Dan Brown - The DaVinci Code

Fun book. Whether you take it as fact, and attack on the church or just a novel, sit back and enjoy.This book was actually responsible for kicking off my current interest in learning more about religions in general. The thought wasInteresting stuff, is any of it true? so I started buying books to read up on the things mentioned in the Code. I have read several books coming out on each side regarding the code. Several books on morality, several books on the origins of religion and so on.In this light then the Da Vinci Code is a very good book ‘cause it has ignited much debate. Now if only the majority of people who hold an opinion on the book either way would actually do some reading on the subject then the quality of the debates would be improved..On a related subject C4 showed a good program last night entitled The Real Da Vinci Code hosted by Tony Robinson. Was a good program.

Of course Dan could be overstating his case for the book, precisely to engage the ruckus it has After all if it wasn’t so controversial would it have sold quite as many copies? And in the program mentioned, Baigent, himself, admitted the idea that there had been a child and thus the blood line was entirely their (Baigent, Leigh & Lincon) speculation with nothing to back that speculation up. It’s ok for him to say "hey the idea that there was a child was our speculation", because I’m sure that the book has sold so many coppies and earned so much they are not worried if sales tail off ( which they wont , thanks to Dan, his book and the forthcoming movie of the same)Anyway, if the book gets you thinking, studying and learning then it got to be good , yes?

Exactly!I have read a couple of books now that deride and debunk Mr Brown’s book (mainly through quoting scripture; if that was ever a valid argument, especially when the honesty of that scripture is one of the main facts being questioned..)The book is a NOVEL. A piece of fiction. Anything within its pages [other than the legally required information] is subject to fabrication: including any fact ascribed to the world the book’s narrative operates within.If you do any research on this subject it falls apart very quickly. The book is a good read, a catalyst for thought and study, but that’s all. Let’s face it Angels & Demons is the far more plausible story out of the two.If Mr Brown had published these conclusions as a piece of academic study then things would be far different.As it is I think the main reason the reaction has been so vehement, is those of faith reacted blindly to concepts of the story without taking in fully the book’s ‘novel’ status, and misreading the book as a direct attack on the church. All in all, it does seem quite similar to the problems Salmon Rushdie got into over his book. (Another book that had its sales boosted by the religion it was based around taking it way too seriously).

BBC news storymore Da Vinci Bashing including the rather delicious: Pot kettle or kettle pot?I think the Church and its defenders are really hurting themselves in the level of attack they have given the Da Vinci Code. Ok it’s doesn’t take much effort to see that this cracking novel has little or no truth behind it but if this is so why the big fight? Why is the church so worried about people believing in something with little or no real evidence to back it up? I can only guess it only matters when people believe in the wrong fables that are everywhere

the Bible or Da Vinci?

what exactly do you find so objectionable about that post? a little more clarification would be nice.I think he has it fairly spot and the only thing you could possibly take umbrage with is but as this proposed grail nature is no more or less credible than the one put forward by the bible or the many other grail myths then reacting so strong is a little off (IMHO) especially as it was voiced as a personal thought rather than fact.

The film is a perfectly fine adaptation of the book. Sure it’s a little talky. But had Ron chopped out all the talking ( or most of it) to compact the film everyone would be saying he had not been honest to the film and had simply made and action flick (which is a genre at this time MI:3 owns) Simply put this film was never going to get much if any praise. People were expecting too much from an OK but controversial book. There were and are many who dislike this movie on simple reputation.It’s not MI:3 it’s not Shaw-shank, it’s not metropolis, its not an all time great, but here is the kicker. Then the movie was over there was a silence in the auditorium. A careful thoughtful silence. People were thinking. A reaction I’ve only seen at the end of provoking documentaries ( and the nuclear attack scene in Terminator 2)In the end the movie was all about faith, not destroying it. About believing for the right reasons not the wrong ones. About finding the truth and not about believing what you are told.