OT - Finished "The DaVinci Code"

[Hunpecked]

Some of the objections to the "history" in the book and movie are covered here:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar.../22davinci.htm

Personally I doubt the movie has any more historical fact than the Indiana Jones movies, but as pure entertainment it may well be worth a Netflix slot.

[Captain Kwok]

Perhaps not unexpected, but the early ratings on rottentomatoes.com show the movie as 0 for 7 thus far.

[Black_Knyght]

I think that one of the most fundemental points here, despite all the controversy, is getting lost.

This is, and has been billed as, a work of FICTION. A work of fiction based on researched, documented, debated, and disputed facts. The church stands of one side, swearing it's all lies. Some scholars and scientists have stood on the other and defended their findings.

And, through it all, Dan Brown and Ron Howard have made no bones about this being anything other than a work of fiction.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

What, exactly, are they *claiming?

* Calling it fiction sounds like a convenient excuse so they don't have to defend their claims, to me.

[Black_Knyght]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
What, exactly, are they *claiming?

* Calling it fiction sounds like a convenient excuse so they don't have to defend their claims, to me.

That's the point here: What EXACTLY have you ACTUALLY heard publically, from either Dan Brown or Ron Howard ???

There's a ton of controversy, speculation, and commentary out there right now, but little if any word from the specific sources of it all. And the book WAS published as a work of fiction

Dan Brown based that fiction on ideas both popular and unpopular, true enough. The part that sends me rolling to the floor is how EVERYBODY is making such a big deal over a novel that NEVER stated, absolutely & definitively, that it was a work of historical, social, or scientific fact.

[Alneyan]

Wasn't there a claim by Dan Brown, in the opening of the book, saying something along the lines of "all the documents presented therein are accurate"? That certainly isn't verbatim quoting, of course, as I've never got anywhere near the English version.

That claim alone sounds more like a marketing ploy than something else, but I have always found it odd, given some of the material presented in the book (say, I don't live in Paris, but I'm not sure I would go around town the way his characters does... unless I'm the sort of chap who goes through the Bronx to go from one end to Fifth Avenue to the other).

[Baron Munchausen]

Alneyan said:
Wasn't there a claim by Dan Brown, in the opening of the book, saying something along the lines of "all the documents presented therein are accurate"? That certainly isn't verbatim quoting, of course, as I've never got anywhere near the English version.

That claim alone sounds more like a marketing ploy than something else, but I have always found it odd, given some of the material presented in the book (say, I don't live in Paris, but I'm not sure I would go around town the way his characters does... unless I'm the sort of chap who goes through the Bronx to go from one end to Fifth Avenue to the other).

This complete lack of real geographical knowledge is the same sort of thing that has been found in the Gospels and led some people to doubt that the story is real.

And this whole controversy reminds me of the Satanic Verses dust-up. Some scribbler writes a bad story based on some scraps of information about the history of his religion and a bunch of religious fanatics have a conniption.

[Hunpecked]

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." - from The Da Vinci Code novel.

Also, from the the article I cited in my earlier post:

"Although [the author] declines interviews now, he told National Public Radio during a 2003 publicity tour that the book's characters and action are fictional but that 'the ancient history, the secret documents, the rituals, all of this is factual.' He also told CNN at that time that 'the background is all true.'"

However, according to this article

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/davinci.htm

"As for Brown's claim about the Dead Sea Scrolls - these scrolls were found in 1947, not in the 1950s as Brown mistakenly claims on page 234 of The Da Vinci Code."

This and other sources point out a number of historical errors in the novel.

Whether deliberate or unintentional, the mixing of real historical figures and events with fictitious "facts" is a shrewd marketing move. The genuine history lends the book an air of authenticity ("Hey, the Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea were REAL!"), but the author can always take cover behind the "fiction" label ("So what if the 'Gospel of Philip' isn't really in the Dead Sea Scrolls! It's FICTION!").

Unfortunately Dan Brown didn't explicitly distinguish fact from fiction from speculation (probably because it would hurt sales), so confused readers have to get the truth elsewhere.

[Renegade 13]

I think the greatest problem with this issue was various groups condemning it. That just made more people curious about what was being condemned, when if nothing had been said about it, they never would have given it a second glance. Public condemnation of a book/movie or controversy of any sort serve to just draw more attention to the subject of condemnation and lines the pockets of the authers even more.

In a case like this, those who don't like it would have been better off leaving it entirely alone, and not making a fuss. That's the best way to kill something you don't like; ignore it.