"The Da Vinci Code" Book Club

[dr_mabeuse]

Christ on a crutch, SnP! Take a pill or something! It's only a book, and a pretty silly one at that.

I pretty much agree with that first reviewer you cited. Brown is no scholar, and the book is loaded with errors and inaccuracies. It's fun, but you make a big mistake if you take it seriously.

---dr.M.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Christ on a crutch, SnP! Take a pill or something! It's only a book, and a pretty silly one at that.

I pretty much agree with that first reviewer you cited. Brown is no scholar, and the book is loaded with errors and inaccuracies. It's fun, but you make a big mistake if you take it seriously.

---dr.M.

What I take seriously, is the fact that this book *is* well researched and has been purposly besmirched and discredited.

Yes, some of it is speculative, rather than documented history. To expect otherwise is to entirely miss the point. the book is not loaded with errors and inacuracies, it contains speculation and judicious use of poetic liscence.

For the record, I am a goddess pagan. I don't take the book as some kind of alternative bible, but I know from my own studies that much of what he says is in fact, quite accurate. Maybe there *is* nothing particularly special about the star w/in the apple in scientific terms, but the symbolism is there for those who wish to see it. Maybe the apple wasn't the 'fruit' in the garden, but it is generally regarded as such. In symbolic terms, the apple still represents love, eden, eve, sin, lust, ect, ect. I'm tired or I'd go into this a bit more. (Isn't there a lit poster names bitmore?)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz



. ps. if you read between the lines, the reviews are saying that his research, his information is not true, from a biblical perspective. That is their ultimate measure of truth, and there is no way that a book such as the Da Vinci code could stand up to that measure.

I don't take the book as some kind of alternative bible, but if I were to read the bible itself with the same frame of mind, I would find a book loaded with errors and inacuracies as well. Perhaps I would decide that it was just a silly potboiler, kind of fun but not to be taken seriously. (I mean really, a man lives inside the belly of a huge wale? Walls fall down at the sound of trumpets? Seas part? Bushes burn without being consumed? Beasts with crowns rise out of the sea? A man walks on top of the water? A woman turns into a pillar of salt?-- Where is your proof? Your evidence, your credible sourses?)

The same people who are blasting this book for poor scholarship take the bible as the infalable irrifutable word of god. That says something to me. I haven't seen any secular sourses trying so hard to refute the book. Surely secular historians are interested in the truth? At least these sourses, should they be found, are something I could take seriously. But as the Catholic reactionary response says, 'consider his souces' I will have to say the same in regard to them. I do not consider someone who feels they must defend their religion, to be a good source on the accuracy of his research, sources or speculations.

It takes as much blind faith to believe the Catholic interpretation of why the book is so wrong (if not more) as it does to believe the Dan Brown interpretation of his research and imagination.

 

[sweetnpetite]

There is a lot of thoughtful, well-researched material available on this topic, and on the question of how individuals, from the very beginning, used objective criteria to assess which writings represented the true history and teaching of Jesus. The short classic New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, by F.F. Bruce, Christ and the Bible, by John Wenham, and The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures, by R. Laird Harris, are good places to begin.


I'll have to check these out sometime.

 

[sweetnpetite]

And yet, all of this is built on fabrication. What an ironic way to end a book that employs the reputation of brilliant men such as Leonardo da Vinci to help make its case that historic Christianity is an inhumane pack of falsehoods foisted upon an ignorant public by a male-dominated status quo. And then the male lead character is on his knees in reverence before the bones of a mere mortal woman who was, by the book’s definition, the wife of a mere mortal himself. If all faiths are built on fabrications, is the book not also saying that the faith it sets forth in the sacred feminine is also, by definition, built on fabrications? Of course it is. And so now we are at a point where the book’s own definition of faith gives a convenient rationale for the concern that many of the “facts” the book marshals against Christianity may not be facts at all.

What began with the murder of man in the name of patriarchy ends with the intellectual suicide of a man in the name of matriarchy. One begins to see a better explanation of why Christianity triumphed over paganism.


I will comment on this more after I get some sleep, but wow, the aragant condescending tone of the last paragraph. Beautiful, brilliant.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There is a lot of thoughtful, well-researched material available on this topic, and on the question of how individuals, from the very beginning, used objective criteria to assess which writings represented the true history and teaching of Jesus. The short classic New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, by F.F. Bruce, Christ and the Bible, by John Wenham, and The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures, by R. Laird Harris, are good places to begin.


I'll have to check these out sometime.

You should really check them out now. There have been hundreds if not thousands of people who have literally devoted their entire lives to understanding the meaning and veracity of the gospels, who did so out of a real compulsion to know the truth as best they could, and have done it with scholarship that makes Brown seem like a piker. I doubt Brown has had access to the source documents, or has spent more than a few years in his 'research', or can even read demotic Greek or Aramiac.

There are rules for doing and presenting historical research. They used to teach them in high school and college. I don't know if they do anymore. But the most basic thing they taught was that, if you want to be taken seriously at all, your give references for all your sources and soruce documents so your critics can go to these sources and check on what you say. (Even the Vardis Fisher Testament of Man[.I] books, which were popular histories of religion and culture, had pages and pages of notes and references.) Brown has none of these, and for good reason. His sources are other popular conspiracy books which no one really takes seriously.

Yes there are correspondences and hidden messages in art and architecture, but that's nothing new. Anyone who's studies occult stuff can fill you in on what Brown call 'symbology' and probably give you a broader view than he does. He picks and chooses and interprets his information in a very narrow way that serves his purposes, and he's often flat out wrong.

Case in point: the Star of David, which Brown considers to be an ancient sign of Jewry. The Star of David didn't become an exclusively Jewish symbol until the advent of Zionism in the 19th century. Before that, the seven branched candlestick called the Menorah was the most common symbol for Judaism. That doesn't fit so well into his book, though, so he ignores it.

There are people who take the vistory and nature of religion very seriously, a lot more seriously than Brown, who is, after all, a popular novelist and not a biblical scholar or historian of religion, and they are pissed at this book, when they pay it any attention at all. It's probably not so much the book that they're angry with, but the people who look upon this stuff as some sort of legitimate history. It's really not. It's a novel.

I'm not saying that this couldn't be true or that he's a flat out liar, and I don't think anyone is. But his material is just not presented in a way that any scholar can take seriously. As a piece of scholarship it would be rejected even as a high school term paper. But that's okay, because it's not intended to be scholarship. It's intended to be popular fiction.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

There are rules for doing and presenting historical research.

You sound strict.

 

[shereads]

Accurate or not, pop fiction can be the thing that inspires someone to get serious about a field of study. "Jurassic Park" made me decide to become a paleontologist, in my next life, when I don't have a mortgage...It's so true, though. I think people should choose a profession based on which sections of the bookstore interest them most. I found myself passing by the marketing and advertising section one day, and realized that I had never even browsed there, not since college when I had to...



But I digress.

I mean to say, pop fiction creates awareness of fields of study that many of us didn't know existed, or have never taken seriously. Biblical historians ought to thank Brown for this book; at the very least he's given them a certain glamour they would never have had otherwise. Like Indiana Jones did for archeology. Think of the tens of thousands of bored history students who might read this, for whom the idea that history can be intriguing is brand new.

 

[thenry]

"Apple" was once a generic word for all fruit. With over 7000 varieties of what we now call apples, the other fruits could be easily lumped under the name "apple" by default. The "golden apple" of everyone's favorite Aphrodite myth was actually a tomato, all of which were yellow at the time.

An interesting tidpit I just learned while looking up the stuff above: the two most popular varieties of apples in the US (Red Delicious and Granny Smith) were chosen not because of taste but because they have the thickest skins and are the best for shipping.

I always love how the newest revisionist history craze completely derails my perceptions of the past. Five years ago I was absolutely sure Da Vinci's creative oddities and symbolism were because he was either gay or a woman born with ambiguous genitalia.

 

[shereads]

"Apple" was once a generic word for all fruit. With over 7000 varieties of what we now call apples, the other fruits could be easily lumped under the name "apple" by default. The "golden apple" of everyone's favorite Aphrodite myth was actually a tomato, all of which were yellow at the time.

An interesting tidpit I just learned while looking up the stuff above: the two most popular varieties of apples in the US (Red Delicious and Granny Smith) were chosen not because of taste but because they have the thickest skins and are the best for shipping.

I always love how the newest revisionist history craze completely derails my perceptions of the past. Five years ago I was absolutely sure Da Vinci's creative oddities and symbolism were because he was either gay or a woman born with ambiguous genitalia.

Speaking of apples, they were hard, bitter and inedible up until a couple of centuries ago. Here's a fun little book that I love recommending because it generates such glazed looks among people who don't read: The Botony of Desire. It's about how plants have benefited (spread their range, multiplied beyond their natural capabilities) from a sort of sembiotic relationship with human beings. The author questions why a plant like marijuana would benefit from having a component like THC, which has no apparent natural function beyond getting creatures high when they ingest it. His theory is that THC was an evolved defensive mechanism that was an improved alternative to poisons - If animals ate the plant and died, they wouldn't spread its seeds in their waste. But if they ate some, and then forgot where they found it...



From Publishers Weekly
Erudite, engaging and highly original, journalist Pollan's fascinating account of four everyday plants and their coevolution with human society challenges traditional views about humans and nature. "It makes just as much sense to think of agriculture as something the grasses did to people as a way to conquer the trees."<snip>He weaves disparate threads from scientific, literary, historical, and philosophical sources into an intriguing and somehow coherent narrative. Thus, he portrays Johnny Appleseed as an important force in adapting apple trees to a foreign climate but also a Dionysian figure purveying alcohol to settlers; tulips as ideals of beauty that brought about disaster to a Turkish sultan and Dutch investors; and the potato, once vilified as un-Christian, as the cause of the Irish famine.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375760393/002-4496931-9737605?v=glance&s=books

 

[Clare Quilty]

There are people who take the vistory and nature of religion very seriously, a lot more seriously than Brown, who is, after all, a popular novelist and not a biblical scholar or historian of religion, and they are pissed at this book, when they pay it any attention at all. It's probably not so much the book that they're angry with, but the people who look upon this stuff as some sort of legitimate history. It's really not. It's a novel.

Exactly. While I'm not a religious scholar, nor even religious for that matter, I have found it curious that almost all of the theologians whom I've heard expound on these matters first hand, many of whom are living monastic lives with all of the intense rigorous religious and classical education that implies, seemed to indicate that the book of revelations in the gospel refers to the Roman empire and nothing more. On the other hand I've observed a tendency among much less learned, and much more self-aggrandizing individuals to champion a literal interpretation and see conspiracies, anti-christs and signs of impending Ragnarok all about them.

As to the book in question. I doubt it I'll ever read it. I read very little newer fiction. There are simply too many classics which I haven't read and too little time.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Accurate or not, pop fiction can be the thing that inspires someone to get serious about a field of study. "

Absolutely. It was porn that first got me interested in sex.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Absolutely. It was porn that first got me interested in sex.

---dr.M.

Porn got me interested in superlative sex.

 

[thenry]

But if they ate some, and then forgot where they found it...

You know, I attempted to look up the biochemical mechanism of aloe after completely curing a burn on the back of my hand and completely failed. Nobody really knows what's going on with the little plant. There are over two hundred biologically active compounds only one of which sort of does somthing on its own.

 

[sweetnpetite]

It's so true, though. I think people should choose a profession based on which sections of the bookstore interest them most.

I guess that would make me a telephone phychic or something like that

Really, I'm interested in so many types of books, but 'new age' is generally the first place I head to, or think about heading towards. Other than that- self help, history, fiction, fantasy, phychology, sociology, archeology, religion, arts and entertainment, children's, young adult... (off the top of my head) Of course, I can't decide what I want to 'be' either.

I think I'd make a great telephone phychic though

 

[sweetnpetite]

Christ on a crutch, SnP! Take a pill or something! It's only a book, and a pretty silly one at that.

I pretty much agree with that first reviewer you cited. Brown is no scholar, and the book is loaded with errors and inaccuracies. It's fun, but you make a big mistake if you take it seriously.

---dr.M.

See, I think those negative reviewers are the ones taking it too seriously. The fact that not everything in the book is absolute, undeniable historical fact doens't mean that he's not a scholar or a decent researcher.

Of course, he took some things and bended them or ignored certain facts to make his story 'work' that's what novelists do. And of course he may have overlooked a few thinks on accident as well, everyone does that as well. I'm not saying he studied the subject matter for 40 years and he's a complete expert of the subject. The topic of the book *is* conspiracy so therefor it makes sense for him to use conspiracy sourses.

I'm not saying it's not ok to point out innacuracies, but the rip the book from stem to stern, mostly because it contradicts your own biases is not cool. and its clear to me that its the contradiction of these biases, for more than any scholarly indignation over fugding a few slippery 'facts.

I am willing to forgive a few liberties, a few inacuracies, even a few disagreements from my own biases and beliefs because after all, it is only a novel.

I do however, think that that people who want to list every single inaccuacy should think about listing the tons of thigs he said that *are* true and accurate. For instance, the church *did* persecute those who disagreed with them including scientists who attempted to show the world the truth.

 

[Marsipanne]

Hiya, just read this book so I'm giving this thread a bump.

If a book's half-decent and doesn't insult me, I'll read it and I read this one yesterday (I'm a fast reader). I have an admiration for Dan Brown for daring to write this book. Undoubtedly, he put a lot of effort into this novel but at the same time the very nature of this book puts him into trouble. There will always be people who know more about symbolism and theology and his interpretations might be positively juvenile to them whilst to an uninitiated person like me (I've read the Bible but that's it) it would appear very clever.

I really enjoyed this novel. Certainly a breathless thriller dotted with bits of humour (I really liked Teabing until..yeah, well..spoiler) especially the bit where they're trying to get into Chateau Villette. I liked Sophie Neveu's character.

I've got two more Brown books to read: Angels and Demons and Point Deception (I think those are the names).

And Ron Howard's making the movie (possibly starring Tom Hanks or Russell Crowe--with Russell Crowe in the lead having starred in two Howard movies already)

Female character? First person that sprung to mind was Julie Dreyfus, Sofie Fatale from Kill Bill. She has a slightly French look and most of all looks clever and if she dyed her hair she'd fit the role well. Actually, just checked her imdb page. She's a parisienne, so it's pretty cool. Ach, she's fluent in French, English and Japanese too.

Here's a picture of her:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz...400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Dreyfus, Julie

 

[Jagged]

Hey guys....


Just finished the book and I loved it. Secret societies, corruption, assassinations, and Biblical mystery. What is not to like?

Sophie Neveu.....babe. I love her and hope she continues to adventure with our favorite symboligest Professor.

Don't know who could play her in a film though. She sounds like a woman who......shock. Eats food. Anyone in Hollywood do that?


The mystery level was high and violence low level.

Also I would like to say that the world is hurting since we lack organizations like the Knight's Templar.


Anyway though after reading the book I am more interested in heading to Paris then ever before....Been to London.


Who has read the other books by the author? Thoughts and recommondations......?

 

[Match Made In Heaven]

Angels and Demons was pretty good, but bloody and violent. It was, in my oppionion, an 'also ran' next to the da vinci code.

Deception point was great, but freaked me out in some ways.

Digital fortress I haven't read, but it also sounds pretty good and enlightening.

Dan Brown weaves real technology and organizations into his novels, and I have never heard his research discredited on any book *other than* the da vinci code, and I'm still pretty certain that it's much more because of the nature of the book than his actual skill, intellegence, effort or scholarship.


He has an upcoming book about freemasons or something- I wish he'd hurry up and write it, this is the one I'm waiting for. Sounds fascinating.

 

[Marsipanne]

Just thought of a possible Sophie Neveu redhead: Kate Winslet. She's already successfully played the bookish code-cracked in Enigma so she should be good.

 

[Match Made In Heaven]

Just thought of a possible Sophie Neveu redhead: Kate Winslet. She's already successfully played the bookish code-cracked in Enigma so she should be good.

she would be great.

the red hair would *have* to go though.

 

[Marsipanne]

I doubt Winslet would like Sophie Neveu's get-up though: leggings and big jumper. I mean, that's very unflattering for somebody with a pear-shape, like Winslet. They might change the costume or something. Julie Dreyfus would be pretty cool though.

 

[Jagged]

I would like Julia Stiles though she would need to gain a few......but then I do like her regardless. Though model Elle Macpherson could do it because she got plump for Sirens


I am sure the author would be thrilled to know interested parties are already casting for the film of his book.