Da Vinci Code

[dar512]

It's fiction people. That's why it's in the fiction aisle. It's also not the first novel to claim bits of truth for artistic purposes. The only reason that this book gets people riled up and "The Bridges of Madison County" (for instance) doesn't is that the former deals with religious topics.

Great googly moogly, folks. It's an artistic device. Take a deep breath.

Have you not been reading the previous posts? Tail-posting is rude.
At the begining of the "novel" ...

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

" All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

[jinx]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The problem is that this book is a top seller all over the world, with that statement at the beginning. That statement which says that all of it is not fiction.
A lie, an intentional lie.
Places where the option of searching for the truth are not as readily available as they are most other places.
Why do that?
Why not just state that the book was a novel?
Why state all the aspects the story was based on were facts when he knew they were not, in a novel? Makes no sense... or does it?
Action = intent.

Ever seen Fargo? How do you interpret this intentional lie?
"This is a tue story. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. OUt of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occured."

I read the book (DaVinci Code)... it was pretty good. I mostly enjoyed the discussions of the various works of art - I looked them up on the net as they came up in the book, and verified the details Brown pointed out. I found it more enjoyable than A&D for that reason alone (I liked Deception Point better than A&D too just becuase it was different than DC... A&D was redundant.)

I'll see the movie when I run into the dvd on the cheap rack at Target.

Originally Posted by dar512

Great googly moogly, folks. It's an artistic device. Take a deep breath.

Yes. Exactly.

[Ibby]

Angels and Demons came before DC, actually...

I'll stop posting in this thread... I see I'm the only one who takes artistic integrity with any seriousness.
Especially when it has to do with deceiving people about their faith with a book being published in nations where they do not have access to the same alternate information & resources that we in the US and Europe have.
If you claim something is true, it should be, that used to mean something, last thing have have to say about it.

[footfootfoot]

It was brain candy. Some people like more savory things, some prefer their treats w/o artificial flavor. It wasn't meant to be a doctoral disertation. I'm pretty sure it was meant to pay the rent. It read exactly like a novel waiting to be made into a movie. It was entertaining.

The learning company has a great number of very scholarly lectures available on all aspects of the history of christianity. Quite good actually.

I don't know angels and demons, but I did like angels and insects.

[Undertoad]

it has to do with deceiving people about their faith with a book being published in nations where they do not have access to the same alternate information & resources that we in the US and Europe have.

Code's entire story is about competing control over Truth - what the church insists, in order to maintain its power, versus the actual, provable truth. To claim it has integrity, then, it only needs to be more factual than the Bible. Which, I'm gonna guess, it is.

For the rest of us, I saw the movie with J over the weekend and found it to be an enjoyable mystery story romp. I "get it" - there's nothing serious to this, it's like... Crichton books are ripping yarns with a loose basis in science, and Grisham books are ripping yarns with a loose basis in the law, so Brown books are apparently ripping yarns with a loose basis in theology.

[wolf]

Please don't tell my friend Mary, but I went to see it last night. See, I'd promised her I wouldn't go, because it was going to be a girl's night thing, and we'd all go, and well ... let's just say that there was a gentleman caller involved, and that trumps promise to a girlfriend. Like major.

So, anway ... here's the big surprise.

I liked it.

I thought that the movie was a lot better than the book. A lot of the foolishness that annoyed me disappeared because the demands of movie making required that the plot be tightened up and some time elements compressed.

It's entertaining, but the special effects inserts (you'll know what I mean if you see it) were just a little to "brilliant mind" for me, and basically unnecessary.

[melidasaur]

I liked the book a lot and I liked the movie. Overall, I was pleased.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Most people don't read fiction to determine the history of the Catholic church or how we came to be a patriarchial society.

Not true. Most people *do* read a work of fiction to come to many of their conclusions. It is called The Bible.

[erno365]

Worth seeing me and after you watched that movie, it definitely makes you stop and think about what your believes are? Good conversation piece between people.