The Da Vinci Code

[stray]

I read a little of the novel on a flight a while back, but wtf is the big deal about this topic anyways? Whether on TV, radio, the Net, or people I run into, I've been hearing a lot about it lately.

I won't get into my religous beliefs or whatnot, but just as someone who tries to educate himself about history (if only but a little), I find myself offended that this nonsense is being taken so seriously by so many people. It's entertaining fiction and all, but it's gone farther than that. It seems that most folks do not care for learning about history unless it's either some kind of sensationalist revision, or there's "conspiracy" involved.

Hmm..I guess a similar complaint could be made for how the sciences are treated as well.

Anyways, if anyone wants to know the "facts", I suggest they get acquainted with the idea of "royal myth" first. It's nothing new, and it's always bullshit.

[Signe]

Yes, the 'history' in the book is very skewered... but it IS a very entertaining book.  Luckily, it's fiction which makes the fact that people are taking it seriously rather odd.

[MrHat]

It's entertaining fiction and all, but it's gone farther than that. It seems that most folks do not care for learning about history unless it's either some kind of sensationalist revision, or there's "conspiracy" involved.

The same could be said of:

The Bible

"Jesus.  I am your father!"

"This is CNN."

[LordDax]

I could launch a rather lengthy reply to MrHats topic but I subscribe to the "Believe and let believe" mindset. People aren't going change their beliefs no matter what we say.

As for the book it was a bit entertaining I just wish people would think more after reading it. Its kind of sad that the American populace nowadays seems to accept whatever we tell them without too much second thought.

Thank God for cynic hostile communities like f13 ;P

[Rasix]

You should watch the history channel special on the Da Vinci Code. It was pretty good and presented both sides well.  The "facts" that he's basing the story on are very tenuous in some circumstances.  Some of the assumptions are plain out thought to be wrong.  However, some of them are also very probable and bring up some very good points that counter some of the pillars of the early (and modern) church.   Anyhow, it's not like anyone has an early Christian highlight reel to verify the facts.  

Anyhow, it's a good fun read.  It's pretty much the same damn thing as his Angels and Demons.  It's like they're copied from a stencil on how to write a religious thriller.

[Nebu]

I could launch a rather lengthy reply to MrHats topic but I subscribe to the "Believe and let believe" mindset. People aren't going change their beliefs no matter what we say.

Having your beliefs tested is a good thing.  It either results in changing to a new belief system or it strengthens your resolve in your original belief system.  People do and will change their beliefs if they are offered plausable alternatives by someone they respect.  I see it daily.

As for the book it was a bit entertaining I just wish people would think more after reading it. Its kind of sad that the American populace nowadays seems to accept whatever we tell them without too much second thought.

Couldn't the same be said for the Bible?  Like what he says or not, MrHat makes a good point.  Religious zealots such as the KKK use twisted passages of the Bible to validate their existence when their mission is obviously contrary to the message of the Bible.  As for people accepting whatever we tell them, isn't that contrary to your statement earlier? (i.e. people aren't going to change their beliefs... )

Most people are selective listeners or acceptors if you will.  They accept what they agree with and reject what doesn't fit.  The issue as I see it relates more to people accepting things based on dogma or faith rather than accepting them based on challenge.  It's fine to believe in something once you have tested the notion of your belief thoroughly.  I'm just not convinced this is the case for most people.

[AlteredOne]

The "Da Vinci Code" is a sort of secular equivalent to the "Left Behind" series, in the sense that these books have huge numbers of readers who confuse religious-based fiction and reality.  But while "Left Behind" appeals to the fundamentalist crowd who want to imagine themselves as imminent survivors of the apocalypse, Da Vinci has a much broader appeal.  After all, the whole concept of Jesus spawning an heir is kinda cool, not to mention secret societies and all that.  But in both cases, some people take the fiction a little to literally, mainly because they do not have the education or background to distinguish fact from fiction.  Hence the several titles I've seen which claim to explain "Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction" (talk about a cushy author job, why didn't I think of that).

I heard a funny piece on NPR, where a reporter visited the real sites in Rome, Paris, Scotland and other places featured in Dan Brown's books.  European tourism operators are catering to Americans who want to see the sites, and the tour guides expressed some surprise at how literally the tourists take the books.  But then again, it had a happy ending.  The sites do tend to be architecturally interesting, and there is plenty of good history to be learned even without believing in the modern existence of the Illuminati.

[Ookii]

I read the book and found it somewhat entertaining while taking all of the 'facts' with a grain of salt.

The movie should be quite interesting though with Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou (Schild's favorite), Jean Reno (My favorite), and Ron Howard directing.

Imdb link for lazy people

[Signe]

What a cast!  I'll look forward to this movie, for a change.  There is even a chance I won't be disappointed.

(Hey look!  It's Ookii!  Hey Ookii! I miss your funny face!)

[Furiously]

As I tell everyone who has read this book... If you enjoed it, DO NOT READ ANY OF HIS OTHER BOOKS. If you think he is a formulistic hack, read his other books and you will be vindicated.

[AlteredOne]

As I tell everyone who has read this book... If you enjoed it, DO NOT READ ANY OF HIS OTHER BOOKS. If you think he is a formulistic hack, read his other books and you will be vindicated.

Haha yeah, I read "Angels and Demons" after "Da Vinci," and I laughed my ass off.  There were just so many funny, absolutely unbelievable scenes, such as the part where a cardinal is roasted alive while suspended from a ceiling.  I'm like "WTF it would take a team of Hungarian gymnasts to pull this off, combined with a pyrotechnic expert from the CIA."  Meanwhile, it's just one freaking guy behind it all.  And our hero, a random academic dude, repeatedly pulls off Herculean physical feats, including free-falling from 50,000 feat with no parachute and surviving.

Enough plot holes to drive the Queen Elizabeth through, written by a guy who makes Tom Clancy look like Ernest Hemingway.  I strongly suspect that Dan Brown got serious editing help, and possibly even ghost writing, for the Da Vinci Code.  And I will lay money he never repeats the feat.  You just can't beat the Baby Jesus Junior as a plot twist.

[Paelos]

As I tell everyone who has read this book... If you enjoed it, DO NOT READ ANY OF HIS OTHER BOOKS. If you think he is a formulistic hack, read his other books and you will be vindicated.

Yes, he is ridiculously formulaic. Deception point is the same exact plotline as Digital Fortress. I mean that literally. Even the bad guys are the same type. Just replace the NSA with NASA and you've read both books.

Angels and Demons was good though, except the ending made me want to punch him in the face. The pacing was excellent however.

[Rasix]

They're the exact same book.  

1.  Captain Harvard get mysteriously pulled into a murder investigation.
2.  Murder investigation involves a fatherly figure to a brilliant, foreign, hot, mid thirties female.  
3.  Plot is revealed to be a threat from an ancient anti-modern-day church society.  
4.  Plot becomes a race against the clock to stop a religious fanatic that goes around murdering everyone in his path.
5.  The main bad guy is revealed, and it's someone you didn't expect! He (the baddie) comes to realize his intentions were misplaced.
6.  Captain Harvard bones the female lead.

There's some slight deviations, but if you've read either be for the other, you get a huge sence of deja vu throughout the second one.  Captain Harvard is a bit more daring in the first one as it's a little more far fetched and in actuality (the plot) is a more of a red herring than Da Vinci.

Both, IMO are about equally as entertaining. Da Vinci is a bit more thought provoking though.  I'd liked reading Dan Brown to Clive Cussler. It's formulaic with amateurish regard to reality, but it's fun.

Edit: Yep, Paelos, the pacing in A&D was perfect. IMO it moved a lot better than Da Vinci.

[schild]

If I want to read a modern author, I bee-line for Caleb Carr. Killing Time, The Alienist, and Angel of Darkness are all quite good.

Digital Fortress was a pile of suck and turned me off all of Brown's other books. He's a terrible hack that did nothing but show the stupidity of the majority. To put it another way, he writes for children, and there are apparently a whole shitload of children buying books.

Edit: BBCode is hard.

[Rasix]

To put it another way, he writes for children, and there are apparently a whole shitload of children buying books.

Sometimes you just want a quick, brainless read.  That's why Brown, Cussler, and other paint by numbers authors are good to pick up every now and again.  Don't condem us all to childhood.

Anyone know when the new Harry Potter is due out anyhow?

[schild]

If I want brainless, I generally turn to something funny. Like Jon Stewart's America or a George Carlin book. At least those enrich my sense of humor. Cussler and Brown just make me stupid.

[AlteredOne]

They're the exact same book.  

ROFL "Captain Harvard" indeed.  Spot-on with the plot parallels.  I just felt that A&D crossed *way* too far over the unbelievability threshhold.  With Da Vinci, yes I knew it was historically inaccurate with some silly plot twists, but the plot overall seemed about 500% more plausible.  I guess with this genre I may be unrealistic, but I tend to say "Assuming that the background for this scenario could occur (i.e. a two-thousand year old secret society, etc), can I actually imagine myself in this story?"  

I tend to break down laughing when our claustrophobic hero gets trapped underneath a stone sarcophagus, yet still has the presence of mind to use the decaying skeleton to preserve an air hole, is rescued by firemen, runs off to be nearly suffocated in a fiendish trap in an airtight library, discovers the secret lair of the villain and defeats him hand-to-hand, manages to get aboard a space-plane and free-fall several miles into a river while saving the Vatican from antimatter annihilation, and proceeds to get laid.  All in a 4-hour period, or thereabouts.

[Paelos]

I can sum up Deception Point in about 30 seconds.

OMG SPACE BUGS IN A ROCK!
Are you sure?
Wait, floating green things?
Let's kill some scientists, they know too much.
Drilling cores make no sense.
We've found intelligent life!
My campaign is screwed!
LIES!
ASSASSINS!
S'all good.
Bone the lead.

[schild]

Oooooh oooh, let me do Digital Fortress.

There's code running amok in the database!
Oh noes!
Fix the code!
We can't fix the code!
Fat guy bones a girl!
We can't fix the code!
What is code?
This is code.
Oh! Ok! We can't fix that!
Traitor, shoot him!
Wait, we still can't fix the code!
Oh, there's how you fix the code!
The code is fixed!
Aren't my books better than yours?
I'm god. You suck. Noobler.

The end.

[Dark Vengeance]

Cussler and Brown just make me stupid.

So, just how much of their stuff have you read exactly?

Oh cmon, with that kind of setup, you know I was just the first guy to say it.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Margalis]

Cussler is the guy who write all the underwater adventures right? I've read 2 or 3 of his books. They are OK - underwater Crichton books basically. (Kind of a strange niche) They're the kind of books I will buy on the last day of the library book sale for 25 cents, read that night, then shelve forever.
---

The thing about the DaVinci code is, most people are interested in it for the "non-fiction" parts. (Which were mostly lifted from another book) Of course it's all total bullshit. But you know what is true? The Spear of Destiny that that Roman soldier used to stab Christ was carved from the horn of the same Narwhale the Atlanteans worshipped before their city sunk into the sea.

Or something like that. It is kind of scary that the book is garnering such an interest among a large number of apparently pretty dumb people. The author really managed to hit the jackpot.

[Morfiend]

I think the reasion Dan Brown got so popular is becasue his books are page turners, you WANT to know what happens next. Also, he take thinks that are pretty complex and lets the layman fele like they are an expert. So joe public just eats up his stuff.

I read like 3 or 4 (I cant recall cause they where all the same) of his books while on a trip and I found them in my girlfriends bags.

To sum it up in the words of my girlfriend they are "Junkfood reading". They seem good at the time, but  containe no real nurishment, and the majority of america loves them.

[schild]

I think your girlfriend is right. I won't eat McDonalds and I won't read that shit either.

[daveNYC]

The Alienist is the shit.  Everyone should read it.  Angel of Darkness I didn't like as much, although it might have just suffered in comparison.

I thought The Da Vinci Code was a dumbed down ripoff of Foucault's Pendulum.  It's actually a bit of a let down to hear that it's acutally a virtual copy of the author's existing books.

And Captain Harvard is priceless.

[Samwise]

lets the layman fele like they are an expert.

Yeah, I got kinda pissed off at the last "riddle" in Da Vinci Code, the one about Newton's orb.  It was a stupidly easy riddle, but the main characters stood around going "uhhmmmmmm" for several pages to make the reader feel like it was the hardest one in the book.  It was obvious that the author was setting one up for me so I could feel clever too.  Jackass.

[stray]

The movie should be quite interesting though with Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou (Schild's favorite), Jean Reno (My favorite), and Ron Howard directing

I may disagree with schild on movies and games from time to time, but it seems we have the same taste in women. Audrey is the hottest chick in movies (present day!) as far as I'm concerned. Still, she doesn't seem right for the part. Rachel Weisz or Cate Blanchett would be more believable imo.

I don't see Hanks as Captain Harvard either. I heard Russell Crowe and Dennis Quaid were up for the part once. They would have been better choices.

[MrHat]

Edit: Ghetto internet makes me cry.

[MrHat]

I can sum up Deception Point in about 30 seconds.

OMG SPACE BUGS IN A ROCK!
Are you sure?
Wait, floating green things?
Let's kill some scientists, they know too much.
Drilling cores make no sense.
We've found intelligent life!
My campaign is screwed!
LIES!
ASSASSINS!
S'all good.
Bone the lead.

Oooooh oooh, let me do Digital Fortress.

There's code running amok in the database!
Oh noes!
Fix the code!
We can't fix the code!
Fat guy bones a girl!
We can't fix the code!
What is code?
This is code.
Oh! Ok! We can't fix that!
Traitor, shoot him!
Wait, we still can't fix the code!
Oh, there's how you fix the code!
The code is fixed!
Aren't my books better than yours?
I'm god. You suck. Noobler.

The end.

You both hit it spot on.

I read Da Vinci Code first, then A&D, then Digital, then that other one.  And they got shittier and shittier the more I read.  Wish I'd stopped at A&D.

Personally, I hate that they got big-dick Hanks to play in the movie.  He's too big for it.  They should've gotten someone a wee bit younger.  I would buy Quaid in it after seeing In Good Company.  Not Crowe, he's likes a good fightin'.  Hahaha, they should ask Mel Gibson just so he can go ape shit on them.  Tautou makes a perfect female lead for that.  She's hot, she's kind of quirky, she's french!, and I could totally buy that she's a daughter of Christ.

[Roac]

Couldn't the same be said for the Bible? Like what he says or not, MrHat makes a good point. Religious zealots such as the KKK use twisted passages of the Bible to validate their existence when their mission is obviously contrary to the message of the Bible.

There are some (most) people who will take ANY text of authority, and tweak the context to suit their own ends.  The Bible is a favorite punching bag, but it's hardly alone.  Anything religious, political, or scientific is all fair game for being the victims of literary revisionism.  Keep in mind too that this counts towards both sides - people using text X to support their view, as well as those people who mock that same text.

Global warming.  Is it happening?  How quickly?  As a result of what?  Insert thirty oppinions of various groups, all pulling their favorite scientific sources to back their personal agendas.  Even where studies are generally considered within scientific communities to be carried out appropriately, the conclusions earned from the studies are not always the same.  What is the real cost/risk analasys of this issue?  How close can we get to knowing what "real" is, in such a complex system?

First Gulf War - we went to war not because Saddam invaded Kuwait, but because he had a lot of potential to disrupt oil trade.  But that's not what Bush pitched when he built a coalition, either within our country or with other countries.  Was this wrong?  Was Kuwait a close second in terms of priorities, or was it not even a real consideration?  Should they have been?  Should we accept the President's arguments (Kuwait) because we agree with those merits, or disagree with his argument because he was not entirely straightforward with his reasons?

Bible - it is a historical document.  Yes, it is.  That does not mean it is a literal recording of the past (we do have examples of other historical documents we are certain contain propoganda), but it does mean it is not rubbish just because there are religious movements organized around it.  To what extent can the text be trusted to be true?  How do you determine that?  Is it merely belief - either for or against - or is there some logical, scientific process that could be applied?  How far could it take us?

Untested belief isn't relegated just to religion, or just to the Bible.  All throughout our lives we simply accept things for one reason or another, because we simply don't have time to go through the entire background and research of every topic we come up against.  Some people - scientific, religious, and political - have tried to exploit that.  It leaves you with religious zealots, scientists who are out for fame or accolades on their large egos, or political figures looking to spread their propoganda.

And it doesn't matter which side of the fence you fall on, either.  You can't tell if someone is a propogandist if they're actually GOOD at what they do.  What they say may sound really off compared to your understanding of the world, but that doesn't make them wrong (the world is round?  laughable!).  If you either accept or reject anything based on face value, and argue that view home, you run the risk of showing your ignorance.

[HaemishM]

I think the reasion Dan Brown got so popular is becasue his books are page turners, you WANT to know what happens next. Also, he take thinks that are pretty complex and lets the layman fele like they are an expert. So joe public just eats up his stuff.

This is the exact same reason Michael Crichton is popular. What a fucking hack.

[Paelos]

I give Crichton I lot more credit than I give John Grishom. If you want to discuss a hack, Grishom takes the cake for the most repetative story lines ever.

OK, so its about this lawyer right, and he's got this conflict of interest, and then he finds out something that changes his life, and does something to take on <insert big system here>.

[HaemishM]

Yes, you are correct. Grisham has got to be considered King Hack of All Hacks everywhere.

[Rasix]

Crichton is a lot better than Brown.  At least he's isn't asserting that his work is based off fact.  Also, the man does a lot of research for these books and writes a much more complex story than Brown could ever handle.  Of course, one could read Prey and then just tell me I'm full of shit (god that book was formulaic).

[Hanzii]

Crichton is a lot better than Brown.  At least he's isn't asserting that his work is based off fact.

I take it, you haven't read his latest: "Global Warming Is A Damn Dirty Lie And My Book Has Footnotes, So It Must Be True"?

[Boogaleeboo]

It's hard to believe in global warming when you've been hit by a record breaking snow storm. Evidently the melting of all those arctic ice caps is having less of an impact in the general future than alarmists would have hoped. Maybe in 20 years people will start caring.