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

[Brent Bridgeman]

Paul, I don't "feel sorry for them" either. But ignorance can only be corrected by presenting the truth.

And, sure Contact was made up, but I still can't figure out how they got that footage with Tom Hanks and all those famous dead people for Forrest Gump..... (actually, Tom's hair was better in Gump than DaVinci)

 

[Ruz-El]

Actually Tom Hanks was better in pretty much anything compared to Da Vinci. He just plain doesn't look healthy. He looks bloated.

 

[RobertR]

What you cite just tends to push the "blame" away from Paul's "it's their own fault" stance, and more in the "it's positioned as fact" direction.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Of course they don't. The New Testament consists of 27 works, approved as canonical by the Christian Church. Works such as the Gospel of Thomas are not included, and one could argue that non-canonical works have nothing to do with the canon. Circular? Why, yes. But if circularity can stamp out heresy, then why not?

As for the dead sea scrolls, many of the documents found in cave 4 (and only published fairly recently) are Messianic in nature, and are similar to canonical Christian texts. However, they predate the events described in the new testament, and "Christ". The presence of vaguely Christian communities before Jesus would seem to discount the revolutionary importance (or at least the novelty) of Jesus and his disciples. See Eisemam & Wise The Dead Sea Scrolls uncovered.

However, much of this material is only of interest to scholars and the odd follower of the Quest for the Historical Jesus. As far as I know, few of them have any reason to expect the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[John Garcia]

Two works sum it up right there in a nutshell....weak minded.

 

[PaulP]

Why are we discussing the book, anyway? Film and literature are two different mediums, and have few things in common. Granted, the film apparently followed closely to the source novel, but shouldn't we be concentrating on the film itself? I just don't get the big deal about Brown's book. So it fictionilized certain factual things, like there being 666 windows in the Louvre pyramid - well, so what? Is that really so earth-shatteringly evil of him? Who cares how many windows there are? This fact wasn't even mentioned in the course of the film, anyway.... And there really was a Priory of Sion - just not established in the year Brown says - again, so what? It is a NOVEL! Writers write novels all the time which are set in real places and involve real people, it's really nothing new. And you can't compare Michael Crichton's work to The Da Vinci Code because their styles, goals, and target audiences are wholly different. You can compare The Da Vinci Code to something like National Trasure: do people think there really is a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence? The writers of National Treasure took a real document and used it in a fictional way. But Dan Brown doesn't really write about anything secret hidden on the back of The Last Supper or the Mona Lisa - the paintings in question are represented faithfully. Clues encoded into The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci was not invented by Dan Brown, so in that respect his stating this as fact is correct, in my opinion.

In a related question, how many actually non-fictional books misrepresent (unintentionally) historical facts while purporting to be academical works? There are many. But no one stages protests and calls for bans of those books.

 

[John Garcia]

Well, the basic story for National Treasure was "stolen" from Brown's book in progress.

I agree, we're not talking about the book, and there certainly at no time did the movie claim that the content of the movie was entirely, or in part, factual.

 

[Carlo_M]

There is no way to absolve Crichton of his footnote/bibliography method and still string up Brown. Maybe Crichton does do better research (probably). But for goodness sakes, he has written about time travel, alternate realities, creating dinosaurs, and nanotech robots that form killer organisms.

All fantastical creations based on "fictional license" use of facts.

Nothing worse than what Brown has done, but certainly in my view not much better.

I still say it's the topic of religion that draws tDVC under so much scrutiny whereas if he'd written about any other topic (okay, politics and sexuality excluded) he'd have been spared all of this grief.

 

[Ruz-El]

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!

 

[RobertR]

And drives sales. Without that emotional hook, the paper thin characters and pedestrian writing would make for something other than a best seller.

 

[Ben Osborne]

In this thread people have given many examples of factual inaccuracies in Brown's book related to things that the author explicitly states are fact. Do you have any examples of Chriton doing the same thing? That he uses footnotes in some places and in other places writes about fantastical things does not prove he's guilty of the kind of deception that Brown is guilty of. It's a big step to go from writing Jurassic Park to saying that scientist can indeed clone dinosaurs using today's technology.

 

[Carlo_M]

Really? The only disclaimer Brown makes is in the beginning, with regards to descriptions of "artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals" are fact. Nothing else.

When he has Teabing rant about what happened hundreds/thousands of years ago, or alternately guesses on what secret societies or the early Church elders decided on as fact [which is where most of the sore spots are], none of those falls under the umbrella of "artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals". Those are all fictionally used theories that may be based on inaccurate data or inconclusive evidence. The character in the book may treat them as fact, but that is not the same as Dan Brown stating they are fact, because his only statement about fact is that paragraph I quoted from the beginning of the book.

With regards to Crichton, you focus on JP and cloning dinosaurs. You neglected time travel, alternate universes, nanotechnology microorganisms that become killer beings, etc. If any of those have been done I'd love to know about it...particularly the first one as I'd go to circa 33 A.D. and end all this foolish speculation

 

[Carlo_M]

And I'd wholeheartedly agree. I've often stated that I thought Brown writes at a high school level.

Not a high school level of reading, but his actual writing ability, meaning that 12th grade amateur fiction writers would write at about that level. 9th grade for Angels and Demons.

But just because he's making money hand over fist doesn't, in my opinion, entitle him to be broiled and roasted over his fictional license like people have been doing to him. And, of course, Crichton has made more money over his career than Brown, and using the same formula of paper-thin characters. Crichton is just a better technical writer who has steered clear of hot-button topics like religion, politics and sexuality. Once he ventures into any of those areas, I'm sure he'll be taken to task just like Brown (and unfairly so), despite the fact that he'll probably use the same amount of research and stretch the facts just like he has in his previous novels.

 

[Richard Kim]

Nevermind

 

[JeremyErwin]

He already has.
Airframe, Rising Sun...

 

[John Doran]

i'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but i think (at least part of) the problem many christians and christian groups have with brown's book and the movie is that general acceptance of it seems to them to be fundamentally discriminatory - can you imagine the public response to a book whose content was at the very least implied to be factual, and that talked about jews going around murdering people to preserve some secret concerning the descendants of moses, who was actually a charlatan who faked the ten commandments?

many christians feel as if their religion is fair game for outlandish and insulting claims in a way that many (most?) others aren't.

 

[Ben Osborne]

Crichton is a science fiction writer, and readers have the expectation that the things he writes about generally aren't possible with today's technology, but have some basis in science. The idea of time travel and multiverses are talked about in scientific journals by serious physicists, as speculative as they may be. As I mentioned before, if Crichton claimed that he believes a species of Neanderthal-like sub humans survived until as late as 1000 years ago -- which is the plot of Eaters of the Dead -- and had a note on that book lauding its archaeological and anthropological accuracy, then that would be deceptive. As it is, the book is obviously fanciful speculation for the sake of a fun story -- I wish that's all the Da Vince code claimed to be.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Let's try this again. Brown claims that his descriptions of architecture and documents are truthful and accurate. Are you really saying that he is only claiming that these documents EXIST? No, he claims that his description of the contents of the documents is factual. Then, he has his characters spout their theories based on these documents, but what they are saying is totally inaccurate with respect to said documents. Are you saying that because the characters are fictional that it totally negates any accountability based on his statement in the prologue? Then why write the prologue at all? Apparently, it was invalid as soon as the novel began.

And, the Priory of Sion is not a real organization at all. No famous members, no insidious world domination plots, no existence. Pierre Plantard admitted to police that he created the documents.

I only mention the windows in the Louvre pyramid and the architecture of Westminster Abbey to prove a point. He says his descriptions of architecture are accurate. They aren't. Is he lying? I don't know, but these statements in the prologue are obviously false although he calls them "Fact:".

The details of his plot are fictional, but by saying the documents are accurately described (Dan Brown says this, not a character), he is trying to represent the fanciful theories as fact. The movie presents the majority of the same theories, just without the flimsy "shelter" of Brown's prologue. Then you can call it "hoohah" and laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[JediFonger]

saw the movie opening night. had to laugh at the talking head throughout the entire movie and lack of action (i didn't read the book). some books work as a movie (like fight club) even when the book is filled with non-action but this particular work doesn't lend well to cinema. only ian excelled.

i didn't read through this thread but has anyone discussed context? it's one thing to utilize history to support your ficitonal story, but it's another to take things out of context. context is the key to "fact" or not. context (when used properly by scholars) is what can hold your arguments up or topple them over. imho, d. brown doesn't know the meaning of the word context, thus DVC is akin to fantasy like Harry Potter... and even HP is based on more facts (contextualized facts) than DVC .

 

[PaulP]

It's a FACT these THEORIES exist (and have existed long before The Da Vinci Code). These theories were woven into a fictional narrative but they are not stated to be FACT, even if fictional characters in said narrative imply it is.