The Da Vinci Code - possible spoilers

[read the book! :)]

Firstly, don't read this if you haven't read the book! It's too much of a page turner to spoil by knowing some of these things are to do with the plot! :)





Having read this book which was great fun to read I was just wondering if any of the sinners here has read it?

The main plot itself makes for a fun read but I found the bits referring to actual or guessed history fascinating :) I was just wondering if anyone knew how mcuh of the various historical bits and bobs of the story were true or were believed to possibly be true?

The things about the Priory of Sion for example, Opus Dei, the "End of Days", the bloodline of Mary, all the things about the blessed feminine and the various information about Da Vinci and his paintings.

I had never heard any of this stuff before though I believe the Priory and Opus Dei are far from made up. But the Catholic church and its beliefs are not my speciality!

I was going to make a joke but those seem to be taken the wrong way for some reason so I shall refrain! :P

But anyway, great book but is most of the stuff presented as fact simply mere speculation or consiracy theories, or is there more to it?

[fiftyfive]

It's a superb thriller. Unfortunately ALL of the guy's other books follow the exact same theme. Beautiful, intelligent female lead charactar in a traditionally non female role, bad guy is always someone close to her and the last person she would expect, etc etc.
They make wonderful airplane books though!

As for all the religious fuss, it's great to see catholics get all riled up

[grousefanatic]

I think it was a great book. I have just finished reading "Angels and Demons" - bit samey as "The Da Vinci Code" and I could see the real culprit miles off, but there was a twist I didn't expect.

I do really enjoy reaing bout the symbolology (sp?) and such stuff. Me, being quite the sad git, went out and the bought a guide to the facts behind the Da Vinci Code. Some good stuff in there. I also had a look at some of the views on the 'Net, and I managed to find the review done by a Catholic magazine I'd heard about, where the guy goes mental over the subplot of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I was *this* close to sending an email sending something along the lines of "It's just a book ..."

I now just have to plough through the remaining two.

[fiftyfive]

Digital Fortress is better than the one about nasa and the arctic etc, whichever one that was.

[Miz Manda]

I love DB though he does follow exactly the same formula for every single story. Still great books. I especially liked DVC and Deception Point. I started reading him this summer and read all the books back to back. After a while it gets pretty easy to guess who the bad guy is etc but still a good read.

[Andrew Cusack]

[s]grousefanatic wrote on 19:05, 16th Aug 2004:
Some good stuff in there. I also had a look at some of the views on the 'Net, and I managed to find the review done by a Catholic magazine I'd heard about, where the guy goes mental over the subplot of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I was *this* close to sending an email sending something along the lines of "It's just a book ..."

Well, you can't blame us Catholics for trying to get the message out, because precedent has shown that works of total fiction can have a great effect on the world of perceived 'non-fiction'.

A case in point would be that of Bl. Pius XII, the pope during the Second World War. During and after the war, there was universal acclaim (from Albert Einstein, from the Jewish community of Italy, Germany, Croatia, etc, and from the Jewish-owned New York Times) for the pope's actions, including his efforts behind the curtains to save the lives of Jews (more than Schindler and Wallenberg combined) as well as others the Nazis deemed "undesirable", and his voiciferous condemnation of Nazism and race-based ideology.

This universal praise continued until the 1960's when an entirely fictional play called the Deputy was written in which Pius XII was portrayed as a vicious deceiver and Hitler's fawning pawn. Even though the play was entirely false, it turned the tide of opinion against Pius XII. The result was a series of books, mostly of very poor scholarship but nonetheless highly-selling, condemning Pius, and often Catholicism too.

The fear over the Da Vinci Code is that, despite being a work of fiction like the Deputy, people will start believing it's true.

Added: A friend has recommended this link for Da Vinci Code info:
http://www.geocities.com/frcoulter/davincicode.html

[hr]
http://www.andrewcusack.com

[Rex Mundi]

I enjoyed the book, fun read, a real page turner with a fast paced plot and some interesting ideas.

But I wouldn't take any of it seriously, it's just a novel after all. That goes both to Catholics and the conspiracy theorists.

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]Andrew Cusack wrote on 22:18, 16th Aug 2004:
Well, you can't blame us Catholics for trying to get the message out, because precedent has shown that works of total fiction can have a great effect on the world of perceived 'non-fiction'.

The fear over [i]the Da Vinci Code is that, despite being a work of fiction like the Deputy, people will start believing it's true.[/i]
the words "Project Paperclip" spring readily to mind.

And yes the word "fear" is the right word. So much of what has been researched shows that the emerging Church twisted, culled and excised much of what Christ taught - not to mention those who spoke out aginst it!! - and reworked it all into something that often bore little relation to what he set out.

There also has to be something of a conundrum in defending an implicit belief in the Virgin Birth for instance under the term "non-fiction". Or taking on board the notion that - luckily - all his chosen disciples were decent enough to adopt Western names. Or the steadfast denial that Christ had at least one other brother - James - when every other source, known but denied by the Church for centuries - exists practically everywhere else.

Historical research - and a deeper, linguistic understanding of the texts themselves - shows just how much of a work of fiction the corpus known as Christianity itself actually is. Christianity is a "faith". It doesn't have to depend on fact but simply an implicit belief in what you are taught. Even when there's a mass of evidence elsewhere that utterly denies many of its closest held precepts.

[Aureliano]

Mmmmmmm.... anyone ever read 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'? It sounds like the Da Vinci Code, but without the fictional storyline to it. To make a (very) long story short, it touches on masonic sects, the Knights Templar, the Priory, the bloodline of Christ etc. Sounds like bits of the Da Vinci code could very well be inspired by the speculation of the likes of 'Holy Blood'.

In the end, it is just speculative history. Which makes it seem even more compelling to some, and like trashy-pop-near-history to others.

Still... the depth of their historical research on medieval Europe, the Merovingians etc is fantastic. And it all makes me want to visit the little French hamlet of Rennes-le-Chateau.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 93-6419804

[The Cellar Bar]

Christopher Knight and Roger Lomas ahve done a really interesting set of books - including "The Second Messiah" - which are also worth reading.

What's becoming increasingly obvious is that there is a body of history out there which has been consistently papered over to suit a general theme. Sections of what they argue is speculative - but only in as much as not a great deal has been done to date to bring it to light.

But they deserve more than just a casual glance.

[Miss Maryland]

[s]Aureliano wrote on 06:14, 17th Aug 2004:
Mmmmmmm.... anyone ever read 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'?




I'm reading it right now. As for the Da Vinci Code, while it is an interesting read, I find Holy Blood, Holy Grail much better. Da Vinci Code was written in the format of a best-seller: written in a way that over a million people can comprehend. I found the writing style to be very dull and annoying- it seemed as if Mr. Brown assumed that I was twelve years old. The other annoying thing about the book was the way Brown seemed to be showing off his knowledge whenever he could, even if it was completely irrelevant to the plot and theme of the book. While by themselves these tidbits were very interesting, there were so many of them that they made Brown appear to be a bit of a show-off. My reccommendation is to skip Brown's book and head straight to Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
[hr]
...and there was much rejoicing

[Guest]

Oh, I also forgot to ask if people would recommend Dan Brown's other books?

[Guest]

[s]Andrew Cusack wrote on 22:18, 16th Aug 2004:
The fear over [i]the Da Vinci Code is that, despite being a work of fiction like the Deputy, people will start believing it's true.
[/i]

The plot in the book is fiction but the references to the past, religion and symbology are said to be fact bith by the author and many other well educated people on the topic(s).

In which case it couldn't make people start to belive it is true if it is indeed already believed to be true by many people!

[novium]

I don't know why everyone went crazy over this book. It wasn't all THAT original. I've seen books with the same themes that were on the whole much better written. (Not that I liked them all that much either).

And every single person who comes into the bookstore I work at, it seems, act offended that we don't carry it. (It's an outlet bookstore!)

And people have raved (to me, in the store, especially) about how historically accurate and meticulously researched it was, when I could pick out errors and common misconceptions scattered through out it. (I would have ignored them, except for the thing on one of the first few pages about how accurate it was going to be)

[mary]

[s]The Cellar Bar wrote on 01:56, 17th Aug 2004:
[s]Andrew Cusack wrote on 22:18, 16th Aug 2004:[i]
Well, you can't blame us Catholics for trying to get the message out, because precedent has shown that works of total fiction can have a great effect on the world of perceived 'non-fiction'.

The fear over [i]the Da Vinci Code is that, despite being a work of fiction like the Deputy, people will start believing it's true.[/i]
the words "Project Paperclip" spring readily to mind.

And yes the word "fear" is the right word. So much of what has been researched shows that the emerging Church twisted, culled and excised much of what Christ taught - not to mention those who spoke out aginst it!! - and reworked it all into something that often bore little relation to what he set out.

There also has to be something of a conundrum in defending an implicit belief in the Virgin Birth for instance under the term "non-fiction". Or taking on board the notion that - luckily - all his chosen disciples were decent enough to adopt Western names. Or the steadfast denial that Christ had at least one other brother - James - when every other source, known but denied by the Church for centuries - exists practically everywhere else.

Historical research - and a deeper, linguistic understanding of the texts themselves - shows just how much of a work of fiction the corpus known as Christianity itself actually is. Christianity is a "faith". It doesn't have to depend on fact but simply an implicit belief in what you are taught. Even when there's a mass of evidence elsewhere that utterly denies many of its closest held precepts.
[/i]



Spoken with true objectivity, of course.

The same old catholic bashing. How many catholics do you know that go to lengths to "disprove" tenets of YOUR faith?

[Guest]

Why does it have to be "speculative" history when the only people that follow the alternative history are the churches themselves?

Why is it so impossible for it all to be true, especially considering so many either consider to be a possible truth or believe it completely? Is it simply because it goes against what the church teaches? Because if so it is a well known fact that the church skewed all its own stories in its favour, firstly to see off the pagans and secondly as a from of control.

So why on earth should that be the version of the history that stands seeing as it does not stand up to scrutiny?

[Guest]

[s]Miss Maryland wrote on 14:18, 17th Aug 2004:
My reccommendation is to skip Brown's book and head straight to Holy Blood, Holy Grail.


My recommendation would be for people to make up their own mind.

The Da Vinci Code is highly enjoyable, and chances are that most people will like it. It isn't meant to be a challenging novel, just a fun and interesting mystery story.
------------------------------------
And as for "nicking ideas" from other people's books, it happens to be on the same theme and same history so it can hardly be called nicking someone else's idea. Unless of course people consider all novels set in the second world war for example to all be copycats?

I wouldn't have thought so. It is interesting though the number of sites and people that have risen up to dispell the theories in the Da Vinc Code as crap or not worth reading amongst the religious community though - perhaps he has hit a nerve after all?

Surely everyone should be happy with the true history whatever that should be, therefore you would think if the church was so into honesty and integrity they would also do their utmost to find out what is the truth - their version or one of the many others. Or is that a little too naive?

[Sir Tufton Bufton]

[s]Aureliano wrote on 06:14, 17th Aug 2004:
Mmmmmmm.... anyone ever read 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'? It sounds like the Da Vinci Code, but without the fictional storyline to it. To make a (very) long story short, it touches on masonic sects, the Knights Templar, the Priory, the bloodline of Christ etc. Sounds like bits of the Da Vinci code could very well be inspired by the speculation of the likes of 'Holy Blood'.

In the end, it is just speculative history. Which makes it seem even more compelling to some, and like trashy-pop-near-history to others.

Still... the depth of their historical research on medieval Europe, the Merovingians etc is fantastic. And it all makes me want to visit the little French hamlet of Rennes-le-Chateau.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 93-6419804



I'm delighted to see that someone else thinks so. I don't consider DVC to be inspired by HBHG, but rather to have taken every important idea from it. Mind you, Baigent, Leigh and the third author (whose name I can't recall) didn't 'discover' it all either.

I enjoyed DVC as a cheap trashy thriller, as you put it. Much of the actual writing was really awful imho - poor construction, poor grammar, senselessly short chapters and paragraphs.

[Aureliano]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 09:24, 17th Aug 2004:
Why does it have to be "speculative" history when the only people that follow the alternative history are the churches themselves?

Why is it so impossible for it all to be true, especially considering so many either consider to be a possible truth or believe it completely?

So why on earth should that be the version of the history that stands seeing as it does not stand up to scrutiny?


I agree. But this is kind of like what's going on with Moore's '9/11'. Now, Michael, Baignet and the other random dude surely applied much more rigorous historical analysis to their research. However, by the end of it all, when they are trying to tie their woven threads to the present (with discussion of the EU, prominent members of European families etc), lack of more firm evidence makes them take certain 'speculative liberties'. While individual what-ifs in their theory can be easily digested, the larger structure of the theory (with its scope of 2000 years worth of what-ifs) becomes very tentative at best.
I was able to be open-minded enough to entertain the theory, others might not be.

But yes, I agree. In the long run these well-reserched, controversial histories are no less plausible than the reconstructions of age-old historical mysteries that you see in 'respected' documentaries on TV every evening.

[grousefanatic]

[s]Andrew Cusack wrote on 22:18, 16th Aug 2004:
Well, you can't blame us Catholics for trying to get the message out, because precedent has shown that works of total fiction can have a great effect on the world of perceived 'non-fiction'.

I really am going to try to be as non-nasty and anti Catholicism as I possibly can be, having been educated by them, but that phrasing is screaming out for a retort such as "Hence organised religion". I do understand your true meaning, though, but he does put disclaimers in the book, and reading books on the subject very often say "Dan Brown made this up" or some such words. Personally, if a person can't tell the difference between reality and the world created in a fictional account then I'd be rather worried for that person's mental wellbeing.

A case in point would be that of Bl. Pius XII, the pope during the Second World War. During and after the war, there was universal acclaim (from Albert Einstein, from the Jewish community of Italy, Germany, Croatia, etc, and from the Jewish-owned New York Times) for the pope's actions, including his efforts behind the curtains to save the lives of Jews (more than Schindler and Wallenberg combined) as well as others the Nazis deemed "undesirable", and his voiciferous condemnation of Nazism and race-based ideology.

He was a good man then. Explain the Crusades for me. Not the Middle Eastern ones, but ones against the Cathars and other groups with differing views of Christ. The Popes who ordered those Crusades obviously weren't as tolerant and open as Pius XII.

This universal praise continued until the 1960's when an entirely fictional play called [i]the Deputy was written in which Pius XII was portrayed as a vicious deceiver and Hitler's fawning pawn. Even though the play was entirely false, it turned the tide of opinion against Pius XII. The result was a series of books, mostly of very poor scholarship but nonetheless highly-selling, condemning Pius, and often Catholicism too.

[/i] Radical books are always best-sellers but many people don't actually *read* them. If you are truly interested in such a subject, then you will quickly find out where the expertise lies.

The Bible has been popular for longer than either Dan Brown or "The Deputy" and more than likely will be for a long time after they're forgotten. I think it's safe!

However, it cannot be denied that Catholicism covered older religions of the people. This isn't just to do with symbols but dates of holidays as well. "The words coming out of their mouths were those of the new religion but their feet were dancing to ancient beats" - I shall give the reference to this when I find it too (consider this post a work in progress).

Anyway I shall try to find that review of the book that I alluded to and post the link so you can all have a look and make your own minds up.

http://www.catholicweb.com/media_index.cfm?fuseaction=view_article&partnerid=26&article_id=1313

I still think it deserves "But it's just a book..."