"The Da Vinci Code" Book Club

[sweetnpetite]

"undistinguished prose"

"It would be too easy to criticize him for characters thin as plastic wrap, undistinguished prose, and improbable action."

An interesting quote from the Catholic lady's critisism, the one that most makes me think she's just to biased and *blinded by her faith* to even know what she's talking about.

His prose is amazing- his characters are interesting, and of course the action is improbable- ever read a thriller that was likely to happen??? 2 Fast, 2 Furious- now that happens every day A is for Alibi, now that just happened to me yesterday, and don't get me started on 'the Cat Who Robbed a Bank."



"In the end, Dan Brown has penned a poorly written, atrociously researched mess"

I don't know what book she was reading, because his prose was flawless, and his use of suspense was an absolute *lesson* His words never drew attention to themselves away from the story, by being to flowery or too clumsy. And the codes are smart and challenging. I was just amazed by this book, as a reader and as a writer. I could see this woman having theological issues with the book, but to attack his skill is simply ludacris.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I also thought that the main character had some very good things to say about religion, including christianity. He was nicer, in fact than many would be..

 

[Megster]

Thanks sweetnpetite for the thread. I wasn't going to read "The Da Vinci Code", but looking forward to it now.

 

[sweetnpetite]

bump

I've got a link around here somewhere to a catholic review who liked the story but did point out some inacuracies. I appreciated her POV much more than that other chick's

 

[dee1124]

I also thought that the main character had some very good things to say about religion, including christianity. He was nicer, in fact than many would be..

There were a lot of interesting things said in the book about Christianity and religion, but can we please remember that it's a novel ? At Thanksgiving a friend spent a couple of hours extolling the book as if it were non-fiction. Admittedly we were all in our cups at the time, and I did read it immediately afterward and was impressed with Dan Brown's research and story-telling skills, but it's a novel.

You might also try Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, too, if you want more conspiracy-over-the-ages stuff.

Dee

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I just finished the book and

1. checked out online whether or not the website mentioned in the book (odan.org) existed (it does)...I then did a google search on "Opus Dei" and "ODAN" to see if it was a publicity stunt website (in the tradition of Rose Red)--it wasn't

2. Wrote an online review for amazon

3. Came here to see if there were already threads on it...


I started it last night and was up until 4am reading it. I then picked it up again tonight and finished it. What an amazing book...I definitely need to reread it.

I think it's fascinating how Brown managed to weave various points of view, blend fact and fiction, and throw in a good "what if" storyline. I loved his style of writing and will definitely check out his other work now.

The most legitimate claims he makes are...

1. History is written by the winners...and is therefore inherently biased. My first degree is in history, and it's fascinating to read the histories of those who didn't win...it really puts things into perspective. A great line from a recent musical "Where I come from, we believe all sorts of lies...we call it history."

2. That the Bible is an incomplete document, written by men, "not a fax direct from Heaven." Anyone who actually reads the Bible and pays attention will uncover the plethora of contradictions it holds. And when we accept that it was written by men (not man, singular) we must also accept that it contains their personal prejudices and the cultural biases of the time. That women are still second class citizens in the Church is a leftover cultural bias that is 3000 years old...wake up people (sorry...the last sentence is a soapbox of mine)

3. That Christianity blantantly and frequently stole from the pagan religions in order to make conversion an "easier" task. As a practicing pagan I could roll out a ton of those things in addition to some of what Brown mentioned, such as the tradition of a Christmas Tree or a Yule Log are both pagan traditions dating back millenia before Christianity was a notion in anyone's head.

I'm still digesting the book, but what would you like to discuss first, and should we put spoiler alerts on it?

 

[shereads]

This thread is now relevant because it's about a book I'm reading.



Discuss.

 

[Pure]

I have the book, as a gift, as was interested to see it's clearly labeled a novel. (as dee, as some, above, have stated)

This is striking in that several church groups have set up sites or written papers "refuting" it. I.e., saying "this did not happen."

Of course in many areas, one can't say 'this did not happen,' which is why there are several novels about Jesus sexual encounters and the outcomes. The churches' position about Jesus' habits being an inference from the *silence of the gospels and letters, on the topic.

Presumably this situation applies to good historical novels. Where something is NOT known (the records are silent), the author may invent; where something is known-- ie. that Caesar had a wife-- that fact is of course included in the novel, so it bears a relation to reality.

 

[shereads]

Love the premise, and it's genuinely entertaining. But I agree with the reviewers who find his prose style lacking. It doesn't much matter, though, because there's so much information here that I just never noticed. - the hand with the knife in the Last Supper, for one thing, and the mirror image of Jesus in the "John" figure; the uneven horizon lines behind the Mona Lisa. These are such iconic images that I've never looked at them with a critical eye, or had any interest in how heretical some of Da Vinci's ideas were - and how dangerous to express them in his art. I wish he had written some dirty stories!

 

[shereads]

He was a nylon fetishist, wasn't he?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I got to about page 70 and I quit. I didn't like it.

I still may finish it to see what all the fuss is about, but so far it looks to be just another scene-weaving thriller with impossible characters, ridiculous situations, and snatches of truly awful writing. ("Professor of Religious Symbology" indeed!) Worse, the author takes a very simplistic, freshman-lit level view of the interpretation of symbols, as if they can only mean one thing and one thing only, and some of his facts are just dead wrong.

That 3 million witches burned at the stake figure is just nonsense, just urban myth, and the idea that wicca represents a rebirth of an ancient pre-Christian goddess religion is also wrong. Wicca was cobbled together by an Englishman in the 1950's and given a false history to give it some legitimacy. It's no more ancient than Elvis.

Really, I'll take Le Carre any day.

---dr.M.

 

[CrazyyAngel]

I read it some weeks ago (along with the rest of his novels) and found it pretty good. Stunning story and he has you on the edge of your seat all book long. Unfortunately it is not easy to distinguish between fact and fiction, but interesting nonetheless.

The first book of him I read was "Angels and Demons" ... there I had the phenomena, that some of the suspense and supposed secrets were lost on me, cause I knew dozens of pages before he revealed it what was going to happen. Not so this time ... I thought I knew, but was wrong all the time (fortunately). But with some of the characters he messed just too much. All book long I was thinking about who could play that old English man as he was a really funny character ... with the revealing of the truth at the end he ruined this character completely.

The Story itself is quite intriguing, especially if some of it is at least half true ... like that the christian church turned a matriarchally oriented world into a partriarchally oriented (spelling?) and the thought about what the world would look like if this had not happend.

CA

 

[dr_mabeuse]

2. That the Bible is an incomplete document, written by men, "not a fax direct from Heaven." Anyone who actually reads the Bible and pays attention will uncover the plethora of contradictions it holds. And when we accept that it was written by men (not man, singular) we must also accept that it contains their personal prejudices and the cultural biases of the time. That women are still second class citizens in the Church is a leftover cultural bias that is 3000 years old...wake up people (sorry...the last sentence is a soapbox of mine)

Since about 1870, most scholars have believed that the Pentateuch was the product of 4 different authors: J (The Yahwist), E (The Elohist), D, (The Deuteronomist) and P (the Priestly) The division is based on close analysis of textual style and subject matter, as well as on the use of either the word YHVH for God (Yahwist) , or the Hebrew plural "Elohim", which means "Lords".

A few years ago a book appeared contending that one of these authors was a woman (I think it was E, but I might be wrong.) The pentateuch was probably put together about 4th or 5th century BCE by Jews in captivity trying to maintain their religious identity in Babylonia. The Jews have always been dedicated to reading and writing (it's a religious obligation that all boys be literate, and most Jews apply that to their daughters as well), and the idea of women authors back then is quite likely. There were women poets in Mesopotamia and Babylonia.

I can't remember the author's name (or the book's), but he's a well-known literary scholar, and while his thesis was rejected my most scholars on the basis of insufficient evidence, his argument was not rejected out of hand. It's entirely possible a woman had a hand in writing the first five books of the bible.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

or was the sadistic domme of the man who did.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yes, it is a novel. But it's a well researched one, and not everything in it is untrue. there actually is a LOT of 'non-fiction' within the novel. the novel itself is the story, and while there where a few liberties taken, it was mostly in assuming that certain acedemic and or conspiracy theories where true. The fact that the story is fiction proves neither that they are or that they aren't.

A lot of what is in the book is things that I knew from personal interest before I read the book. There actually where only a few suprises for me, yet I still enjoyed the book.

There is really no reason that a person couldn't 'believe' much of what they found there. Yes it's fiction, but no it's not fairy tale. It's not 'all made up' it's well researched and fairly accurate. (No scholarship is ever completely and undisputably accurate, it's quite a falsehood that we've been taught to believe that history is uncontroversial. Scholars often disagree from the largest to the smallest points)

Sweetly,

Sweet.

There were a lot of interesting things said in the book about Christianity and religion, but can we please remember that it's a novel ? At Thanksgiving a friend spent a couple of hours extolling the book as if it were non-fiction. Admittedly we were all in our cups at the time, and I did read it immediately afterward and was impressed with Dan Brown's research and story-telling skills, but it's a novel.

You might also try Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, too, if you want more conspiracy-over-the-ages stuff.

Dee

 

[sweetnpetite]

I got to about page 70 and I quit. I didn't like it.

I still may finish it to see what all the fuss is about, but so far it looks to be just another scene-weaving thriller with impossible characters, ridiculous situations, and snatches of truly awful writing. ("Professor of Religious Symbology" indeed!) Worse, the author takes a very simplistic, freshman-lit level view of the interpretation of symbols, as if they can only mean one thing and one thing only, and some of his facts are just dead wrong.

That 3 million witches burned at the stake figure is just nonsense, just urban myth, and the idea that wicca represents a rebirth of an ancient pre-Christian goddess religion is also wrong. Wicca was cobbled together by an Englishman in the 1950's and given a false history to give it some legitimacy. It's no more ancient than Elvis.

Really, I'll take Le Carre any day.

---dr.M.

Love ya, Doc but that last bit about Wicca isn't any more undesputed than any other part of history. There is certainly more than one point of view and more than one interpretation of just exactly what Wicca is, why and what it means.

Thanks.

 

[sweetnpetite]

To tell you the truth, I don't even know. It's been a while since I started this thread, and I couldn't wait to talk to somebody about it, and now it finally seems to be catching on.

Maybe we should so it on a chapter by chapter basis. Like discuss Ch 1-3, to start, post spoiler alerts if you are going to talk about any kind of forshadowing or whatnot but otherwise it could be assumed that we'll be 'spoiling' those chapters we are discussing.

Any opinions on this?


(I've been meaning to give the book a reread, lol)

I'm still digesting the book, but what would you like to discuss first, and should we put spoiler alerts on it?

 

[shereads]

I got to about page 70 and I quit. I didn't like it.

I still may finish it to see what all the fuss is about, but so far it looks to be just another scene-weaving thriller with impossible characters, ridiculous situations, and snatches of truly awful writing. ("Professor of Religious Symbology" indeed!) Worse, the author takes a very simplistic, freshman-lit level view of the interpretation of symbols, as if they can only mean one thing and one thing only, and some of his facts are just dead wrong.

That 3 million witches burned at the stake figure is just nonsense, just urban myth, and the idea that wicca represents a rebirth of an ancient pre-Christian goddess religion is also wrong. Wicca was cobbled together by an Englishman in the 1950's and given a false history to give it some legitimacy. It's no more ancient than Elvis.

Really, I'll take Le Carre any day.

---dr.M.

Don't make me turn you into a newt.

 

[shereads]

Since about 1870, most scholars have believed that the Pentateuch was the product of 4 different authors: J (The Yahwist), E (The Elohist), D, (The Deuteronomist) and P (the Priestly) The division is based on close analysis of textual style and subject matter, as well as on the use of either the word YHVH for God (Yahwist) , or the Hebrew plural "Elohim", which means "Lords".

A few years ago a book appeared contending that one of these authors was a woman (I think it was E, but I might be wrong.) The pentateuch was probably put together about 4th or 5th century BCE by Jews in captivity trying to maintain their religious identity in Babylonia. The Jews have always been dedicated to reading and writing (it's a religious obligation that all boys be literate, and most Jews apply that to their daughters as well), and the idea of women authors back then is quite likely. There were women poets in Mesopotamia and Babylonia.

I can't remember the author's name (or the book's), but he's a well-known literary scholar, and while his thesis was rejected my most scholars on the basis of insufficient evidence, his argument was not rejected out of hand. It's entirely possible a woman had a hand in writing the first five books of the bible.

---dr.M.

First, I have to admit I'm not reading the book. I'm hearing it. I bought it on audio for my long roundtrip drive to Sarasota last weekend, and still have about 1/3 to go. It's just the sort of entertainment I enjoy while driving. All plot, and no special turns of phrase that make me want to go back and re-read.

As a hell-bent unsaved ex-Southern Baptist, I'm constantly hungry for evidence that I'm not going to hell because i haven't pissed off God. It's why I loved Carl Sagan and why I read Stephen Hawking. And it must be why I'm so drawn to the premise of this book - and why, as soon as I got back to the computer, I started researching Leonardo DaVinci to see how much of Brown's information was factual.

Looking at the paintings that figure in the book, it does seem that DaVinci played symbolic tricks on the Church. Is that something that's common knowledge to art historians, who are saying, "Well, duh!" or am I just seeing what Brown told me to see? On his website he shows the two versions of Virgin of the Rocks (SEMI-SPOILER ALERT) and the Virgin Mary does have some malice in her posture in the first version, the one rejected by the convent that commissioned it. The knife-wielding hand in The Last Supper is something I never noticed, as I also never gave a thought to the way "John's" clothing and pose are a mirror image of Christ's. Peter does seem to be angry, and either threatening "John" or shoving him aside.

Are there art historians here who know other interpretations of the knife-hand and the John/Jesus mirror image, than the ones provided by Brown?

On Brown's site, he also shows the frame from Disney's "Little Mermaid" where she's admiring her painting of "The Penitant Magdalene." That's wierd, isn't it? I love this stuff!

 

[sweetnpetite]

First, I have to admit I'm not reading the book. I'm hearing it. I bought it on audio for my long roundtrip drive to Sarasota last weekend, and still have about 1/3 to go. It's just the sort of entertainment I enjoy while driving. All plot, and no special turns of phrase that make me want to go back and re-read.

As a hell-bent unsaved ex-Southern Baptist, I'm constantly hungry for evidence that I'm not going to hell because i haven't pissed off God. It's why I loved Carl Sagan and why I read Stephen Hawking. And it must be why I'm so drawn to the premise of this book - and why, as soon as I got back to the computer, I started researching Leonardo DaVinci to see how much of Brown's information was factual.

Looking at the paintings that figure in the book, it does seem that DaVinci played symbolic tricks on the Church. Is that something that's common knowledge to art historians, who are saying, "Well, duh!" or am I just seeing what Brown told me to see? On his website he shows the two versions of Virgin of the Rocks (SEMI-SPOILER ALERT) and the Virgin Mary does have some malice in her posture in the first version, the one rejected by the convent that commissioned it. The knife-wielding hand in The Last Supper is something I never noticed, as I also never gave a thought to the way "John's" clothing and pose are a mirror image of Christ's. Peter does seem to be angry, and either threatening "John" or shoving him aside.

Are there art historians here who know other interpretations of the knife-hand and the John/Jesus mirror image, than the ones provided by Brown?

On Brown's site, he also shows the frame from Disney's "Little Mermaid" where she's admiring her painting of "The Penitant Magdalene." That's wierd, isn't it? I love this stuff!

Me too

That's my favorite thing about the book, the ideas that it makes you want to go and check out for yourself. I found ONE book at my library about the golden mean and it's currently checked out. He even made me interested in math! Now that's something.

I do agree with one thing. He did rather over simplify symobols as if there meanings were set in stone and definatly always such and such. But if you continue to read, he also shows layers to the symbols and does hint that the meanings are deaper than what he portrays (but he must only portray what is pertinent to his plot- he can't teach us everything for pete's sake!)

People who expect this book to be the end all and be all of truth will obviously be disapointed. For people who want a jumping off point for some really interesting ideas, and mind opening perspectives (turing the accepted interpretation of things on it's ear) this book is a virtual playground.

I guess I just can't understand why anybody wouldn't like it. Perhaps they are prepared to be jaded because of all the hype. I am not certain. Maybe they just don't like that type of book. Maybe they do, and they have a higher standard than me. I was drawn in and I don't generally even pick up thrillers or mysteries.

As forest gump would say, "ANd that's all I have to say about that."

--for now.

 

[sweetnpetite]

the idea that wicca represents a rebirth of an ancient pre-Christian goddess religion is also wrong. Wicca was cobbled together by an Englishman in the 1950's and given a false history to give it some legitimacy. It's no more ancient than Elvis.



---dr.M.

A rebirth, doc. Not the continuation of. A new wave of an old idea. Even most every christian church will tell you 'there's nothing new about the so called new age.'

Defensively,

Sweet.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, he pisses me off. I don;t think it's very well-researched and I'm finding goofiness all over the place.

The council of Nicea did not sudenly decide to make Christ divine by popular vote. What they were debating was the nature of his divinity, whether he was both God and man or all God or all man. The first view won. The Dead Sea scrolls don't say anything about Jesus. The talk about the "Teacher of Righteousness" who's generally accepted to be the Jewish Messiah. Christ was rejected by the Jews as their messiah. As far as I can tell, there are no such things as the "Coptic Gospels". There are Gnostic gospels and there's a Coptic church, but I've never heard of any Coptic Gospels. I suspect he just made that up out of whole cloth.

I don't know if Mary Magdelene was descended from the house of Benjamin or not but it makes no difference, because all Jews are descended from one or another of the twelve tribes (of which Benjamin is one). That doesn't make her royalty any more than it makes me or Adam Sandler royalty. I doubt very much that she fled Israel and lived with the Jews in France because there weren't any Jews in France at the time.

Amon wasn't the Egyptian God of fertility; he was the "hidden one", the God behind all other Gods, and Isis wasn't the goddess of fertility, she was a goddess of resurrection. In any case, Da Vinci had no way of knowing their names so he couldn't have used any sort of anagram of their names for the Mona Lisa. As I understand it, "fleur de lis" is a modern spelling of "fleur de lille" which is archaic french for "lilly flower" and has nothing to do with the Mona Lisa.

Pentacles aren't the tarot symbol for the female principle. Cups are the female suit. Pentacles represent wealth and eathly pleasure and the element of earth. (Cups represent water).

The idea tha the early church made a conscious decision to just steal all the pagans' symbols is just silly. Religions advance through a process of syncretism, where the iconography of one is naturally assimilated by the new one. There's nothing especially evil or intentional about it, it's just how it happens.

If you like wild conspiracy theories, read the "The Illumanatti" trilogy. If you like clever conspiracy theories about Christianity, read Tom Robbins' "Another Roadside Attraction" where the Vatican keeps the body of Christ locked away in the basement. If you want to know something worth knowing about real religious and magical iconography, try Campbell's "The Masks of God" of Crowley's "Book of Thoth", and if you want to know something about early Christianity, I'd recommend Vardis Fisher's "Jesus Came Again", which is probably hard to find but well worth it.

It just pisses me off because all this stuff is fascinating in its own right: the history of the early church, religious iconography, magical correspondences, the development of the biblical canon. I just don't understand why people have to wait till some guy comes along and gets it all wrong in a book before they start paying attention to it. Like they say: the truth is already out there, and it's pretty fantastic on its own. Don't get your philosophy from a pot-boiler. It's like learning your morals from a pop song.

---dr.M.

I'm willing to debate on any of these points. Also on the fact that Sophie's black light wouldn't have been visible in the museum. UV light is invisible unless you're a honey bee. And blood does not glow under UV light.

Edited to add: Okay, I just googled on the Coptic Gospels and there are such things, and apparently they purport to tell Mary Magdelene's side of things. So I take that back.

 

[sweetnpetite]

FAQ -from Dan Brown's Web Site

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 Louvre pyramid, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpretted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that the theories discussed by these characters 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.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF CLERICAL SCHOLARS ATTEMPTING TO "DISPROVE" THE DA VINCI CODE?
The dialogue is wonderful. These authors and I obviously disagree, but the debate that is being generated is a positive powerful force. The more vigorously we debate these topics, the better our understanding of our own spirituality. Controversy and dialogue are healthy for religion as a whole. Religion has only one true enemy--apathy--and passionate debate is a superb antidote.

SOME OF THE HISTORY IN THIS NOVEL CONTRADICTS WHAT I LEARNED IN SCHOOL. WHAT SHOULD I BELIEVE?
Since the beginning of recorded time, history has been written by the "winners" (those societies and belief systems that conquered and survived). Despite an obvious bias in this accounting method, we still measure the "historical accuracy" of a given concept by examining how well it concurs with our existing historical record. Many historians now believe (as do I) that in gauging the historical accuracy of a given concept, we should first ask ourselves a far deeper question: How historically accurate is history itself?

ARE YOU SURPRISED BY THE BOOK'S SUCCESS?
Stunned. I worked very hard on this novel, and I certainly expected people would enjoy it, but I never imagined so many people would be enjoying it this much. I wrote this book essentially as a group of fictional characters exploring ideas that I found personally intriguing. These same themes obviously resonate with a great many people.

ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as immutable historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.

THIS NOVEL IS VERY EMPOWERING TO WOMEN. CAN YOU COMMENT?
Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred…and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future.

PARTS OF THE DA VINCI CODE DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RELIGIOUS GROUP OPUS DEI. HOW DOES OPUS DEI FEEL ABOUT YOUR NOVEL?
I worked very hard to create a fair and balanced depiction of Opus Dei. Even so, there may be those who are offended by the portrayal. While Opus Dei is a very positive force in the lives of many people, for others, affiliation with Opus Dei has been a profoundly negative experience. Their portrayal in the novel is based on more than a dozen books written about Opus Dei as well as on my own personal interviews with current and former members.

THE COVER OF YOUR BOOK MENTIONS "THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY OF THE PAST 2000 YEARS." WHAT IS THIS CONSPIRACY?
Revealing that secret would rob readers of all the fun, but I will say that it relates to one of the most famous histories of all time…a legend familiar to all of us. Rumors of this conspiracy have been whispered for centuries in countless languages, including the languages of art, music, and literature. Some of the most dramatic evidence can be found in the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci, which seem to overflow with mystifying symbolism, anomalies, and codes. Art historians agree that Da Vinci's paintings contain hidden levels of meaning that go well beneath the surface of the paint. Many scholars believe his work intentionally provides clues to a powerful secret…a secret that remains protected to this day by a clandestine brotherhood of which Da Vinci was a member.


WHERE DID YOU GET THE IDEA FOR THE DA VINCI CODE?
This particular story kept knocking on my door until I answered. I first learned of the mysteries hidden in Da Vinci's paintings while I was studying art history at the University of Seville in Spain. Years later, while researching Angels & Demons and the Vatican Secret Archives, I encountered the Da Vinci enigma yet again. I arranged a trip to the Louvre Museum where I was fortunate enough to view the originals of some of Da Vinci's most famous works as well as discuss them with an art historian who helped me better understand the mystery behind their surprising anomalies. From then on, I was captivated. I spent a year doing research before writing The Da Vinci Code.

HOW DID YOU GET ALL THE INSIDE INFORMATION FOR THIS BOOK?
Most of the information is not as "inside" as it seems. The secret described in the novel has been chronicled for centuries, so there are thousands of sources to draw from. In addition, I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me. One academic told me her enthusiasm for The Da Vinci Code was based in part on her hope that "this ancient mystery would be unveiled to a wider audience."

YOU SEEM TO HAVE A FASCINATION WITH SECRET SOCIETIES? CAN YOU COMMENT?
My interest in secret societies is the product of many experiences, some I can discuss, others I cannot. Certainly my research of organizations like NSA, the Vatican, NRO, and Opus Dei continues to fuel my intrigue. At a more fundamental level, though, my interest sparks from growing up in New England, surrounded by the clandestine clubs of Ivy League universities, the Masonic lodges of our Founding Fathers, and the hidden hallways of early government power. New England has a long tradition of elite private clubs, fraternities, and secrecy. On that theme, the next Robert Langdon novel (already in progress) is set deep within the oldest fraternity in history…the enigmatic brotherhood of the Masons.

THE TOPIC OF THIS NOVEL MIGHT BE CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL. DO YOU FEAR REPERCUSSIONS?
I can't imagine why. As I mentioned earlier, the theory I reveal is one that has been whispered for centuries. It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time the theory has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new. My sincere hope is that The Da Vinci Code, in addition to entertaining people, will serve as an open door for readers to begin their own explorations.

HAS ANYONE IN ORGANIZED RELIGION COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF YOUR NOVEL?
Yes, many people in organized religion have come out in support of this novel, and, of course, many have come out in opposition as well. The opposition generally comes from the strictest Christian thinkers who feel the idea of a "married Jesus" serves to undermine His divinity. While I don't agree with this interpretation, this is immaterial because the dialogue itself is a deeply empowering and positive force for everyone involved. Suddenly, enormous numbers of people are passionately debating important philosophical topics, and regardless of the personal conclusions that each of us draws, the debate can only help to strengthen our understanding of our own faith. Much of the positive response I get from within organized religion comes from nuns (who write to thank me for pointing out that they have sacrificed their entire lives to the Church and are still considered "unfit" to serve behind the altar). I have also heard from hundreds of enthusiastic priests. While many of them disagree with some of the ideas in the novel, they are thrilled that their parishioners are eager to discuss religion. Father John Sewell of St. John's Episcopal Church in Memphis stated it particularly eloquently in the press recently, saying: "This [novel] is not a threat. This is an opportunity. We are called to creatively engage the culture and this is what I want to do. I think Dan Brown has done me a favor. He's letting me talk about things that matter."

WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Hardly. I'm quite the opposite, in fact--more of a skeptic. I see no truth whatsoever in stories of extraterrestrial visitors, crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle, or many of the other "mysteries" that permeate pop culture. However, the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss.

HOW DO YOU WEAVE SO MUCH INFORMATION INTO YOUR STORIES AND YET KEEP THEM SO FAST-PACED?
Writing an informative yet compact thriller is a lot like making maple sugar candy. You have to tap hundreds of trees…boil vats and vats of raw sap…evaporate the water…and keep boiling until you've distilled a tiny nugget that encapsulates the essence. Of course, this requires liberal use of the DELETE key. In many ways, editing yourself is the most important part of being a novelist…carving away superfluous text until your story stands crystal clear before your reader. For every page in The Da Vinci Code, I wrote ten that ended up in the trash.

CAN YOU SYNOPSIZE THE PLOT FOR US?
Sure. A renowned Harvard symbologist is summoned to the Louvre Museum to examine a series of cryptic symbols relating to Da Vinci's artwork. In decrypting the code, he uncovers the key to one of the greatest mysteries of all time…and he becomes a hunted man.

WHO ARE YOUR FAVORITE WRITERS?
John Steinbeck for his descriptions…Robert Ludlum for his plotting…and Shakespeare for his wordplay.

RUMOR HAS IT THAT YOUR DAILY WRITING RITUAL INCLUDES SOME STRANGE PRACTICES. IS THAT TRUE?
Well, I suppose that depends on what you consider strange. I do write exceptionally early in the morning. If I'm not at my desk by 4:00 A.M., I feel like I'm missing my most productive hours. In addition to starting early, I keep an antique hour glass on my desk and every hour break briefly to do pushups, sit-ups, and some quick stretches. I find this helps keep the blood (and ideas) flowing. I'm also a big fan of gravity boots. Hanging upside down seems to help me solve plot challenges by shifting my entire perspective. Okay, I guess all this does sound a little strange.

WHEN IS YOUR NEXT NOVEL COMING OUT?
Because my novels are so research-intensive, they take a couple of years to write. My next novel will be another Robert Langdon adventure (picking up, in fact, where The Da Vinci Code left off), and it is tentatively slated for release in summer 2005.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I can't cover everything tonight, but here are a few things.

The council of Nicea did not sudenly decide to make Christ divine by popular vote. What they were debating was the nature of his divinity, whether he was both God and man or all God or all man. The first view won.

Isn't this just another (more or less reverant) way of saying the same thing?

The Dead Sea scrolls don't say anything about Jesus. The talk about the "Teacher of Righteousness" who's generally accepted to be the Jewish Messiah. Christ was rejected by the Jews as their messiah.

That may be so, but from a christian perspective, that would have been taken to mean jesus. beyond that, I'm not exactly sure what you meant by this beyond that. The book is writen from a christian perspective, rather than a jewish one, and *some* jews accepted Jesus as the Masiah (ie, some but not all of his disciples were jewish and his mother was jewish)

The Coptic Gospels, I believe were writen in the Coptic language. They are: The Gospel of Phillip, The Gospel of Thomas and THe Gospel of Truth. http://www.metalog.org/ (just one site of many)

The book always claims that cups are the feminine symbol. It's basicly the premis of the whole book! The tarot has 4 suits. 2 of them are feminine and two of them are masculine. ththey are wands (or staffs), swords, cups, and pentacles. Which two do you think are masculine? Beyond the feminine and masculine aspects they each have there own meaning/s.

Gods and goddesses too have more than one correspondence.

It seems like you've got some misinformation about what is actually in the book. As to the symbols, he goes a little deeper later, but only as far as what is pertinant to the story. However, he does show many layers to the symbolism. You've got to give him a little poetic liscence as far as that aspect goes.

Why couldn't Da Vinci have known about egyptian gods and goddesses? I don't understand that one?

Lastly, many members of organized religion have praised his research and sholarship. I'll try to find some examples. This is from his site:

HAS ANYONE IN ORGANIZED RELIGION COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF YOUR NOVEL?
Yes, many people in organized religion have come out in support of this novel, and, of course, many have come out in opposition as well. The opposition generally comes from the strictest Christian thinkers who feel the idea of a "married Jesus" serves to undermine His divinity. While I don't agree with this interpretation, this is immaterial because the dialogue itself is a deeply empowering and positive force for everyone involved. Suddenly, enormous numbers of people are passionately debating important philosophical topics, and regardless of the personal conclusions that each of us draws, the debate can only help to strengthen our understanding of our own faith. Much of the positive response I get from within organized religion comes from nuns (who write to thank me for pointing out that they have sacrificed their entire lives to the Church and are still considered "unfit" to serve behind the altar). I have also heard from hundreds of enthusiastic priests. While many of them disagree with some of the ideas in the novel, they are thrilled that their parishioners are eager to discuss religion. Father John Sewell of St. John's Episcopal Church in Memphis stated it particularly eloquently in the press recently, saying: "This [novel] is not a threat. This is an opportunity. We are called to creatively engage the culture and this is what I want to do. I think Dan Brown has done me a favor. He's letting me talk about things that matter."


Finally,

I was interested in most of these topics way before the book came out and already knew many of the things that it 'reaveals.' And not just from one wacky website, but from my very extensive reading both online and off.

 

[sweetnpetite]

SPOILERS!!!! Some questions from Dan Browns Site.

Book Group Questions
THE DA VINCI CODE

1. A number of characters in this novel could be considered "villains." What motivates each of these individuals? What role do misguided passions play in their actions?


2. As a symbologist, Robert Langdon has a wealth of academic knowledge that helps him view the world in a unique way. Now that you've read The Da Vinci Code, are there any aspects of life/history/faith that you see in a different light?


3. Langdon and Teabing disagree as to whether the Sangreal documents should be released to the world. If you were the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, would you release the documents? If so, what do you think their effect would be?


4. What observations does this novel make about our past? How do these ideas relate to our future?


5. Other than his fear of being framed for murder, what motivates Langdon to follow this perilous quest? Do his motivations change?


6. The novel's "quest" involves numerous puzzles and codes. Did you enjoy trying to solve these puzzles along with the characters? Did you solve any of the puzzles before the characters did?


7. If you could spend a day in any of the places described in this novel, where would it be, and why? The Louvre? Westminster Abbey? Rosslyn Chapel? The Temple Church? Somewhere else?


8. Historian Leigh Teabing claims that the founding fathers of Christianity hijacked the good name of Jesus for political reasons. Do you agree? Does the historical evidence support Teabing's claim?


9. Has this book changed your ideas about faith, religion, or history in any way?


10. Our views on sexuality have changed dramatically since pagan times. Do you think our ideas have changed for the better or worse?


11. Saunière placed a lot of confidence in Langdon. Was this confidence well-placed? What other options might Saunière have had? Did Saunière make the right decision separating Sophie from the rest of her family?


12. Do you imagine Langdon should forgive Teabing for his misguided actions? On the other hand, do you think Teabing should forgive Langdon for refusing to release the Sangreal documents?


13. Does the world have a right to know all aspects of its history, or can an argument be made for keeping certain information secret?


14. Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?


15. What is interesting about the way this story is told? How are the episodes of the novel arranged and linked? In your discussion, you might want to identify where the turning points in the action are where those moments are after which everything is different. Did you anticipate them?


16. What is the novel's theme? What central message or idea links all the other components of the novel together?


17. For most people, the word "God" feels holy, while the word "Goddess" feels mythical. What are your thoughts on this? Do you imagine those perceptions will ever change?


18. Will you look at the artwork of Da Vinci any differently now that you know more about his "secret life?"

What I would like to do is pick one of these to discuss for a while, rather than simply trying to answer them all at once. For now, just look them over.