weren't offended, so your first point is moot.  (Incidentally, did you read the line in last paragraph that says: "So in the end, it's not a matter of being offended. It's not worth getting offended over."?)

Point 2:  I won't try to defend another writer's word choice, but when no other academic religious symbologists back up Brown's ideas, it's hard to believe that Langdon is a Harvard Professor.  Most of his symbology and history comes from conspiracy nut books, rather than art historians.  I think that fits the phrase "cockamamie".

Point 3:  I have no complaints with this point.

Point 4:  I agree that the book was not meant to be an adventure story, but the movie is marketed that way, and I think that's its real downfall.  They don't market it as a movie about ideas and history lectures -- they market it as a great conspiracy thriller, with car chases and fight scenes.  If the movie doesn't do what the ads say it will, can you blame reviewers for thinking the movie failed?

Point 5:  You say: "the only reason I can see is that this movie offends the unthinking christian."  Way to jump to crazy conclusions.  I can see why half-arsed history and manipulated facts appeal to you so much.

Point 6:  I admit to having no knowledge of ancient grail mythology.  However, you say that the movie might be requiring us to do our homework.  Considering that every time anyone researches any of Brown's "facts", they come up with a whole lot of smoke and mirrors, I don't think Brown really wants us to do any homework.  On the contrary, 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.

[Skar]

I say unthinking because, either you didn't realize that this story offended you and thusly avoided it (an opinion I greatly support), or you had no idea that the historical events mentioned actually took place and are therefore presented with new information to shake your faith.

This amuses me but saddens me at the same time.  That anyone could think that the pivotal events described in the story actually took place because "Dan Brown" said they did is typical of exactly what is wrong with our society.  Gullibility.  It's the same problem on both sides of the argument.

Position 1: "What Dan Brown said is true and therefore the major Christian religions have been deceiving the masses for millenia in a malicious attempt to degrade women." Gullible.  The work is internally inconsistent, deliberately controversial fiction. Why the big hullabaloo?

Position 2: "This book is a pack of malicious lies and damaging to Christian religions everywhere."  Gullible.  The work is internally inconsistent, deliberately controversial fiction. Why the big hullabaloo? (since when was your faith based on whether or not fictional works agreed with you?)

Most people accept what the media/society tell them.  Why?  Because it's easy.  It requires no thought.  We tend not to do any research in order to confirm truth about what we have been told to accept.

You do realize, of course, that you're doing exactly what you describe here with the DaVinci Code, yes? I find it deliciously amusing that you would condemn others for blindly believing what media and society tell them because they doubt the veracity of a movie/novel you agree with.  Who's believing what after all?

Akeyata said:

actually, the history is, unfortunately, ... actual history is, history.  Look it up.

Yes, the things you cite as fact are fact.  But they are not what anyone is getting offended over.  The things you admit are conjecture: Mary Magdalene as the grail, what the Templars found in Jerusalem, etc... are what people are upset over.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's as silly as you do to get offended or lose your faith over a mediocre thriller novel but your claim that "unthinking" christians are getting upset over "facts" is silly when the things they're getting upset over are, by your own definition, NOT facts.

[Akeyata]

I think we're getting confused here.  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 was merely pointing out that the facts stated as facts are facts.  what you make of them is your business.

I'm not sure to whom your point 2 was directed, but I never said anything like that so I can't really reply.

as far as Blindly believing, I am not blindly believing anything.  I have actually read the book and seen the movie (unlike many who have posted here), better yet, I have researched many of the historical points myself.  I have found that the basic facts are generally held to be basic facts, and what Dan Brown did in the way of coloring the theories to make it a good read is exactly that.  

Perhaps I am confused by what people are getting offended over.  I would assume that the most "offensive" thing in the book would be the meeting to "decide Christ's divinity".  since that is presented as actual historical fact.  (which it is, but I am NOT going to get into that one no matter what you say).  If people are getting offended by a novel that suggests that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife and they had a child, then, I would have to say that there are a lot of things in life that are different from one's personal faith, and if something as insignificant as a novel turned movie can irritate you to the point of offense, you are putting way too much thought into it.  If you know that you won't like it, don't read it.  Don't see it.  But don't rail against something simply because you don't believe in the theology.  

[Spriggan]

actually, the history is, unfortunately, fact.  yes, the idea that mary magdalene is the "grail" is a theory, but the story of the Knights Templar, the meetings to decide the fate of christianity, etc, is all true.  That is history, as any history professor will tell you.  What the Templars actually did, what they were looking for and what they found is complete conjecture, but the fact remains that they went to jerusalem incredibly poor, they dug around for a long time, and then suddenly went back to Rome with untold wealth and power.  For all we know they simply found a lot of money that the Jews tried to hide from the crusaders.  Basically, the search for the grail, where it is and what it is is certainly a "fringe" study, but the history that is stated in the book as actual history is, history.  Look it up.

I called it an irrelevant trilogy based on the rest of his body of work.  

The reason they "came back" with untold riches is that the Templars became a fad with nobility in Europe and to join them you had to give them all your wealth.  So they did in fact become very rich, but it wasn't because they found lots of treasure (heck these were the guys that spend a year just fighting for a piece of wood they thought was part of Christ's Cross) but because of donations from the powerful that wanted in.  That's also the reason the French king had them hunted down, they had more influence with French nobility then he did.  The only people who don't believe this are in league with the shape-shifting-Nazi-reptiles.

[House of Mustard]

I have researched many of the historical points myself.

I call bull.

[Akeyata]

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.

[Akeyata]

I call bull.

you would