andrewcriddle

FWIW and IMHO one of the best books about 'The Da Vinci Code' is 'The Real History behind the Da Vinci Code' by the medievalist and historical novelist Sharan Newman.

Andrew Criddle

StaticAge

I would certainly never call people "stupid" for believing it. I would only point out that the outrage raises the tale to beyond simple entertainment. Like when Deniro as "Jimmy" is clearly seen in Goodfellas putting ketchup on spaghetti at Joe Pecsi's mother's house- what self respecting eye-talian would ever allow such a thing to happen at the dinner table??? But its a movie, these questions cant be taken all that seriously.

cognac

Look, there's a difference between an historical novel, such as what Michener used to do, and Eco, and a piece of fiction that uses some history as a motivator for characters in the book. Brown's book is the later. "Historical" statements are placed in the mouths of characters. They may or may not be true. However, as long as the character is true to his or her nature, (shifty liar, self-serving SOB) then the author is successful whether or not that character has stated a factual error.

What is really stupid, just makes me howl, is to ask an author to always place historically accurate statements in the mouths of his characters. People in real life say whatever they want for their own purposes -- how dare them, they even lie. So in Da Vinci Code we have shifty characters stating incorrect things. The book would have been even more cardboard had the characters been cut outs of New York Times science desk fact checkers simply spouting commonly accepted historical truths. Gee, just writing that makes me laugh.

The bottom line. People who're so up-in-arms about DVC, or who believe it's true, aren't so much stupid as they are just too serious about themselves. (They're probably also the same ones who believe aliens landed at Roswell and are now abducting people beacuse they read Whitley Strieber's "Communion: A True Story" -- Note the "true" in the title.)

Respectfully,
The Art Dude

NOGO

Come now, what I am saying is not rocket science.
Even in a fictional work there many elements which are real and are expected to be real.
Sir Isaac Newton, ... not fiction.
Leonardo Davinci ... not fiction.
Prieuré de Sion ... not fiction
The Catholic church ... not fiction
The dead sea scrolls ... not fiction.
The Last supper by Davinci ... not fiction.
The fact that there really is a woman ... not fiction.

I could go on but you probably get the picture. When you read the Davinci code you expect certain elements to be real.

That last one for example ... did you consider the Last Supper to have a woman or did you consider this fiction?

When the book says that early Christians considered Jesus to be human until Constantine came along and made him into a God some people will consider this real.

That is what I object to. Is this so hard for you guys to understand.

Distortion of facts is not to be confused with creativity.

Fiction should not be a vehicle for spreading untruths.

Tristan C.

Why doesn't anyone understand that the book has plain, blatant facts in it that any person can easily look up? Its not that hard to see that Brown is right, and that our current feelings toward this subject have been altered by our primarily church inluenced culture.

SkepticBoyLee

Ummm people did disagree on the divinity of Jesus until Constantine and his council. Some believed him to be divine, some just a man, some God himself, some believed him to be a subordinate God (not that that STOPPED disagreeing but that something definitive was decided)

Answerer

Guys, in the recent weeks, the media network in my country had been showing the documentaries on the refutation of Da Vinci code and the 'evil' alternate history theories that the book had been trying to spread.

After that, they switch immediately to some documentaries about the Historical Verification of the Jesus Resurrection!!!! OH mY GOD!!!!!!

They showed lots of 'evidences' ranging from claims Bibical scholars, priests, Bishops, etc.

In short, they showed how wrong Atheists/Skeptics arguments were, are and would be. The documentary ended with the conclusion that Da Vinci Code is one of the 'traditional' atheists' failed attempt to disprove Christianity and Jesus, which, in fact, existed.

:banghead: :banghead:

I think the media in my country will not be showing any skeptic point of view since its already shown or 'proved' to be rubbish...... :banghead:

lenrek

:banghead:

Don't tell me you actually watched it?

cognac

Wrong. The "book" doesn't say that. Characters in the book say something.

Please read my above post regarding the NYT Science desk cut outs. It may shed some light on your confusion.

goozlefotz

I enjoyed it. Remember though, it is just a novel. A well researched novel, to be sure, but a made-up story to entertain the reader. The furor it has caused says more about the readers than about the book or its author.