The Da Vinci Code

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Ah, the book people love to hate.

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

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. It then goes on to say that a document was later found that linked a bunch of famous names to the Priory. This is also true. It conveniently leaves out the fact that that this document was found to be a hoax, but then again, it never states that the document that was found was legit, only that it was discovered.

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.

[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."