Da Vinci Code Redux

[Privateer Puddin']

I think you'll find The Sun is a truely wonderful paper, especially the dear deidre...

[Mr Flibble]

Of course those in the true bloodline keep the initials J and C...

Anything to say, Pumaman? 

I don't know the particulars of this "same initials" idea, but Christ wasn't actually his surname, it was a title meaning "The anointed one"  ie. Not his actual name.

EDIT:
I haven't read the book, because anything that receives so much hype can't possibly be worth my time. I may go see the movie, Tom Hanks hasn't let me down yet. As for the religious connotations, its a book. If Church Leaders are so worried about it swaying their "fan base" then perhaps the book isn't their real problem.

[Paper Carnival]

A christian is not going to believe what the book says, people who will take the book as fact without question most likely already wanted it to be fact. I can't pretend that something analogous doesn't happen to some Christians, but that's another story.

I don't think it's that big of a deal, sure it's possible that it might shake the weak faith of a couple of people, but the more the Church protests against the book, the more people are going to read it. If you want to make something a success, all you have to do is put something provocative and make sure some weirdos are going to hear about it.

I personally didn't bother reading the book, but not because I'm a Christian, I just think it's an overrated waste of time.

[DragonRose]

I read the book, and I honestly liked it. I liked it enough that I've actually read all of Dan Brown's books.

Maybe I just approached it differently. I was trying to solve all the anagrams and puzzles and things before they were revealed in the book. Because they were based on real codes, I was mostly able to do it. And I also liked the puzzle on the dust jacket.

Gabriel Knight dealt with the subject matter better, but this was still fun.

And I'm going to go see the movie, not necessarily because I think it will be good (I'm ticked off that they put the last scenes in the trailer) but because my Mom has a crush on Tom Hanks so I'm going to see it with her for her Mother's Day treat.

[Anym]

I'm definitely not going to see the movie. I avoided reading Dan Brown's books for a while, because most things (music, movies, books, games, whatever) that reach such a ridiculous level of popularity tend to be quite poor (in my experience at least). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that something is bad, because it's popular or because it's mainstream, just that there are limits to popularity that can be achieved by quality and anything that goes beyond those limits usually didn't deserve to.

Anyway, travelling I ran out of reading material and the bookshop at the train station didn't have anything else that seemed interesting (or that I hadn't read already), so I decided to buy Angels & Demons (a predcessor to The Da Vinci Code that only became popular after the success of its sequel) and I liked it. It wasn't a great book, maybe not even a good book, but a good enough book. It had bad research and slight predictability, but was unexacting and mildly suspenseful, well-suited for a long train ride.

So, at the next train station book store I also bought The Da Vinci Code thinking that if one of Brown's not as popular books was good enough, maybe his ridiculously popular book would actually be quite good. I started reading it and the style was recognizable soon enough. Unexacting, bad research, you name it. However, after about a quarter of the book I got a nagging suspicion and after about a third I was sure: THE BOOK WAS EXACTLY THE SAME AS ITS PREDECESSOR! Same story, different city. After half of the book I could already guess correctly how it was going to end and what all the "suprising" plot twists and revelations would be. I was really angry that it wasn't just a ridiculously successful mediocre book, but actually a ridiculously successful book that was just a copy of another mediocre book. I felt ripped off and insulted. And I still do. I certainly won't spend any more money on any books by Dan Brown nor on any movie based upon them.

As for the controversy, I don't get it. If Christianity is about the word becoming flesh and God living as a man among men, what's the problem with him doing the things human's do? Does that in any way invalidate with words, his actions or his suffering? I'm not saying that Jesus was married or that he wasn't, just that I think it doesn't matter either way.

[MillsJROSS]

I just finished the book yesteday. It was okay. Brown's writing stlye wasn't his strength. The books strengths were mainly the mysteries that the book had that kept it a page turner. Las pretty much nailed it on the head as to how he did it.

I enjoyed the book for what it was. I'm not Christain so it doesn't rock my religious boat. And I could care less whether the secret of the Grail is true or not. It was a book. It's a  work of fiction. To me this book ranks similar to the works of Michael Chrichton. His writing style doesn't necessarily do anything for me, and I consider it weak. But he makes the book suspensful enough for me to keep going through. The only difference between the authors is that Chrichton seems to have more accurate research. Although, I'm sure there are some descrempencies with his work as well, but since most of his work is anti-science the church doesn't seem to make hundreds of reports falsifying his novels.

-MillsJROSS

[Radiant]

I'm going to see it with her for her Mother's Day treat.

Er, wasn't Mother's Day a week ago?

To me this book ranks similar to the works of Michael Chrichton. His writing style doesn't necessarily do anything for me, and I consider it weak. But he makes the book suspensful enough for me to keep going through. The only difference between the authors is that Chrichton seems to have more accurate research.

I'd say that Crighton's suspense is more character-driven or story driven, and you actually get the answers you're looking for, as opposed to Brown's implausible mysteries. But ymmv.

[Afflict]

Of course those in the true bloodline keep the initials J and C...

Not to mention his name being an anagram of "Pheer yo* Christ Son"...



* j is pronounced as "y" in many langauges

What does this say about Chris Jones ?

[passer-by]

Has anyone read  Mark Frost's The list of 7or any of Mika Waltari's ones?

Page turners, exaggerated but made-to-be-believable research, bitter truths about life, power and  religion as a monitoring tool, compact characters...
I hope nobody will make a blockbuster film of them.

[DragonRose]

Radiant: Yes, but there weren't any movies out last weekend that she wanted to see. I made her a pretty little voucher that promised tickets to The Da Vinci Code when it came out.   

We aren't even going until next weekend.

[Haddas]

While we're on about The Da Vinci Code, We can't forget Das Vinci Code.

[MillsJROSS]

[

To me this book ranks similar to the works of Michael Chrichton. His writing style doesn't necessarily do anything for me, and I consider it weak. But he makes the book suspensful enough for me to keep going through. The only difference between the authors is that Chrichton seems to have more accurate research.

I'd say that Crighton's suspense is more character-driven or story driven, and you actually get the answers you're looking for, as opposed to Brown's implausible mysteries. But ymmv.

I never intended to say that both authors are exactly the same. However, I do not think either author is a particularly good wordsmith. They're good at making the book interesting, regardless of how they differ in their attempts to do so. I've only read The Da Vinci Code...so I can't speak of all his work, but I didn't really see any answer he left behind. And I think Chrichton's works are just as impossible, regardless of the research.

I would argue that while, perhaps, not everything in The Da Vinci code is correct, I'm sure there are some nuggets of truth. And you do have to wonder sometimes, why the Vatican has held back things from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm not saying his story is true, but it seems less fiction than the bible.

-MillsJROSS

[Khris]

It's Crichton. And comparing him to Brown is ridiculous, IMO. Crichton's writing isn't only excellent, it's what I expect when opening a *novel*.
I've read both Angels & Demons and DVC, both made me think Brown did a poor job of turning a movie into a book.

[Andail]

I don't have anything against Dan Brown writing a popcorn thriller. After all, he does help bringing the idea of a church based on fabricated ideas to the masses.
I do have problems with him claiming it to be based on facts, that all the organisations etc really existed, and with him being totally unoriginal about it.

[SSH]

he does help bringing the idea of a church based on fabricated ideas

Shurely the opposite of ideas being fabricated is that they just popped into existence in some sort of Big Bang? 

[Andail]

I meant fabricated as in compiled from various sources over a time span of three centuries.

I didn't want to turn this into another creation vs. evolution, I just think it's interesting to study the Bible philologically, viewing it as a work of men with an agenda, a plot.

The ordinary church-goer is extremely ignorant when it comes to literary history. I remember when the last Swedish Bible reform took place, and lots of old people complained how this was an abominable deviation from the one true scripture, and that Thou may not alter the words of God, etc. Of course, the "one true Scripture" they referred to was the previous reform, from around 1900. They didn't realise that every bible is a deviation from the previous version, back to its first printed form some time in the early 16:th century; itself a fairly loose compilation of texts which were all more or less fabricated at the first council of Nicaea in 325.

[SSH]

The ordinary church-goer is extremely ignorant when it comes to literary history. I remember when the last Swedish Bible reform took place, and lots of old people complained how this was an abominable deviation from the one true scripture, and that Thou may not alter the words of God, etc.

For many years there have been loads of different versions of the Bible in English, so I think the english-speaking christian world is a bit more savvy on this issue.

They didn't realise that every bible is a deviation from the previous version, back to its first printed form some time in the early 16:th century; itself a fairly loose compilation of texts which were all more or less fabricated at the first council of Nicaea in 325.

The particular texts which would make up the New Testament were decided at Nicea, but I don't think you can back up the claim that those texts were all created around then. And the Old Testament is obviously much older. I can't speak for any Swedish bible revisions but in English the New International Version was re-translated from scratch in the 1950s and 1960s from a huge variety of original greek, hebrew and aramaic hand-written texts and has been revised regulalrly since then when ancient manuscripts have been newly discovered, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Other modern translations are the "Good News Bible" and "New American Standard Bible".

[passer-by]

from a huge variety of original greek, hebrew and aramaic hand-written texts and has been revised regulalrly since then when ancient manuscripts have been newly discovered,

Yet we've managed to squeeze them into 4 books... I could accept that no *original* texts or manuscripts were altered, but knowing how councils work, this sounds a bit overoptimistic. 
Translations and handwritten copies are never accurate, anyway.

You know the joke about the Pope who went to heavens, read the original original of the Bibles and almost fainted...

[lo_res_man]

You know the joke about the Pope who went to heavens, read the original original of the Bibles and almost fainted...

one of my faves is the one how the pope went to heaven, and saint peter tells him that God was quite angry about his stance on woman priests, and pope John Paul II says, "He's mad? and saint peter says.... "She's FURIOUS!"
sorry I love that joke. I agree that the later church was quite egotistical, but I think (from my own examination) that Jesus Ben Joseph, took a very liberal stance with women, compared to the leaders of his time, and for much, even to the present, history. I am greatly saddened how woman were disenfranchised, and I try to do my insignificant way to help. Woman may not be the same as men, but viva la diffrance!

[Khris]

Here's another one :

The Pope went to heaven, and St. Peter asked him who he was. The Pope angrily responded he was the Pope, didn't St. Peter recognize him?
St. Peter scratched his head and said he had no idea who that would be.
So the Pope stomped his foot and shouted he was god's representative on earth, head of the catholic church!
St. Peter still had no idea what this angry little man was talking about, so he told him to wait a second and went back inside to ask god.
He found god playing chess with Jesus and told them about his strange encounter.
Jesus went for the gate to figure things out, and after ten minutes he returned, laughing tears:
"Guys, you still remember the little fishing society I founded some 2000 years ago? It still exists!"