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

[JeremyErwin]

Terry Pratchett's works are extensively footnoted. So are the novels of the late great Douglas Adams.

 

[Ben Osborne]

As far as I know those authors don't believe that their fictional stories have any basis in history or any bearing on reality. If Stephen King came out in interviews and said that he believed that the events in The Stand really happened, I think most people would expect him to provide some evidence of that -- not necessarily footnoting his book -- just any kind of evidence of defense of his claims. Brown has not done that. He claims that his goal in writing the book was to challenge long-standing ideas about religion -- my question is, if his theories have no scholarly support, why should anyone take them seriously? Strangely, I'm not hearing anyone defend his ideas. The only defense I'm hearing in this thread is that the book is only fiction and shouldn't be taken seriously. I agree, but I wish someone would convince Dan Brown of that.

 

[PaulP]

I've already written about this, I think. I do believe that the plot of The Da Vinci Code concerining Jesus and the origins of Christianity is at least plausible if not possible. There are no facts to prove or disprove that. The more outlandish conspiracy theories involving Leonardo da Vinci, etc. is harder to believe.

I saw a good documentary on The History Channel regarding this, and essentially got the same gist from that: there's no proof Mary was ever Jesus' wife and was pregnant by him, but there is no proof otherwise either. There are, however, certain coincidences that, if stretched as they were by Dan Brown, can make it seem like Mary was indeed Jesus' wife, etc.

 

[PaulP]

Just caught the beginning of The Andromeda Strain on HDNet. If anyone's got this on DVD, please pop it in and see the disclaimer in the beginning. Hmm, oddly familiar, isn't it?

Michael Crichton on The Andromeda Strain:

 

[RobertR]

Of course, people have no obligation to prove a negative. It's up to the person making the claim to provide convincing evidence.

 

[Carlo_M]

The answer is that no one is forced to take them seriously. And don't look to me to defend his theories, though I will admit to finding them interesting.

The thing that really strikes me as unfair is people attacking him, acting like he had published nonfiction heresy. He couched it under fiction, period. I don't care whether he believes in them or not. He's not even to the level of JFK the movie, where Stone actually uses the story of real people. Now that is trying to pass for fact. (for the record I enjoyed that movie to without believing in it)

Your last sentence, why should that even matter? The man can believe what he wants without being subject to this kind of antagonization from people. I'm sure you believe in some things that I don't, but I'm not taking you to task for them. It isn't Brown's fault that many people found his book enjoyable and bought it. I should hope to be as lucky some day in any endeavour I undertake.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Let's look at the statement of Fact at the start of the book.

Sure, Dan Brown is not obliged under his disclaimer to accurately describe historical events - they are not artwork, architecture, document, or secret ritual.

But imagine that Dan Brown had written in one part of the novel that the sun rotates around the earth. That's science, so technically Dan Brown is not obliged under the disclaimer to be accurate in that area either. But if he had written something like that, no-one would have taken anything he wrote seriously.

The problem is, his claims in the book about historical events - leaving aside the whole Mary issue - are almost as wildly inaccurate as claiming the sun goes around the earth. But because people don't know about Constantine, or Nicaea, or the early church, or the Gnostics, they assume that the books claims are accurate. Because the disclaimer states that some parts of the story are true, people naturally attach further truth to the story.

Of course, it is a Fiction book. I don't believe that an albino monk ran around killing people, or that a real academic called Langdon was involved in the investigation, etc.

But the disclaimer in effect gives people permission to believe that the underlying theories of the story is factual, even if dressed in a (barely readable) murder mystery.

But the disclaimer itself is wildly inaccurate. Which does clarify his position that the theories are not factual. Of course, most people will read the book, but not the website FAQ.

And I would also suggest that there is a big difference between claiming that "all descriptions are accurate" and that "the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture exist". (Personally, I didn't need a disclaimer on the front page of the book to know that the Mona Lisa, or The Last Supper existed. If that is really why that statement is there, it's not needed.)

 

[Carlo_M]

I like how you wrap up your argument against Brown with:
Thereby negating your claims against Brown since he himself, on his website, states otherwise.

It seems to me that your (and seemingly most people's) problem with Brown is not that he himself believes his theories, but that the audience may be misled into believing them.

Perhaps you and others should take issue and try to educate those around you rather than vilify the author. My local church (born and raised Catholic though I admit to having fallen out of practice) actually welcomes discussion from people who have read the book. Rather than attack Brown, they present the church's side of the story. That to me is a much healthier way of dealing with this than simply attacking Brown and making his work out to be something it is not. I realize it's easier to attack one guy than it is to try and educate the masses, but it's not the right way to go about doing things.

 

[JeremyErwin]

facts schmacts. We're talking about religious myths, here.

Proto Christian messianic texts from the dead sea caves don't really help Teabing, though.

 

[James D S]

And much acclaim.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

All I can say for this movie is: "Akiva Goldsman strikes again!"

Dan

 

[Richard Kim]

Which pretty much describes The DaVinci Code as well. (replace science with religion)

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Really? Which part of the religious community is giving TDC acclaim?

 

[Albert_M]

Ok, I have a question about the film, not the story behind or what's made up and so on... does anyone know if there was any significant amount of footage usable for an extended DVD releases? I know that commercial BS dictates that 2 1/2 hours is pushing it for a theatrical release, but this movie really need to be longer.

 

[PaulP]

The atheists?

 

[James D S]

Good question. I'm seeing very few (actually none, but I'm willing to be generous because I surely have not read them all) accolades from reputable sources for the historical work Brown has done. That's completely counter to the praise Crichton received for State of Fear.

I liked both books. But Crichton's was sourced much, much better. (Is this in dispute?)

Whereas Crichton's argument is compelling, Brown's is simply entertaining.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

They must have really boring church services....to keep the folks coming, the pot-luck dinners must be fantastic!

 

[RobertR]

Actually, the book fails on that basis as well. It's not anti-religious at all. It merely promotes one form of mysticism (poorly researched, factually incorrect) over a conventional religion. It ends with Langdon falling to his knees to worship bones (the supposed "real" Holy Grail). That's hardly the sort of thing an atheist is going to applaud.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Yeah...I thought that was simultaneously: a) a weak ending to the book (I would have preffered an Indiana Jones style ending where they uncover the tomb, etc.), and; b) a weak counter-ending to Brown's opus against organized religion. I imagine an atheist/agnostic saying: "come on, you don't believe any of this is true, and yet you are going to be a mystic anyway?"

 

[JeremyErwin]

I certainly didn't.
How does the movie stack up against... say, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade