*** Offficial THE DA VINCI CODE Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Ben Osborne]

Perhaps Chriton's books are just better researched than Brown's. The fact that he's footnoting his books shows that he's interested in backing up his claims with actual scholarship, unlike Brown. I know that one of Chriton's recent books took a skeptical view of global warming. I'm sure that that book would have been attacked more if it had been full of facts that he made up and provided no documentation for, and then claimed that all the science in the book was fact, which would be the equivalent of what Brown does with his historical claims in the Da Vinci code.

 

[Michael:M]

Actually, he has. While he's now declining interviews, he has claimed in print and on televised interviews that while the plot of the movie is fictional (Langdon, et al), the issue of Christ marrying Magdalene and having children with her and subsequently being known and covered up is true and factual.

And doesn't the book itself pretty much include a tag at the beginning saying that very thing?

It sounds like whether the movie is actually any good, Howard has taken a better approach in treating it as pure entertainment, rather than trying to come across as a tale loaded with historical veracity.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Yes, Holadem, I've encountered at least 4-5 people on my own (I don't hang out much online) who said something like "I didn't know that Jesus was married..." and other statements along those lines, and I've heard numerous people on radio talk shows (even some hosts including Neal Boortz) say that they believed that what Brown wrote was true. Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with it at all if it weren't for the claims he makes in his foreword. He sets the bar by saying that his all of his descriptions of the documents, architecture, artwork, secret rituals, and the existence of the Priory of Scion are fact. Then he has his characters give these long speeches with outlandish theories using these documents as their proof. I agree it's ignorant that people would believe such bunk, but until they don't, they need to hear the facts.

But, if you're tired of it, why read about it? Should we only discuss the technical merits of the movie, how hot Audrey Tatou is, and Tom's hair? We can't discuss the background that is central to the story?

And, at least Crichton DOES give a bibliography and footnotes for his sources. That way if you think he's wrong with what he claims as fact you can investigate his research. That's much more honest than claiming that the sources you use are fact and then misrepresenting them. I don't care if it's fiction or non-fiction, Brown or Crichton or Hemingway, if you present something as fact, then it should be. Otherwise, invent your own manuscripts and evil organizations. To do otherwise is lazy writing.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

John, it may not sound like it, but I actually agree with you. I read the book when it was first released in hardback and I finished it, put it down, and went on to the next book. I thought it was a mistake when the controversy first started. That is what made the book so intriguing to the masses and what made Brown a millionaire. The book is just not good enough to warrant the amount of money that it made. But, since the controversy was out there, I did my own research for my own personal satisfaction (yes, I love to do research on topics like this, in the literary, historical, and theological sense). I only get into it when others start a discussion, and then I give my opinion. Since the novel is so popular, and has been made into a movie, I do think the real facts need to be presented when the subject comes up.

 

[PaulP]

So the only reason the controvery about using facts in a fictional way is because the subject is religion? If it were something else, there'd be no controversy? I don't think that's right.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

What? I don't think I said that at all. I think any subject that is already a hot topic would be controversial if treated in the same careless manner that Brown treats Christianity. What if a mainstream director came out with a film that purports that a sinister splinter group of Democrats was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks to make the President look bad and that the Monroe Doctrine is actually a document that links the Clinton family with the Bin Laden family? At the beginning of the film they show text that all of the documents referenced in the movie are accurately presented and that this dark Democratic organization really exists. Then this director gives interviews where he says that this is actually the truth. Would every historian in the U.S. just sit back and ignore it because it's not a documentary?

 

[Ruz-El]

And, at least Crichton DOES give a bibliography and footnotes for his sources. That way if you think he's wrong with what he claims as fact you can investigate his research. That's much more honest than claiming that the sources you use are fact and then misrepresenting them. I don't care if it's fiction or non-fiction, Brown or Crichton or Hemingway, if you present something as fact, then it should be. Otherwise, invent your own manuscripts and evil organizations. To do otherwise is lazy writing.

This was pretty much my problem with the movie and the book. Brown tells a pretty convincing tale, basically says it's all true, and offers no way for people to verify any of his claims. It is really lazy writing, irregardless of the subject matter. I would have more respect for the story if he did include foot notes, explaining where he got his facts, and more importantly where he diviated from the facts to make the story better. I imagine that in doing so, Brown feared that he might lessen the impact of his story, but IMO, it would of inriched it, and would of been enough for prompt me to actually read the book.

I know a few people who read it and told me how amazing it is, about this secret history. As soon as I asked them were Brown got all this info from, they basically went blank (this is before the Discovery and History channels became the Da Vinci channel.) I couldn't believe the book didn't have any kind of a reference included. I instantly figured it was bulls**t, and avoided it. To find out it has a forward stating it's all true is sort of even more insulting. About the only thing that got away with this conceit is "Fargo", and the Coens admit it's all humbug.

The movie doesn't have any disclaimer of this type, saying it's real, true or factual. As a seperate entity, I think the film is fine on it's own merits. When you add on the baggage of the novel, I have a bit of a problem with it, for the reasons above.

 

[RobertR]

Actually, no. In a previous post on this subject, I compared TDC to Oliver Stone's jfk, which has no religious content. The issues are quite similar. Both apply a veneer of factualism to a sheer fictional story that distorts known facts.

And I congratulate Brent on the excellence of his posts on the subject.

 

[James D S]

Then it could be said that the fiction starts with that opening "fact disclaimer" page and continues on from there. If, in a fictional book, an author claims what you are reading is fact, can't it be assumed he's making that claim "in character" and thus the claim itself is one more piece of the fiction's mythology.

I realize Brown has gone on record saying he believes the nonsense, but in the context of the book his mention of the "facts" can be taken as fantasy just as all the other aspects of the book are.

 

[RobertR]

Have you read the disclaimer? Brown doesn't write it "in character". He writes it as Dan Brown, the author of the fictional story. So no, he does NOT "get a pass" for being "in character".

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Here is Brown's prologue:
----------------------------
Fact:

The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as “corporal mortification.” Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million World Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.
--------------------------------------

Right off the bat, he is either lying or wildly incorrect since the documents regarding the Priory of Sion were constructed as part of a scam by a French con artist in the 1950's to try to prove he was royalty.

I don't know much about Opus Dei, but if you go to their website, they have a page that seems to refute much of what Brown claims about their practices. Since they are part of the Catholic Church, calling them a sect is like calling a ladies sewing circle a cultic offshoot of the Lutheran church. I love how he words this to make being devout seem like it can only be the result of brainwashing and coercion.

 

[PaulP]

I don't see anything in that foreword as being a blatant lie. He says that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate". He doesn't say what exactly these things are, but I'm sure it applies to the various paintings in the Louvre, the Louvre itself, and the many other real places the characters visit. As far as saying "secret rituals" are described accurately - well, they aren't so secret after all then, are they? So one must disregard that right away. In short, he doesn't say explicity that the PLOT of his novel is FACTUAL - just certain things are, which is true. No different than most Michael Crichton fiction novels, using real technology and places, but in a science-fiction way.

 

[RobertR]

No one said he makes that explicit claim. But it is is clearly implicit (just as jfk implies much about how “factual” it is). It gives the impression of a well researched, historically accurate work. The evidence for how well the implication works is that there are people who take it seriously (just as people take some of the more outlandish theories in jfk seriously).

 

[PaulP]

No, it doesn't, because it's not filed in the non-fiction section, along with other books on the subject. It's a novel. The film, by extension, is not a documentary, but a thriller staring Tom Hanks.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Skepticism regarding opus dei has existed for some time. There are some who claim it is incompatible with Vatican II. Depending on your beliefs regarding the essential coherency of doctrines within Catholicism, this may or may not be true.

Nothing (except perhaps the narrative) in Dan Brown's novel is wholly original. It may consist of heretical calumnies, but rest assured that Dan Brown did not pull them out of his ass.

 

[RobertR]

So the people taking it seriously don't exist? Obviously THEY think it's well researched and historically accurate (One book review even describes it as "impeccably researched"!).

 

[JeremyErwin]

Maybe it's just because it's easier to sell a story based on "true events" than it is to sell a completely fictional one. The disclaimer as marketing tool. (The Coens, in all probability, were attacking this failure of the imagination in Fargo, and, to a lesser extent, in "Oh Brother")

 

[PaulP]

Robert, people thinking The Da Vinci Code is non-fiction have only themselves to blame. I don't feel sorry for them. Did they really think we made contact with aliens in 1997 when Bill Clinton was featured in Robert Zemeckis' Contact?

 

[RobertR]

I disagree. I think it’s a combination of being weak minded and being encouraged to think that in an implicit fashion.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

I just told you that the "fact" of the Priory of Sion was false. Previously in this thread I mentioned a few architecture facts that were wrong (i.e. I.M. Pei's pyramid in front of the Louvre does not have 666 windows as Brown claims). I also mentioned some of the documents that he uses were totally misrepresented (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with the New Testament or Christ at all and the gnostic gospels were interpretive documents written very late, after gnosticism became popular, probably not until about 300-400 AD, about 230-300 years after the canonical gospels).

Since he says his descriptions are accurate, and a description is the act of describing something, which is "to represent or give an account of in words", then I would say that yes, his foreward is blatant something! If not a lie, if not intentional BS, then it's blatant ignorance of the facts. He obviously describes these many of things inaccurately, therefore his foreward is at best disingenuous.