The Da Vinci Code

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Personally, I had no problem with it, thought it was a fun read, although I liked Angels and Demons much better.

Actually, I like Angels and Deamons better as well. But, neither were anything more than a fun and, mostly, meaningless romp with just enough of the compelling to keep me interested. I sort of equate the Dan Brown Books with Ane Rice's first 2 vampire novels. Fun reads, great excapism, lots of faux fantasy and history and something to read as a good snack between some more serious fiction.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Actually, I like Angels and Deamons better as well. But, neither were anything more than a fun and, mostly, meaningless romp with just enough of the compelling to keep me interested. I sort of equate the Dan Brown Books with Ane Rice's first 2 vampire novels. Fun reads, great excapism, lots of faux fantasy and history and something to read as a good snack between some more serious fiction.

Which is exactly what I, and I would assume most people, took them as. Nothing wrong with a little fun escapism from time to time. We all have AP's, right?

I find it entertaining that the same religious people who are against this movie for its fallacies have no problem with creationism being taught in school.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Concerning the first paragraph, I think it needs to be read more carefully. It states that there was a real priory of Scion, which Flippy's link also says.

In other words, the two sentences in the first paragraph are technically true but when they are put together, they don't say what they are appearing to say, if that makes sense. At least that's my take on it.

Except he also claims that the Priory of Sion was found in 1099 which is demonstrably false as he should well know. So if he was trying to be clever and mislead us all into believing something to be true without actually saying so, he slipped up there.

It is all well and good for you to say that you personally never took it as anything more than fiction. But I have had conversations over the years with literally dozens of acquaintances and coworkers who came away from the book believing that while the (what is now) Tom Hanks/Audrey Tautou part of the story is obviously fiction the underlying elements about Opus Dei, the Priory of Sion, the Knights Templar, etc., must have been mostly accurate and based on historical research.

And that's what pisses me off a bit. Not that Dan Brown says "I've built this great piece of mythology" but rather "I've built this great piece of mythology based on some very interesting historical mysteries."

To me it is kind of like the Million Little Pieces debate where there was a significant side saying that it didn't really matter so long as it was an impactful read. I disagree, something can be a fun read and still be somewhat dangerous (though I think The Da Vinci Code is only slightly in this category).

Of course, it doesn't help that the book is atrocious for even hack genre fiction. I read a lot of hack genre fiction and it had me groaning throughout (the only reason I read it was to see what all the hooplah was about). I tried reading Angels and Demons on the way home from Singapore and found I prefered to just stare at the seat in front of me instead.

But what I wonder is: when is fiction just escapist fiction and when is it harmful? Because if a successful novel told the "true" story of how the Human Rights Campaign was originally founded as a cover for homosexual pedophiles then I imagine that HRC would not be saying "oh, posh, why should we care? It's just fiction."

[Prudence]

It's not like the Catholic Church has helped its cause any. Frankly, many people don't have a clue about the first couple centuries of Christianity, think the New Testament gospels were written contemporaneously with Christ's life, and (particularly Protestants) are shocked to learn about apocryphal texts. (This is likely an exceptional audience.) Based on my experience with people I know, this can translate as a sense that information has deliberately been hidden from them, rather than their own failure to investigate. And gosh, if the Church is "hiding" the gospel according to Thomas, why, they might be hiding anything!

There's just enough not-actually-known, plus some not-widely-known, and maybe a pinch of deliberately-kept-unknown, that conspiracy seems, if not probable, at least possible.

Heck, even I sometimes indulge in a few "what aren't they telling me?" fantasies. That's what makes historical fiction fun.

However, the Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a reputation for transparency right now, so I can see where they'd worry that this would increase mistrust and skepticism.

[katiesue]

I liked the book. It is in the fiction section of the bookstore and libraries so umm perhaps it's fiction? It was just an interesting fun read. I don't think most of the people who read it take it as fact - I'm sure some do but I'd guess not most.

I've always thought that the whole bible is fact stuff was a bit silly. It's been translated and transcribed how many times? And history is always re-written by the victors.

And please please Tom Hanks is in no way shape or from "Harrison Ford in tweed". And what is up with his hair?

[€uroMeinke]

I thought it was a fun read, and while I knew all along it was a work of fiuction, I think Dan Brown did a fine job of creating an alternate mythology. And see3ing that mythology is a thing that resonates more with beliefs that facts (as does religion) I supose it's not surprising the Catholic Church might take up arms. On the other hand, it does seem like a great opportunity to tell the church's history in it's own words - as embarrassing as some of it might be at parts.

[Ghoulish Delight]

In terms of historical research, Umberto Eco puts Brown to shame. And that's an understatement. Focault's Pendulum is quite the tome.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In terms of historical research, Umberto Eco puts Brown to shame. And that's an understatement. Focault's Pendulum is quite the tome.

You definitely have me interested in reading that book.

[Prudence]

I've had discussions with literally dozens of co-workers and acquaintances who are convinced that deoderant gives people cancer and that giant Costa Rican spiders have travelled here on bananas and are hiding under toilet seats and biting people. I'm not going to hold authors responsible for the public's apparent lack of common sense.

Plus, there are any number of novels that start off with "no really! This is all true!" I think it's a silly conceit most of the time, but I don't hold the author responsible for concocting a tale that apparently some people find plausible. I don't think this is at all like Million Little Pieces, as in that case the author was (as I understand it) publicly claiming it to be his true biography. If Dan Brown has been claiming in interviews that his work is actual history, then I'll have to revise my assessment.

[Alex]

Not Afraid quoted above where he makes actual claims of history that aren't true.

I'm not saying Dan Brown should be "held responsible" for what people believe about a work of fiction. I'm saying that if a lot of people are going to believe that Costa Rican spiders are travelling here in bananas and this is not true then Chiquita has valid reason to be working to counter the spread of the information.

I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is doing so in the best way but I think it is completely understandable that they aren't just saying "oh, it's fiction, who cares?"

I'm also not sure what you're point is? Oh, people are stupid, just leave them be?