"The Da Vinci Code" and Roman Catholicism

[docoflove1974]

Anywho, I could barely put the book down. I haven't read anything that exciting in a while. The last good mystery I've read was an old Hardy Boys book. I loved the puzzles and historical interminglings too. Every detail in the book had a purpose. One of my favs.

 

Never was into the Hardy Boys, personally. But as for the last thriller that got my attention, that would be Umberto Eco's The Name Of The Rose, both times I read it. I liked his Baudolino, as long as you could let your mind wander for the last third.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Hehe I read the Hardy Boys back in elementary school... (long time ago!) I really don't get too much extra time to read, so I can't say I've read too many other mystery books. I did like the movie Vertigo though. That was a good mystery and ancient movie.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[WotWotius]

For my part, I thought the book was a great thriller; it got my attention immediately and kept it all the way through, which seems to be rare anymore. Of course, I came to the book with the notion that it was/is a fictional historical thriller. Once people start reading too much into any piece of literature, then it loses its value.

 

I admit the book had an encapsulating story--whether or not it was Dan Brown's is another story. However, it was written in such a clunky manner that it just got on my nerves.

 

And as for the film, quite frankly I found it offensive...albino monks are not like that in real life .

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I too have read the book and i must say that i found it very entertaining, i think people have gone way over the top with the whole religion thing, he wrote the book for one thing and that was to make himself rich and by being so controversial the book probably made two to three times more than it would have done if he'd have struck to the age old guide lines, so in that sense it makes the book a vey clever piece of work.

 

I personally think the his book "Angels & Demons" is a better book, it is the prequel to "The DaVinci Code" and set in the Vatican, this also has an historical theme, i would recommend this one first

[miguel]

I am not sure about the genre of the book. Do they call it historical thriller?

 

he wrote the book for one thing and that was to make himself rich

 

In my opinion, authors should write for their interests, but not only to make money. And sometimes I really think that a heart that is passionate to write is more important than a fabulous story.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I am not sure about the genre of the book. Do they call it historical thriller?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not too sure either, i wouldn't call it an historical thriller as such because it's set in the modern day but then again the story is based on a big historical event so who knows

[Ursus]

Since this topic has evolved into a discussion of the book rather than a religion relevant to the Roman Empire, I'll have to move it to the afterhours forum.

 

Here is a link that claims to refute some of the "facts" set forth by the novel:

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/davinci3.htm

[miguel]

Here is a link that claims to refute some of the "facts" set forth by the novel:

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/davinci3.htm

 

A nice site.

The facts refer to history or to religion actually?

[Ursus]

I'm not sure what you're asking. The novel makes certain claims about the history of the Christian religion which some have contested.

 

Religious Tolerance.org is a Canadian concern that tries to promote objective information on different religious groups in the interests of diversity and peace. I have found them to be good people. The article I linked to tries to refute some of the novel's claims.

 

This book is indeed very popular, especially among the alternative religious crowd. I know many neopagans who cite the book as fact when they speak of the "evil conspiracies of the Church" or whatever. Unfortunately a lot of the book seems to be pure fiction.

 

Nonetheless the book proposes some very Gnostic views on Christianity. Gnosticism was an early competitor of Paulist Christianity that was eventually snuffed out by Constantine's successors. Lately there seems to be an upsurge of interest in "alternative" versions of Christianity like Gnosticism. Versions that are more friendly to women, homosexuals, the environment, individual mystical experience, etc. It fits the politics of the time.

[miguel]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

what I mean is that the facts are refer to history (Christian church, in real life) or the bible (religious story, or what the Bible says)

[Jasminia]

I think Dan Brown achieved a goal that has received little acclaim: people are talking about it, pro or con.

 

There's little doubt that there are specious facets of the book, but there are apparently also suspicious facets of the evolution of Christianity into an organized religion from Imperial times through Late Antiquity.

 

Dan Brown capitalized on areas with little or debatable historicals records and created alternate theories. People create theories daily, and unless Michaelangelo or Magdalene come back from the dead to confirm or refute Brown's theory, it will remain as viable a theory as evolution or gravity.

 

There's been so much hubub about it, particularly in its denouncement, that it raises the question: why such vehemence and concerted opposition, particularly to a purportedly "fictitious" account?

[Primus Pilus]

I think Dan Brown achieved a goal that has received little acclaim: people are talking about it, pro or con.

 

There's little doubt that there are specious facets of the book, but there are apparently also suspicious facets of the evolution of Christianity into an organized religion from Imperial times through Late Antiquity.

 

Dan Brown capitalized on areas with little or debatable historicals records and created alternate theories. People create theories daily, and unless Michaelangelo or Magdalene come back from the dead to confirm or refute Brown's theory, it will remain as viable a theory as evolution or gravity.

 

There's been so much hubub about it, particularly in its denouncement, that it raises the question: why such vehemence and concerted opposition, particularly to a purportedly "fictitious" account?

 

Gravity is quite proven. The fact that we aren't all floating aimlessly around is a pretty good indication.

 

Dan Brown's novel is operating under several unprovable assumptions. His theory requires the historical Jesus story to be absolutely true as told in the gospels, requires the unsubstantiated stories regarding the Knights Templar to be true, etc., then twists these stories to relay his own theory.

 

There is opposition to the book in the church because they fear the growing power of satan incarnate in the form of Dan Brown as he seeks to destroy mankind in a ball of all consuming fire.

[brotus maximus]

the way that i see it is that Dan Brown who like many authers dont get alot of credit for what they write and sometimes it can take years to get their works published, now since i said that i go om to say that with dan brown i see that if i were him and i wanted to get good fame i would write a book that not only sparks the interest of the crowd i am aiming for but i want a book everyone will talk about for a while. i also believ the book is completely false and if the dates are off then eh so be it it still makes for an interesting book and has everyone talking about it and all right???

 

please no one take offence to what i have said i just think that thats all(about the book and movie any way)

 

p.s

i think that tom hanks shouldnt have played that role it was a bad move for him considering the controversy over the movie and book

 

sincerly

B.M

[Ursus]

There's been so much hubub about it, particularly in its denouncement, that it raises the question: why such vehemence and concerted opposition, particularly to a purportedly "fictitious" account?

 

 

The Church has been relentlessly assualted in recent years, and all the more so when Cardinal Ratzinger took over. Some of the criticism is certainly well deserved. Some of it is just more sour grapes from the usual suspects. But I suspect the Church is simply responding to its critics. Maligning the credibility of some author who admittedly took many liberties with his "facts" is a safer topic than, say, sexual abuse among clergy.

[Primus Pilus]

The Church has been relentlessly assualted in recent years, and all the more so when Cardinal Ratzinger took over. Some of the criticism is certainly well deserved. Some of it is just more sour grapes from the usual suspects. But I suspect the Church is simply responding to its critics. Maligning the credibility of some author who admittedly took many liberties with his "facts" is a safer topic than, say, sexual abuse among clergy.

 

My earlier flip comment aside, and to add to what Ursus just said...

 

Dan Brown has also been a bit, shall we say, antagonistic in his approach. His interviews (and the perpetuation of his book's theory by his enormous fanbase) have suggested that he has uncovered a real conspiracy and that his book is almost an investigative piece of research, rather than simply a novel of fiction. The church has had little choice but to respond to him or appear to be hiding something from the confused masses, I suppose.