The Davinci Code

[Sri Gnana]

Tell me about the "The Davici code".

[Chetan Parekh]

Use google na.

[Sri Gnana]

Hey chethan
i mean your opinion

[Chetan Parekh]

Sorry I felt that you are asking for what it is.
Well, I haven't seen the movie, but want to start reading book by this weekend.

[Ulf Dittmer]

The book is a real page-turner, as is Illuminati. Since the plot happens in a very short timeframe (a day or two), you should also read the book in a timeframe like that, to keep with the flow of it.

[David O'Meara]

Dunno, his writing style really stared to any me half way through, it was like a series of Dr Who episodes. It all builds up like dominoes so they can all fall into place at the end but it really got tedious. At one stage I was shouting "If you have something to say, just say it, FFS!" Tension, and not the good kind.

An interesting piece of fiction though

[Jeff Albertson]

Originally posted by Chetan Parekh:
I haven't seen the movie

I believe it's just openning today, unless you have a pirated copy

[Jeff Albertson]

As for the book itself, I had to put it down after a few pages, it was so poorly written. And the subject matter is so blatently prejudiced against the Roman Catholic Church, well, if it had be a novel about Islam instead, Dan Brown would have had a fatwah on his head faster than you can say "Aaa-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi"!

[Paul Sturrock]

I have to admit I was sick and tired of the unbiquiteousness of The Da Vinci Code long before the film arrived. But that attitude is probably informed by living three miles from Rosslyn Chapel and having to meet the really odd people who congregate there looking for the "proof" behind the book.

A few months ago I was asked for directions to the Chapel by an American gentleman and got trapped for half an hour listening to his (completely serious) theory that the Chapel is infact a disguised spaceship. Thanks Dan Brown.
[ May 19, 2006: Message edited by: Paul Sturrock ]

[Chetan Parekh]

Originally posted by Jeff Albertson:
As for the book itself, I had to put it down after a few pages, it was so poorly written. And the subject matter is so blatently prejudiced against the Roman Catholic Church, well, if it had be a novel about Islam instead, Dan Brown would have had a fatwah on his head faster than you can say "Aaa-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi"!

You should be proude of the fact that Roman Chatholic Church are moderate and has grown up with time.
[ May 19, 2006: Message edited by: Chetan Parekh ]

[David O'Meara]

Just the book please. Keep the religion on the fringe of the conversation.

[Stan James]

The book borrows heavily from a few sources, takes license from there and goes a bit off the deep end. It's fiction, so the flights of fantasy are perfectly fine. He does say in the preface that the places, architecture and documents mentioned are all factual, but I'd take that page as fiction, too.

This is pure action, written like he was watching a movie that you probably saw too. It met my needs of distracting me from reality for some number of hours, but I prefer books that occasionally make me say "I could never in a million years turn a phrase like that"

I also tend towards conflicted heros like Dave Robicheaux, Cliff Janeway, Alex Cross and Hieronymous Bosch. Langdon doesn't have the time for many deep thoughts in DaVinci or Angels & Demons.

As for the protests, somebody has to be the bad guy in these movies. If it's a Pope that's been dead for a millenium this time, so be it. The real villian is a goofy English Kaniggit. Did you hear an albino organization protested to Ron Howard, but said their complaints "fell on deaf ears". Hey, that's offensive, Casper!

I do plan to see the movie. I'm easily amused, so I expect to enjoy it just to see some of the grand locations. Unless Tom Hanks' funny haircut gets in the way.
[ May 19, 2006: Message edited by: Stan James ]

[Bear Bibeault]

I read the book at the urging of a friend who thought it was the greatest thing he had ever read.

I thought it was utter dreck, and it's amazed me that it's been on the best seller's list seemingly since the last Ice Age.

I guess controversy just sells. That explains the success of idiots like Ann Coulter...

[Jeff Albertson]

Originally posted by Bear Bibeault:
That explains the success of idiots like Ann Coulter...

That and she's a hottie. I try to be a leftie, but the little man never listens to me.

[marc weber]

Originally posted by Jeff Albertson:
As for the book itself, I had to put it down after a few pages, it was so poorly written...

Me too. Overall, my reaction is just :roll: .

[marc weber]

Originally posted by Bear Bibeault:
...That explains the success of idiots like Ann Coulter...

"Idiot" is far too kind.

[Ganpi Srinivasan]

the book was ok. Nothing great abt it especially considering the hype it got for the fact that it had explosive contents against Christianity (and given as Fact in the book). I have read better novels that were more interesting - case in point, "The Fourth K" by Mario Puzo.

Reg the movie...judging the reviews that its getting, I might queue it up on NetFlix!!

[fred rosenberger]

i don't recall it being given as "fact" in the book. the book is a work of fiction, so i assumed some of the "evidence" was fiction as well.

and if nobody ever made a stink about it, the book probably would have faded into obsurity.

I remember about 25 years ago when a local theatre groups was putting on the play "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You". The priest at our church told everyone not to see it, to boycott it.

After we got home, my mom said "i'm going to go see it just so i know what the controversy is about".

[Bert Bates]

Well, I have a soft spot in my heart for authors who aren't very good writers - but still have an idea to get across.

My cut is that for better or for worse, the "bible" has had tremendous impact on the world for the last 1700 years or so, and I think it's fascinating to understand more about how it was actually contructed, and how it has been edited and shaped over the centuries. For instance the newly released gospel of Judas is really amazing when you think of how the old image of Judas has had such a profound impact to millions of people over time.

So, well written or not, and true or not, the underlying concept of how the bible was shaped is really interesting.

[fred rosenberger]

Oh, c'mon Bert! Kathy is a TERRIFIC writer!

[Bert Bates]

oh sure, Kathy, Kathy, Kathy...

[Paul Clapham]

Originally posted by Stan James:
I prefer books that occasionally make me say "I could never in a million years turn a phrase like that"

The DaVinci Code is just such a book.

I read it on an airplane last weekend (LA to Vancouver) and I kept stubbing my mental toe on the phrases Dan Brown used. Example: one of the characters walks with a cane. His first appearance was on a stairway, which he was descending "one step at a time". Well, I don't use a cane and I am physically fit, but I always go downstairs one step at a time. Have you ever tried to go downstairs two steps at a time? No, I could never turn a phrase like that.

[Greg Charles]

Well, it depends how you define "one step at time". The typical stair-walking pattern has each foot going two steps, though of course not at the same time. That is each foot only hits every other step. A man with a cane might hit every step with both feet. I agree that Brown is prone to very cringe-worthy prose though.

[Jim Yingst]

[Paul C]: Have you ever tried to go downstairs two steps at a time?

Um, sure. Less often as an adult, but still do occasionally. How old are you?

As for "one step at a time" - to me it's ambiguous, with two possible meanings. The fact that it's being mentioned at all, combined with the cane, makes me think it refers here to the slower-moving version favored by, well, people with canes: each foot touches each stairstep. With optional pauses for breath in between. As opposed to what most of us do, with each footstep placed on a new stairstep, and half the stairsteps are stepped on by the left foot, while the other half are stepped on by the right. There may be better, less ambiguous ways to describe this than "one step at a time", but I don't find the phrase as problematic as you seem to.
[ May 19, 2006: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Roger Nelson]

I have rarely found a movie that was ever able to capture the essence of a well written novel having a good story line.
I preferred reading the Godfather rather than the movie, and I felt that the latest "pride and prejudice" did not do justice to the book.
I do realize that its tough to summarize a whole book in less than 2 hours.

I guess movies based on books having good special effects like Lord of the rings, jurrasic park are worth watching.

I believe there's no room for special effects in the "Da vinci code", and it would just sell because of the popularity of the book and ofcourse the controversy behind it. :-)

[Joyce Lee]

Not that I don't like Tom Hanks, but I prefer Harrison Ford to play the role of Langdon (only if he's 20 years younger...).

[Paul Clapham]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
As for "one step at a time" - to me it's ambiguous, with two possible meanings.

Exactly, it's ambiguous. When I'm reading a novel, especially a thriller like DVC, I don't really want to pause and wonder what the heck the author meant to say. A competent editor would have replaced the phrase by something less clunky.

[Dave Lenton]

The film company producing this film must be laughing at the moment. All the time the various protesting groups are complaining about the film, they're actually giving out free publicity. I bet that for every person put off watching the film my a campaign against it, another ten go along to see what all the fuss is about.

I read the book (much for the same reasons, to see what everyone was talking about), but it was a bit disappointing. Brown has some interesting ideas, but didn't really put them into a good story. The characters were just props to help explain his theories, and I ended up not really caring much about them - a good book really connects the reader with the characters.

Perhaps Brown should have just written a non-fiction book describing his ideas. On the other hand, a non-fiction book would not have made him a multi-millionaire, so fair play to him for doing what would make him more cash.

As for comments from some groups that the statements in the book are unproven and people should not believe them because of that, well the irony is clear.

[Jeroen T Wenting]

Originally posted by David O'Meara:
Just the book please. Keep the religion on the fringe of the conversation.

The book is so blatantly anti-Christian that the two can't be seen separately unless you're willing to submit to a theoretical treatise about linguistic structures

[Jeroen T Wenting]

Originally posted by Paul Clapham:
His first appearance was on a stairway, which he was descending "one step at a time". Well, I don't use a cane and I am physically fit, but I always go downstairs one step at a time. Have you ever tried to go downstairs two steps at a time?

Regularly. At university there were some stairs that were so shallow we jumped them 5-10 steps at a time.

[fred rosenberger]

The book is so blatantly anti-Christian

i disagree. it may question some of the beliefs of Christianity, sure. But how is saying that someone fell in love, got married, and had kids anti-christian?

[Jeroen T Wenting]

The portrayal of Christian priests and functionaries as bloodthirsty murdering megalomaniacs however...

[fred rosenberger]

i didn't see that as being ALL priests, just a certain subset. even if it WERE all priests, thats a far cry from all Christianity.

[Anand Prabhu]

I read the book. It was ok. After reading "Angels and Demons", I think the plot or storyline gets a bit predictable. The bible has been arond for 2000 years and has inspired generations. Dan's book will not change the beliefs of the faithful as it is more speculatory and anyway, it is the message of the Christ that is more important than the analysis of his human/divine nature.

[Frank Silbermann]

I've read a number of theories about the origin of Freemasonry in a group called the Knights Templar who were supposedly protecting the descendents of Jesus. I've neither read the book nor seen the movie, so I was wondering -- does Freemasonry enter into the plot?

[Jeroen T Wenting]

the Knights Templar are an historical order taking their name from having their first castle on or near temple mount in Jerusalem.
They became quite wealthy by providing (at a price) protection for pilgrims to the Holy Land, as well as through trade between Europe and the Middle East.
They became even more wealthy as rich people donated their wealth to the order either on death or when joining the order, which caused them to end up with extensive holdings all over Europe (but mainly in France and the UK).
They were founded in the 1200s or so, and almost destroyed when the pope and worldly leaders started seeing them as a threat to their authority several hundred years later (and of course confiscating that wealth made for some nice additions to their coffers).

The Freemasons have nothing to do with them. They're originally a non-religious organisation from the 1700s or early 1800s.

The supposed link betwee the groups comes from conspiracy theories which say that the Knights Templar went underground and survived as a secret society bent on destroying the Church and establishing their rule all over the world, then saying that that secret society came into the light as the Freemasons (with the Illuminati as their underground arm, it is usually claimed).
This is supposedly proven by simmilirities between certain rituals supposedly observed by all groups (but them all being secretive, how can one be sure...).

There is of course nothing to deny such theories, but neither is there anything to corroborate them.
The existing accounts of the foundation of the Freemasons don't mention any Templar influence.

[Dave Lenton]

Originally posted by Jeroen T Wenting:
almost destroyed when the pope and worldly leaders started seeing them as a threat to their authority several hundred years later

This coordinated destruction happened on Friday the 13th, which is why much of Western Europe (and its derived cultures) see it as an unlucky day. Apparently it was also the inspiration for the scene in Star Wars III where all the Jedi get killed by a pre-planned instruction.

[Sri Gnana]

Just have a look at this picture

[ May 25, 2006: Message edited by: Sri Gnana ]
[ October 30, 2007: Message edited by: Sri Gnana ]

[Ulf Dittmer]

Originally posted by Sri Gnana:
... i don't meant to hurt anyone.

Not that I care one way or the other -because political correctness is crap-,
but are you trying to exempt yourself from the feelings of people who ARE hurt, by stating that you didn't mean to? In that case, shouldn't you have refrained from posting this at all?

[Jeroen T Wenting]

if you are unwilling to post anything that might upset anyone at anytime for any reason you should never post anything at all.
And that might in itself be seen as an insult by some people who feel you're deliberately ignoring them...