# Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' and 'Angels And Demons' (merged)



## Wolfshead

I assume other people have read these books? I read _The Da Vinci Code_ a while back, and _Angels And Demons_ last week. What do people think of them? I loved them, to be honest, but I know some people (usually Catholics) don't. They do have a lot of controversial issues in them - there being a surviving bloodline of Jesus, the role of Mary Magdalene, the Holy Grail etc. Riveting reading, though 

Brown tells us a lot about a variety of different subjects that we probably wouldn't have known otherwise. All really interesting, but the only problem for me is working out what's actually true!

I'm at university now and one of the subjects I'm studying is called Rise of Christianity. I'm not religious (nor am I an atheist, though), but there's a lot of people in my class who (in my opinion) know far too much about the bible, and take things too seriously. I'll admit that _The Da Vinci Code_ is one of the main reasons I took that class, just to learn more, so I occasionally bring up the book with other people. I asked one guy if he'd read it, and his response was "No, but I've read about six books criticising it". Funnily, he didn't speak to me again  Anyway, our lecturer had this to say on the subject, and I paraphrase, "The Da Vinci Code is great entertainment, but basically it's just rubbish".

I know there's a mix of religious and political views on here, so I wondered what the general TTF poplace at to say on the matter?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



CraigSmith said:


> ..._The Da Vinci Code_ is one of the main reasons I took that class, just to learn more, so I occasionally bring up the book with other people. I asked one guy if he'd read it, and his response was "No, but I've read about six books criticising it". Funnily, he didn't speak to me again  Anyway, our lecturer had this to say on the subject, and I paraphrase, "The Da Vinci Code is great entertainment, but basically it's just rubbish".
> 
> I know there's a mix of religious and political views on here, so I wondered what the general TTF poplace at to say on the matter?



Not having read the DaVinci Code, but having read reviews of it (as did your friend), I would put it in that class of manifestations that I call "miracles via projection." For instance, just the other day, I saw on television a ten-year-old cheese sandwich(!) (I forget the how and why of it) that a woman claimed to have the face of Mary on it! There was a picture of it, and indeed there was a spot on the toast that looked liked a face. (Like the face seen on Mars, to say nothing of canals...) 

As far as I'm concerned, this is the same principle of projecting (seeing) angels and kitty cats in clouds. It is beyond me that people _still_ fall for this sort of thing — I call it nonsense — and get all worked up over it. How gullible can you get. Finding codes in books is what I term a kissin' cousin to the same sort of projection.

Man loves (indeed needs) to make sense of things, so much so that many times he forces things to make sense that are inherently nonsensical, and loves to connect dots, many times that have no valid connection. Unless we are very careful in our observations and our thought processes, we can fool ourselves into believing the damndest things...

Barley


----------



## Wolfshead

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> As far as I'm concerned, this is the same principle of projecting (seeing) angels and kitty cats in clouds.


There's more to it than the code itself. I'd see that as made up, anyway - part of the story. But the story is based on what are supposedly true facts. Things like the existance of the Illuminati and the Priory of Sion; all sorts of interesting facts about the Church; the existence of a bloodline of Jesus and the quest of the Knights Templar etc. You should read both books, then see what you think. But just out of interest, could I ask you what your religious stance is?


----------



## joxy

Good to see you back Craig Smith.
So, at university now - which one? -, and studying what subject, that includes such a surprising topic as "The Rise of Christianity"?
The Da Vinci book is, of course, just one of the wide variety of trivial things that get attached to any religion. Such books can be entertaining, and one has to admire the effort the writers put into them, but they have nothing to do with the mainstream of the religion, and, unless one has unlimited time, are better neglected in favour of much more relevant works.
From its very earliest days Christianity has found itself littered with all manner of weird and wonderful ideas, from some that lasted with some passion for a year or two, through others that seemed overwhelming for a century or two but then dwindled away into obscurity, to a few of which the influence still reverberates today. Fortunately it has always had the resilience and strength to withstand all such diversions, and still therefore retains the essential character, the Rock, on which it was founded.


----------



## Wolfshead

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Cheers, joxy. I'm at Aberdeen Uni studying history, but I'm also doing some divinity, some philosophy and some celtic civilisation in my first term. The Rise of Christianity course being in the divinity department. I don't have internet in my room there (because I haven't got round to setting it up yet, and when I do it'll be painfully slow), so I don't get much of a chance to spend time on forums. It's only when I'm home I have all the time I want. Although I do still have a philosophy essay to write for handing in tomorrow...

Of course The Da Vinci code has nothing to do with the mainstream part of Christianity. But do you not find all the little bits of information about the history of the religion he puts in fascinating? They're not relevent to todays Christianity, but you get to see why some things are the way they are, or why something really happened 1000 years ago. The Christian idea has survived all the turmoil of the past 2000 years, but the church have never been the completely devout, squeaky clean organisation that they try to project to the world. They were really just as bloodthrirsty as every other monarchy in the ancient and medieval world. And seeing things as they really were is what interests me (being why I'm studying history...).


----------



## joxy

Thank you CS.
Yes, I guessed you must have stayed in Scotland for your further experience, where universities still deal in solid subjects, leaving the fripperies of media studies and even Tolkienology to the new English red-bricks.  
Divinity, philosophy, civilisation, as salt in the soup of history, there's a real Scottish catholic (small "c", of course) education!
Just for the record though, my degree course at the university down the road from here, in Yorkshire, was quite broad, being basically religion and literature, with philosophy and sociology thrown in for good measure. To that I'll add an admission, that a colleague substituted plate techtonics for one of those subsidiaries!
Yes again, all the trivia and minutiae *are* interesting, and, as I said, entertaining, and I wouldn't put anyone off them.
My only reservation would be that the correct order of things would be to get a firm grounding in that "mainstream" first - which will, after all, include all the detail you could ask for, and then some - and after that indulge yourself in the whims and fancies of any number of writers who jump on to the rolling bandwagon, only to overbalance and fall off before very long. I know wagons don't negotiate streams, but you get my drift?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



CraigSmith said:


> ...just out of interest, could I ask you what your religious stance is?



Well, I've been around the block a few times! (Beware: you're going to find out more than you wanted to know, but I think you'll find it interesting.)

My parents were "technically Jewish," but never practiced it. They tried putting me in a Jewish Sunday school when I was little (about 4 or 5 or so), but I hated it so much that they took me out, and that was that for a while.

Then my mother enrolled me in a Catholic day care in a church down the street. The nuns were so mean that I would sneak out and go home. That didn't last long!

Then we moved into our first house. We moved from renting in a poor neighborhood to buying our first house in another poor neighborhood. For entertainment, we used to stand in front of the TV store and watch wrestling (this was in the days when TV — then a great novelty — first began to replace radio). They'd put a TV in the window on a timer, tuned a set to wrestling, and so there was a crowd standing on the sidewalk. They'd bring food and folding chairs!

My other entertainment (along with a crowd of other neighbors) was watching the Pentecostal "holy rollers" go into a trance, dance around singing and speaking in tongues. (The little neighborhood Pentecostal church had no air conditioning on hot nights, so they'd leave the doors open.)

A few years later, my mother enrolled me in a Christian Science Sunday school, along with a few other neighborhood kids. The teacher was a very nice young lady who tried her best to explain the tenets of the church, but we thought they were so crazy that we just laughed at their absurdity — very rude! I dropped out of that too.

Then something happened that had a great effect on my view of religion and of God. My parents, and my maternal grandma and I had gone to Sears to do some shopping. I must have been 6 or 7, maybe 8. Grandma and I stayed in the car while my parents went to the nursery for some plants. I was in the front seat, and my grandma was in the back. We were chatting, but she fell silent. I turned around to see why she'd stopped talking. She was in the middle of having a stroke.

She'd keeled over onto her side. Her eyes were crossed. She was foaming at the mouth. I was terrified. I didn't know what to do. Should I stay with her, or should I go looking for my parents? So I began to pray. Hard. Nothing happened. So I finally decided to go find my parents, praying to find them. Finally I found them, and told them what was going on. I forget what happened after that, but I assume that my parents got Grandma to a hospital, where she appeared to recover fully. But when I got a chance to think about it, I came to the conclusion that prayer wasn't worth a damn, and that God didn't give a damn. For many months I carried the thought that somehow I was the cause of what happened. Finally I broke down and told my Dad what I thought, and he hastened to assure me that I'd had nothing to do with it. But before I told him, the guilt was overwhelming.

There was a point in grade school where I was invited to become a member of a Presybterian after-school club. The only thing I remember was the punch and cookies, and that I lost interest.

When I was about 12 or 13, I began to consciously dismiss Christianity as a viable idea. After all: Here is a God who impregnated somebody else's virgin wife — which struck me as rape — and then loaded down his only son with all the sins of the world, and allowed him to be tortured to death. It also struck me as patent nonsense that this God allowed even little babies to be permanently damned to fry in hell forever unless they'd been baptized. It struck me as particular nonsense that people were _born sinful._ That was my take on Christianity as I understood it then, and it really hasn't changed all that much since. But don't be offended: as I have studied other religions, I've pretty much come to the same conclusions about all of them — that they are all some unique combination of wisdom and tommyrot — some more, some less. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Then I grew up some more and got into high school. One day I told my mother a mildly anti-Semitic joke. She looked at me and said, "You shouldn't say things like that." I said, "Why not, it's funny!" She said "Well, _you're_ Jewish." I was both stunned and scared. (I'd no memory of the Jewish Sunday school, and hadn't until well into adulthood.) It was as if someone told me I was really a Martian, and I felt like I had suddenly grown an extra head.

When I went to school the next day, I told my friends, who were as astonished as I was. They immediately made me the house expert on Judaism, and I knew nothing about it!

At 18 I joined the Air Force. So when, at 2 or 3 in the morning after my swearing-in as a new airman, we landed at the training base, we were subject to hours of filling out forms and being asked endless questions. One of the questions a bored airman clerk asked me was, "What religion are you?" for the first time in my life, I answered "Jewish," expecting something horrible to happen. He merely checked off something on a form.

The military has to be able to say that they take care of their people's spiritual needs. To that end, every incoming airman is mandated to go to ONE religious service. So one day my Flight (which is the equivalent to an army company) attended the mandatory service, which was your generic one-size-fits-all Christian service and that was that. But it wasn't.

Somehow or other, I found out that there were Jewish services held on the base by a Jewish chaplain, and that any airman could be excused from basic training long enough to go to services. They _had_ to let you go. The Christians went on Sundays, when there was no basic training anyway. The Jews got to go on Friday nights and Saturday mornings, because the Jewish Sabbath goes from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. So I got _two_ whacks at it during each week. This fostered resentment in some of the men, and I got my first taste of real anti-Semitism.

I started studying Judaism with all the zeal of a convert, and was soon heavily involved, and that lasted all the time — more or less — that I was in the service.

After I got out and began college, Judaism faded out of my life. I found "civilian synagogues" not to my taste: too full of spiritual hypocrisy and too clubby. Obviously this was me more than it was them.

CONTINUED NEXT POST


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

In college I met the woman who became my first wife, who was Jewish and drop-dead gorgeous (I kid you not!). So because of that and because of the kids, we participated in all the main Jewish holidays, and treated them lightly.

Cutting the story short: I enrolled in a postgrad school of psychotherapy, planning to become a family therapist. During that time — when I began my internship — one of my clients was involved in a spiritual movement based on Hinduism. The man was pleased with my work with him, and recommended several other people who were also in the movement. I began to get soaked in this thing, because of the nature of the issues they were trying to resolve. Eventually I was invited to attend one of their gatherings, because their spiritual leader was in town. Again, cutting things short: I was utterly fascinated by Hinduism! I studied it as voraciously as anything I've ever been involved with. But still — I thought to myself: this (the movement, not Hinduism) is either the biggest potential power the world has ever known — or it's the biggest con job. So for the next 20 years I kept one foot in and one foot out.

But before I got really involved I went through a divorce, and so I had the time to get seriously into it — with one foot in and one foot out. Finally there developed some serious scandals around the leader, and I began to feel betrayed. I stayed in because of the music service I was doing, and because I'd made many good friends. Most important of all, I met the woman who became my second and present wife, the light of my life! The sad thing is, I married a true believer just at the point where I was through with the movement. So I'm nominally in, but at the far fringes. I still like the people I've met, and 20-year friendships are not to be dismissed easily.

One day my son gave me a book called _I and That_ by Alex Comfort, which is a critique of the mystical experiences of Hinduism (and by extension of any other religion), and what they probably _really_ are. And I ran across a book called _Positive Illusions_ by a UCLA professor of psychiatry. They had a heavy influence on my thinking, as well as the works of Michael Shirmer, who is a columnist for Scientific American, and especially the moral tenets of Tibetan Buddhism as expressed by the Dalai Lama XIV.

So that's the background. To answer your first question: I stand outside of all religions. I believe that the God of holy books is a first attempt by Man to answer the Perennial Questions, that this God is made in Man's image, and exists nowhere but in Man's mind. I believe that man is essentially incapable of understanding the essential nature of reality, for the same reason that a cat can never learn to read: he simply _lacks what it takes._

What I do believe in is, as the Dalai Lama puts it, in a "policy of kindness." I think Judaism has it right when it quotes God as saying that it is more important to observe the commandments than to believe in God. I believe what Buddha has said:

"Do not believe in what you have heard;
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations;
Do not believe anything because it is rumored and spoken of by many;
Do not believe merely because of the written statement of some old sage;
Do not believe in conjectures;
Do not believe merely in the authority of your teachers and elders.

"Better than worshipping gods is following the ways of goodness.

"After observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

"Be a lamp unto thyself."

I believe that everyone has the right to believe in whatever gives them a sense of purpose about life, gives them acceptable (to them) answers to unanswerable questions and a sense of what's moral and ethical. I believe that NO ONE has the right to force their beliefs onto anyone else, even if their religion says that it's their divine mission to do so. I believe that religions supply a set of positive illusions that enable most people to get through life's tragedies which would otherwise destroy them:

"The final belief is to believe in a fiction which you know to be a fiction." —_Wallace Stevens_

"When you see through life's illusions, therein lies the danger." —_Jackson Brown_

I believe that religion can be perverted to rationalize some of the greatest evils man has ever done to himself.

I believe in kindly, loving, cooperative, compassionate human behavior. If man would treat himself in just two ways: loving cooperation and appreciation of differences, the world would be a heaven on earth.

As I say in my Deep Thought: "It's all about how well you treat yourself and others."

And that's all there is to it.

Barley


----------



## joxy

Barliman Butterbur said:


> And that's all there is to it.


Amen. Amen.


----------



## Gildor

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

_Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ covers a very similar (if not identical) subject; the existence of Jesus Christ as a very human and non-divine individual who was married, had children, grew old, ect., and the efforts of different groups to preserve his bloodline down through the ages. Whether true or not I found it to be a fascinating and logically presented bit of historical detective work.

There are many bizarre and rather fantastic stories in history, from the Children's Crusade to the Crucifixion. The exact details about such things can probably never be known, but its always interesting to strip away a few layers of the mythology and try to shed some light on the dark spots.


----------



## Arvedui

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Please keep in mind that Religious discussions are not allowed. 
However, as long as you stick to discussing the books in question, it is OK.

I know that it is hard to separate the former from the latter when these books are discussed, but I think that if you maek an effort of it it will be no problem.

Thank you.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Arvedui said:


> Please keep in mind that Religious discussions are not allowed.
> However, as long as you stick to discussing the books in question, it is OK.
> 
> I know that it is hard to separate the former from the latter when these books are discussed, but I think that if you maek an effort of it it will be no problem.
> 
> Thank you.



If you are referring to me, I was asked a direct question (What is my religious stance); what was I to do? For some reason that question opened a floodgate...

Also, I think you will find that the topic of religion will seep into many areas as a natural consequence of the nature of the discussion. I think the mods may have to get more flexible on that issue.

Barley


----------



## joxy

Gildor said:


> There are many bizarre and rather fantastic stories in history, from the Children's Crusade.... The exact details about such things can probably never be known, but its always interesting to strip away a few layers of the mythology....


The Children's Crusades *are* history; their details, their facts, are known.
Browning's Hamelin poem is supposed to be based on them, but is there an actual mythology about them?
Whether to consider them bizarre and fantastic is a matter of opinion.
I can't say anything about other interesting points you make, because of the restriction on religion.
As B_B suggests, firm rulings on that matter were always going to be difficult to make - and now already they are.


----------



## Arvedui

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> If you are referring to me, I was asked a direct question (What is my religious stance); what was I to do? For some reason that question opened a floodgate...
> 
> Also, I think you will find that the topic of religion will seep into many areas as a natural consequence of the nature of the discussion. I think the mods may have to get more flexible on that issue.
> 
> Barley


1) No, I wasn't. It was only a general reminder. If I were of the opinion that you had done something wrong, I would have told you so directly (via PM). Great reply, BTW...  

2) Yes it is. That is why I haven't closed the thread.

I have read The DaVinci-Code and I found it immensely interesting, as it raises a lot of questions and shed some new light to univerally accepted thruths. And as it concerns my personal beliefs, even more so. But as long as I hold the position I do here on TTF, I find it impossible to discuss it as I know that I will eventually end up discussing religion. Those that have participated in this thread so far have manged to stick rather good to the topic without crossing the line (bending is OK by me). I do not want to cause the closing of this thread. The views presented in the book is too important to me for that. But I love reading your views, so please go on. I will not interrupt unless I feel the need to do so.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Arvedui said:


> I have read The DaVinci-Code and I found it immensely interesting, as it raises a lot of questions and shed some new light to univerally accepted thruths...



If you liked that, then you will LOVE _Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid_ by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

Barley


----------



## Ol'gaffer

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

I just want to thank Barlie for the amazingly interesting account on his journey through religion. I'm going through some of the same questions now and it's always interesting to hear an account from someone who has gone through it before.


----------



## Gildor

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



joxy said:


> The Children's Crusades *are* history; their details, their facts, are known.
> Browning's Hamelin poem is supposed to be based on them, but is there an actual mythology about them?
> Whether to consider them bizarre and fantastic is a matter of opinion.
> I can't say anything about other interesting points you make, because of the restriction on religion.
> As B_B suggests, firm rulings on that matter were always going to be difficult to make - and now already they are.



Well, what I largely meant was that they may seem just as bizarre and fantastic on the surface as some of the wilder tales of creative fiction we enjoy, and are in many cases even more obscure. All we have as documentation are time-smudged accounts (often from only one or a scant few sources) and the revisions made by the many people that have handed them down.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: "Truth, in matters of history, is simply the opinion that has survived." This is applicable wherever physical evidence is lacking.


----------



## Eledhwen

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



> Originally Posted by Arvedui
> I have read The DaVinci-Code and I found it immensely interesting, as it raises a lot of questions and sheds some new light to universally accepted truths...


Are there any universally accepted truths? Can someone give me synopses of these books (or maybe I'll interrogate Amazon)? 

I am fascinated by this obsession with a blood line for Jesus; though as far as I know it only appears in fiction - a sort of Aragorn figure to leap out of the woodwork when the world is in peril, perhaps!

Your spiritual history is fascinating, Barley. No-one can accuse you of not giving it a go, though it seems you met some right twerps along the way as well as some 'saints'.

You've got a lot on your plate, CS, with that bundle of courses. I hope you get out of them what you are looking for. The Church, of course, does not have just one history, and the rise of Christianity is like the rise of the Himalayas - many simultaneous peaks and troughs. Geography would have been easier!


----------



## joxy

Arvedui said:


> I have read The DaVinci-Code and I found it immensely interesting, as it raises a lot of questions and shed some new light to univerally accepted truths.


If that's how you found it, and if you think it throws important light on anything, I find that distinctly worrying!



Gildor said:


> what I largely meant was that they may seem just as bizarre and fantastic on the surface....All we have as documentation are time-smudged accounts....


Yes, I agree about them appearing bizarre and fantastic, but they did happen and the facts and documentation are quite clear.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Ol'gaffer said:


> I just want to thank Barlie for the amazingly interesting account on his journey through religion. I'm going through some of the same questions now and it's always interesting to hear an account from someone who has gone through it before.



May you discover a set of beliefs which gets you through!

Barley


----------



## Arvedui

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



joxy said:


> If that's how you found it, and if you think it throws important light on anything, I find that distinctly worrying!


Yes, I found it interesting. In fact: very interesting. However, I did not use the word important. What I wrote, was _new_ light. IMO, there is a huge difference between those phrases. But I still can't help wondering: what if he is right? What if this _is_ the truth? There is no proof to either side, which is all belief is about, I guess...


----------



## Wolfshead

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

I didn't actually realise that religious discussion were banned... sorry. I've hardly been on here in the last few months - first work and now uni have kept me away. I wondered where all the religious topics went...  Hopefully this'll stay reasonable, though. 

Seems like you've had a pretty interesting life, Barley! Mine's much more simple - when young believed what I was told, then stopped believing, now I'm not sure. But there's plenty of time for more 



> I am fascinated by this obsession with a blood line for Jesus; though as far as I know it only appears in fiction - a sort of Aragorn figure to leap out of the woodwork when the world is in peril, perhaps!


The Gnostic Gospel of Philip actually says that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. There's a load about it in Martin Lunn's _Da Vinci Code Decoded_. I just looked that bit up - I haven't got round to reading the whole thing yet. I've generally got more important things to do  It is from a Gnostic gospel, though, and they were regarded as heretical by the early church (see, I've been learning   ), so their beliefs don't conform with that of the mainstream church. Note: I'm not trying to spark debate with this, just I'm just putting down a factual answer to a question.



> You've got a lot on your plate, CS, with that bundle of courses. I hope you get out of them what you are looking for. The Church, of course, does not have just one history, and the rise of Christianity is like the rise of the Himalayas - many simultaneous peaks and troughs. Geography would have been easier!


I hope so too... Thanks, though. I used to do geography at school, it was easy - too much colouring in and watching Ray Mears videos  Got bored of it, though. I've always preferred history, to be honest.


----------



## joxy

Arvedui said:


> What I wrote, was _new_ light.


As I understand it what the author has done is not to throw new light, but to assemble a whole lot of material, most of it of minimal value in itself and minimal relevance to anything of today, that was already known, and to bring it together in one place, exposed to one light.
As a review I have just read says:
"God knows how this book has sold as many copies as it has. It is unspeakably bad, written in a style that would make a 14-year-old squirm. The plot is ripped off from various other sources and the characters are so remarkably dull that one wonders how the author ever managed to complete the book without falling into a coma."
Another review tells us that it is:
"written in a style that I can only describe as Modern American Drivel".
I don't know enough about the content to go into any detail, but I must put in a word for the organisation Opus Dei: it is an organisation within my church to which I am not particularly attracted, but it has none of the sinister connotations that this book assigns to it.
Lunn's riposte to Brown is also notorious for its poor quality of writing, but it *is* a riposte, and if anyone feels compelled to read the latter they should certainly follow up by reading the former.
Better though, follow CS' example, and do the more important things that you have to do, instead of reading either.


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



joxy said:


> I don't know enough about the content to go into any detail, but I must put in a word for the organisation Opus Dei: it is an organisation within my church to which I am not particularly attracted, but it has none of the sinister connotations that this book assigns to it.


Not having read the book I have no idea what the _sinister connotations_ are Dan Brown assigns to them, but statements like this one almost "beg" for objections, due to the highly questionable nature and practices of Opus Dei, which would quickly lead to another form of religious discussion here...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Walter said:


> Not having read the book I have no idea what the _sinister connotations_ are Dan Brown assigns to them, but statements like this one almost "beg" for objections, due to the highly questionable nature and practices of Opus Dei, which would quickly lead to another form of religious discussion here...



IF we were able to discuss religion as before (before the Divine Censors Spoke Arbitrarily from On High in their Infinite Wisdom), THEN I would refer you to http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=7017 — which is Opus Dei's response to the Brown book.

Barley


----------



## joxy

Walter said:


> ....the highly questionable nature and practices of Opus Dei,


"Questionable": an interesting choice of word.
Literally, ask questions about them by all means, and you'll get all the answers you want, from me, and from the organisation.
Criticise them for false allegations, and that's a different matter.
And thank you, B B, for the link.


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

_OED *questionable:* doubtful as regards truth or quality; not clearly in accordance with honesty, honour, or wisdom..._

English is not my first language, hence my choice of words may not always be the best, maybe I should've said _dangerous_ or _harmful_ rather, would I say more, I'd be already in the middle of just another religious discussion...

For some counterbalance to the official page of Opus Dei see also: http://www.odan.org/index.htm, http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/ or http://www.phil.uni-sb.de/projekte/imprimatur/2001/imp010202.html


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Walter said:


> _OED *questionable:* doubtful as regards truth or quality; not clearly in accordance with honesty, honour, or wisdom..._
> 
> English is not my first language, hence my choice of words may not always be the best, maybe I should've said _dangerous_ or _harmful_ rather, would I say more, I'd be already in the middle of just another religious discussion...
> 
> For some counterbalance to the official page of Opus Dei see also: http://www.odan.org/index.htm, http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/ or http://www.phil.uni-sb.de/projekte/imprimatur/2001/imp010202.html



I'll be examining those sites! (Have we discovered a way around the ban on religion and politics, viz.: posting URLs?)

Barley

EDIT: After having taken a cursory look at the above links, I find that the pros and cons vis a vis Opus Dei are for me a "private fight," one in which I will take no part and about which I will make no further comment.


----------



## joxy

Walter said:


> ....my choice of words may not always be the best, maybe I should've said _dangerous_ or _harmful_


That's OK; your English is fine; your use of the word "questionable" was not at all questionable in either sense of the word!
As I said, asking questions is fine, and I'd be happy to give the answers if Forum policy allowed it.
But the secondary meanings, dangerous and harmful, those are not justified, as I could show - if policy allowed it!


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Actually I'm quite content with the status quo on discussions about politics and religion and thus I, for one, would not be happy if these discussions could be sneaked in through the back-door.

"Putting in a word" - as you call it - for such a questionable and disputed organisation as the Opus Dei, is IMO not only an attempt to return to these political and religious discussions, but also quasi "begging for objections" (from those who have a critical point of view regarding this sect).

That - and nothing else - was the intention of my first post in this thread.


----------



## joxy

As I said before, "questionable" in the literal sense, yes, as all organisations must be prepared to be questioned.
But "questionable" in the additional sense you gave, is an unfair criticism.
Also, "disputed" in the literal sense may be appropriate, as all organisations must be subject to dispute, or at least to discussion.
But "disputed" with a pejorative sense is another unfair usage.
I did not attempt to return to religious discussion, nor did I invite objections. The organisation is criticised unfairly in the book which is the subject of this thread, and that could not be allowed to go unchallenged, though, again as I said before, I have no specific attraction to this organisation.
Opus Dei is not a "sect".


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

But who decides what criticism is fair and what not?

Who decides which usage of words is fair?

OED *sect:* a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs from those of a larger group to which they belong.


----------



## joxy

What is fair, and what is not, is a matter of opinion.
The book which is the subject oif this thread offers one sort of opinion, an opinion adversely critical of the organisation.
I said I had to "put in a word" for, implying in favour of, the organisation, simply as a balancing act, without engaging in defence.
The OED has a critical addition to that definition: ""typically regarded as heretical", which does not apply to Opus Dei.
It goes on to say that the word "sect" is "frequently derogatory"; there is no justification for derogation of Opus Dei.


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Very well then, joxy... 

It seems we agree that it's a matter of opinion whether or not to consider Opus Dei as dangerous and/or harmful and that it may be considered a sect by some, which would be in agreement with the basic definition of a sect given in the OED.

Whether or not there is justification for a derogation of Opus Dei (from Latin _derogare_ which is btw. in its original meaning not far off from 'to question' and thus to the word 'questionable' I originally used) is again a matter of opinion.

Now that we have - hopefully - settled that issue, we could let the thread return to its topic and - maybe - in the future refrain from comments which might be able to provoke a return to a political and/or religious debate.

Maybe we could even dedicate some time - instead of making off-topic comments here - to making contributions in in the sections dedicated to the late Prof. Tolkien - the one who is the main focus of this board - and to the wonderful books he has written? 

I'm looking forward to seeing you there...


----------



## Dr. Ransom

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

I wish I had found this topic sooner...

I have read the book and enjoyed it a lot... I love detailed fast paced fiction, throw it a bit of conspiracy and I'm hooked.

However, that being said, Dan Brown is a total lunitic (meh, why mince words?) I totally understand that making up crazy stuff sells books, but he has gone on the record several times claiming that The Da Vinci Code is "historical fiction". He has even claimed that had he been writing a non-fiction book on the topic, it would have changed nothing. My brother satirictally commented that "yeah, it would still be filed in the 'fiction department'" lol, cracks me up. 

I just completed an 8 page paper on the historical issues in this book, and though I am more familliar with early church history than most, after I began actually researching some of the things Brown claims, I was shocked to find there is far more balony than I even imagined. 

For instance, even the passage in the so called gospel of Philip (which was written as far removed from the life of Christ as the Declaration of Independance is from us) that supposedly claims Jesus and Mary were married is a huge stretch. The actual passage is broken, so we are not sure if it even refers to Jesus kissing Mary, not to mention it only refers to her as a "companion" which despite Teabing's claims in the book, does not ever mean "spouse". In fact, that is a hillarious mistake in the book. Teabing asserts that "any Aramaic scholar knows that companion means spouse". In reality, any Aramaic scholar knows that Philip isn't aramaic, it's coptic! lol

Brown even got small easy facts wrong! A simple google search will show any who are curious that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 (I knew that BEFORE reading the book!) and yet good old Teabing claims they were discovered in the '50s... what the heck?

Any who want to discuss "historical" issues that you think Brown actually got right?


----------



## joxy

Opus Dei is not "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs from those of a larger group to which they belong", which is the OED basic definition of a "sect"; it is not "typically regarded as heretical", which the OED adds to its basic definition.
I would be interested to know why anyone would believe the contrary, but of course they cannot tell us that here.
My comment, of "putting in a word" for Opus Dei, was not off-topic in this thread, of which the subject is Brown's book which contains adverse references to the organisation.
When I first found these areas which are not directly concerned with Tolkienian matters, I questioned whether they were appropriate. I was told they were, and soon came to agree, and to participate in them to a large extent.
However, my main interest does lie with the essential purpose of the whole forum, and I have enjoyed my encounters with you in the relevant areas, W, and hope to continue to do so.

Who - or what - is Teabing - or teabing?


----------



## Dr. Ransom

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Teabing is a major character in The Da Vinci Code.

One of his roles is as an expert Theologian/Historian, so it makes it far more ironic when he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about; such as the Dead Sea Scrolls being discovered in the 1950s.


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Having read the book meanwhile I'd like to add my two cents...

On the overall impression I have to second Arvedui, I too have found the book highly interesting, but I have found it amusing too. Of course Dan Brown is - as far as I can tell - not always very close to the facts regarding history or mythology, but after all this book is a work of fiction. Historical fiction only insofar as it alludes to actual history. And - as a general impression - in that he is closer to the facts as Tolkiens _Lost Tales_ are, to name but one example.

The one major flaw I would critizise, is that Brown gives the impression as if Christianity was responsible for the decline of the female role in society, whereas in fact this was a process which began several thousands of years earlier, in the late Neolithic and Bronze-age, and which came most probably with the immigrations of the Indo-European herdsmen.

The slip about the Dead Sea Scrolls I would consider a minor one *), the first Scrolls were indeed found in 1947, but other caves were detected between 1952 and 1956 (http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss.htm).

And what is said about Opus Dei is by and large congruent with the information purported elsewhere...

*) At least in the English edition, where it is said they were _"...found in the 1950s..."_ whereas in the German edition this is falsely translated as _"... found in the year 1950..."_


----------



## joxy

Walter said:


> ....what is said about Opus Dei is by and large congruent with the information purported elsewhere....


Oh yes, there's plenty of "purporting" done in the world, about anything and everything.
That was the only reason why I "put in a word": to point out that plenty of things that are "purported" are actually total fiction.


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Recently I got the book _Der Gral_ (transl: The Grail) by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, and which evidently is a sequel to their 1981 book _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_. Both books claim to portray facts, but many of the facts are - of course - disputed.

The latter has been apparently the source of many of the ideas Dan Brown puts forth in his _Da Vinci Code_, so if anyone is interested in some more background of Brown's fiction, this would be the book to check out...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440136482/102-0985154-4935332?v=glance

-----

Edit: I just noted that Gildor in post #10 already mentions the book _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_...


----------



## Wolfshead

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

I've decided that over my Christmas break, as well as reading _Nineteen Eighty Four_ I'm going to start studying different aspects of The Da Vinci Code. Well, by studying I mean to read the book, then look up the most interesting bits to see how they relate to reality. I might post some of my findings, if I actually ever get round to doing it...



Dr. Ransom said:


> Brown even got small easy facts wrong! A simple google search will show any who are curious that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 (I knew that BEFORE reading the book!) and yet good old Teabing claims they were discovered in the '50s... what the heck?


I never noticed that at the time, although I should have done. Quite a minor slip, though, but you would expect something that's supposed to be so well researched to have that right!



Walter said:


> Recently I got the book Der Gral (transl: The Grail) by Michael *Baigent*, Richard *Leigh*, Henry Lincoln, and which evidently is a sequel to their 1981 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Both books claim to portray facts, but many of the facts are - of course - disputed.





joxy said:


> Who - or what - is Teabing - or teabing?


Here's an interesting fact I'll bet no one knew - the name Leigh Teabing is actually a tribute to those two writers on the Holy Grail. The Richard Leigh reference is obvious, but as for Michael Baigent, re-arrange his surname and you get Teabing. Clever, eh?

I'm not going to comment on other historical issues at the moment, as whilst I am studying the early church, I'm not really knowledgeable enough yet to present credible arguments on the subject. I'll leave that till I've done my research  Plus, I've got an 1800 word essay to write on Celtic warfare for tomorrow...


----------



## Helcaraxë

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

I read it a little while ago. I liked most of it, but I thought the end was completely anticlimatic.


----------



## Elbereth

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

I'm reading the Da Vinci Code now....I'm about halfway through the book and so far I am really liking it. It is intellegently written and I appreciate that in a book. I love all of the historical and religious references, since those two things are some of my favorite topics to discuss. And With prior experience working in the art world, I can really appreciate the references to art within the novel, which have made me look at those pieces in a new light.

I am planning on reading Angels and Demons afterward. A friend of mine insisted I read the book as well and let me borrow it. So I will keep you posted for further reviews.


----------



## Wolfshead

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Last night on Channel 4 here in the UK there was a 2 hour documentary on presented by historian/tv presenter/actor, Tony Robinson where he set about finding the truth behind the Grail legend and The Da Vinci Code, aptly titled _The Real Da Vinci Code_. The long and short of it is that The Da Vinci Code’s full of ****  

Priory Of Sion – made up in the 60’s by 3 French guys because one of them believed he was the rightful king of France. There are documents stating their confessions after the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail took things one step further and said he would also be the descendant of Jesus. Plantard didn’t want anything to do with that. 

Knights Templar – absoloutely no evidence whatsoever anywhere that they had any sort of secret disovered below a Muslim temple in Jerusalem. They were destroyed not for being heretical, but for being fabulously wealthy. 

Cathars – again, no evidence connecting them with the Grail at all. Indeed, Brown would have us believe they were protecting the secret of Jesus’ bloodline, when apparantly they frowned upon that kind of activity. 

Mary Magdalene – No evidence suggesting her and Jesus were married. There’s talk of a child called Sarah (Hebrew for princess) arriving in France with Mary. But it seems they were two different Mary’s and the Sarah in question is a slave girl from Egypt. 

Roslyn Chapel – One of only 2 dodgy areas left, but basically (I can’t remember the proof), it’s unlikely there’s anything there. Tony Robinson asked if he could dig,but they said no.

The woman in the Last Supper – Supposedly Mary Magdelane, and if you look at it it’s clearly a woman, although some people disagree and say it’s St John. Apparently, Leonardo was gay and often drew very effeminate looking men. Restoration might have helped it to look like a woman as well. 

But the thing that clinched it for me was the interviews with Michael Baigent. When told there wan’t actually any proof of his theories he evaded it like Michael Howard dodging a question from Jeremy Paxman. Instead he speaks of “logical conclusions” and “leaps of faith”. Basically, they whole idea of The Da Vinci Code doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

I haven’t gone into much depth here, but there’s more on the Channel 4 website - http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/W/weirdworlds/da_vinci_code/index.html

Tony’s saved me a lot of hard work it would seem


----------



## Arvedui

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Having read (almost...) through _The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,_ there are a couple of things that have struck me in relation to the works of prof. JRR Tolkien.

One is the though of the Royal Bloodline, that is protected throughout centuries. Especially in relation to the worship of the Magdalene.
Compare this to Tolkien's emphasis on Lúthien and what is written that never shall her line fail.

The other is the Essene thought concerning the parting of the spirit and the flesh at the time of death, and that the body is in fact hindering the spirit from fullfilling its purpose.
Compare that to the _Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth_ and other discussions concerning the fate of Men.

And if one is very positive towards the theories aired in _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ one could imagine that the emphasis on crystal balls, could be compared to the Silmarils. But even in my mind, that is a looooong shot.


----------



## Greenwood

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Whenever I see something labeled as "historical fiction" I take it to mean that some of the characters have *names* that are the same as people who actually lived. All other similarity to actual fact has to be taken with a truckful of salt.

I read The DaVinci Code and enjoyed it as a moderately well done mystery novel. I figured out some of the puzzles along the way and much of the ending, but that is part of the fun of reading mysteries for me. As for all the controversy over the ideas in it, my reaction is: "Its fiction."

My wife really enjoyed the book, particularly since not long before she had been playing around with tracing family geneology on the Internet and found that she is alledgedly descended from one of the historic personages mentioned in The DaVinci Code as being in Jesus' bloodline. So far I have resisted all requests to kneel before her.


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Arvedui said:


> Having read (almost...) through _The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,_ there are a couple of things that have struck me in relation to the works of prof. JRR Tolkien.


As I mentioned in an earlier post, the successor of this book has caused me to read a little further on some of the issues raised, especially the development of early Christianity.

If you're interested too, I would like to recommend the following books:

Elaine Pagels _The Gnostic Gospels_
Marvin Meyer _The Gospels of Mary_
Robert Eisenman _James, the Brother of Jesus_
Robert Eisenman & Michael Wise _Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered_

Standard References:
James M. Robinson _The Nag Hammadi Library_
Geza Vermes _The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English_, plus
One of the Bible Study Tools from e.g. BibleWorks or OliveTree.

---
Another book (in the same vein) I tremendously enjoyed and which had me burst out laughing ever so often was Christopher Moore's _Lamb : The Gospel According to Biff_...


----------



## Arvedui

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Thanks, Walter.
I'll put those books on my 'to do'-list.

I am looking forward to having the time to study them.


----------



## Elbereth

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

I will also put all of these books on my list to read....but my gosh Walter...how do you ever have time to read all of those books? It took me a month to read the DiVinci Code (thank goodness for my half hour commute on the train) ....and I'm only half way through Angels and Demons and I started reading that three weeks ago. 




Walter said:


> As I mentioned in an earlier post, the successor of this book has caused me to read a little further on some of the issues raised, especially the development of early Christianity.
> 
> If you're interested too, I would like to recommend the following books:
> 
> Elaine Pagels _The Gnostic Gospels_
> Marvin Meyer _The Gospels of Mary_
> Robert Eisenman _James, the Brother of Jesus_
> Robert Eisenman & Michael Wise _Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered_
> 
> Standard References:
> James M. Robinson _The Nag Hammadi Library_
> Geza Vermes _The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English_, plus
> One of the Bible Study Tools from e.g. BibleWorks or OliveTree.
> 
> ---
> Another book (in the same vein) I tremendously enjoyed and which had me burst out laughing ever so often was Christopher Moore's _Lamb : The Gospel According to Biff_...


----------



## Lhunithiliel

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Elbereth said:


> I will also put all of these books on my list to read....but my gosh Walter...how do you ever have time to read all of those books? It took me a month to read the DiVinci Code (thank goodness for my half hour commute on the train) ....and I'm only half way through Angels and Demons and I started reading that three weeks ago.



You'll never catch up with him, Elbereth! Don't even try to!


----------



## Wolfshead

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Greenwood said:


> As for all the controversy over the ideas in it, my reaction is: "Its fiction."


That would be the average persons reaction to most things like that. But what helps throw people (as well as how so many people would love it to be true) is Brown's insistence at every opportunity he gets that it's all fact, and he hasn't made any of it up. Either he's being very clever, or he himself is believing the lie. To be honest, I'm not sure which!


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Occasionally I do take the time for such books, especially when they touch on this _secret vice_ of mine: ancient myths and everything related... 

I just got another book which looks promising and which might suit those who are interested in the matter and do not want to delve too deep: Dan Burstein _Secret of the Code_....


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Wolfshead said:


> That would be the average persons reaction to most things like that. But what helps throw people (as well as how so many people would love it to be true) is Brown's insistence at every opportunity he gets that it's all fact, and he hasn't made any of it up. Either he's being very clever, or he himself is believing the lie. To be honest, I'm not sure which!



If he has to _insist_, then you have reason to be suspicious.

Barley


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Walter said:


> I just got another book which looks promising and which might suit those who are interested in the matter and do not want to delve too deep: Dan Burstein _Secret of the Code_....


Meanwhile having read most of the book, and _Das Sakrileg und die Heiligen Frauen_ (transl. "The Da Vinci Code and the Holy Women") by Walter-Jörg Langbein I have to say I am somewhat disappointed by both of them, though Burstein's book is IMO somewhat closer to the point insofar as he relies at least in part on serious scholars (the one major exception are the contributions of the "mythology experts" T. Freke and P.Gandy which are IMHO quite debateable and by and large not congruent with those of other scholars in the mythological area). 

But IMO neither Burstein's nor Langbein's book provides the reader with a good account of the "Holy Women" or presents the biblical myths - even those of the 1st and 2nd century CE - really "in context" (like e.g. Joseph Campbell, James Frazer, Robert Graves or Robert Oden do).

---

But what somewhat amazes me is the adoo about Dan Brown's books in general. When, for example, even the Vatican bothers to condemn _The Da Vinci Code_ and high representatives like Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone urge Catholics to shun the book ( [1], [2], [3]). Makes one wonder if some people are capable of learning from prior mistakes at all...


----------



## Walter

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Wolfshead said:


> That would be the average persons reaction to most things like that. But what helps throw people (as well as how so many people would love it to be true) is Brown's insistence at every opportunity he gets that it's all fact, and he hasn't made any of it up. Either he's being very clever, or he himself is believing the lie. To be honest, I'm not sure which!


I didn't quite get this impression from this interview. IMO Baigent et al. in _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ are more insisting regarding their claim for providing factual information than Dan Brown is...


----------



## Wolfshead

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



Walter said:


> I didn't quite get this impression from this interview. IMO Baigent et al. in _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ are more insisting regarding their claim for providing factual information than Dan Brown is...


You're right, he doesn't sound too insistent in that interview, but I've seen him on tv interviews insisting more vehemently. But see what he has to say on the Priory of Sion



> If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents,* rituals*, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist.





> Many scholars believe his [Leonardo's] work intentionally provides clues to a powerful secret…a secret that remains protected to this day by a clandestine brotherhood of which Da Vinci was a member.


He's implying a secret society that *doesn't* exist does. The people that thought the whole thing up have admitted that and it was only through the work of Baigent et al that the idea still exists.

And you should have seen the interview with Baigent (or Leigh, I forget which) on that Channel 4 documentary, the guy was insisting his story was true even when presented with contradictory evidence and it was obvious he didn't have a leg to stand on!


----------



## Arvedui

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

Having read through _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ a couple of times, I find the most striking thing to be a so-called "chain of evidence" that is no more that a bunch of self-invented ideas, and therefore having more holes than a swiss cheese.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

*Ian McKellen in "Da Vinci Code"*

From _The Advocate_:



> April 21, 2005
> 
> Sir Ian McKellen joins cast of _The Da Vinci Code_
> 
> Ian McKellen has joined Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou in the upcoming screen adaptation of the international best seller _The Da Vinci Code_, reports _Variety_. The out actor will play Sir Teabing, a wealthy man who helps Hanks's character in his search for the Holy Grail. Also joining the cast is Alfred Molina, star of _Prick Up Your Ears_ and the recent Broadway revival of _Fiddler on the Roof_. Director Ron Howard will begin shooting in June; the film is expected to open May 19, 2006.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

From Scotsman.com:



> Ancient Manuscript Discovery has 'Da Vinci Code' Touch
> 
> _By Gemma Collins and Vicky Shaw PA_
> 
> An ancient document likened to something which could have been featured in best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code was being analysed at a top auction house for its significance today.
> 
> The manuscript, believed to date from the 17th century, contains biographical details of every person in the Bible.
> 
> It was unearthed in the depths of the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth where it had been kept in storage for Llandovery College, an independent school near the Brecon Beacons. It was among about half of the school’s archive of books which were taken to the library around 50 years ago.
> 
> When college warden Peter Hogan asked to see the books recently he was told of the existence of the manuscript, and it was delivered to his office on Wednesday.
> 
> It was apparently written by a man called William Spenser, who was not a cleric, Mr Hogan said.
> 
> “What he claims he has written is a complete genealogy of Jesus Christ,” said Mr Hogan.
> 
> “It is painstakingly researched. It is just a phenomenal piece of literature.”
> 
> The first half of the book is concerned with genealogy and features the family trees of people in the Bible. The second half is a “Who’s Who“, with every individual listed along with biographical details.
> 
> Mr Hogan compared the book with something which could have been part of the plot of the best-selling mystery novel by Dan Brown, which has seen tourism flourish at the historical sites it mentions.
> 
> Claims in The Da Vinci Code that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and has descendants have outraged may Christians. They have also been dismissed by historians and theologians.
> 
> Mr Hogan said: “With The Da Vinci Code hot at the moment I very quickly flicked to the ’M’ section.
> 
> “This section claims that Jesus rid Mary Magdalene of seven demons and as a consequence she then became an assistant of his.
> 
> “Then there is a whole section crossed out which is quite mysterious.”
> 
> Mr Hogan said the margins of the manuscript contained anecdotal information about Mary Magdalene, none of which he could find in the Bible.
> 
> He took the document to Christie’s in London in an attempt to establish whether it is a hoax and what its significance could be.
> 
> The manuscript, which has around 594 handwritten pages, was purchased for £13 about 170 years ago by the founder of Llandovery College, surgeon Thomas Phillips.
> 
> “I’m slightly nervous thinking about what it is worth,” said Mr Hogan.
> 
> “I would imagine it will have a very, very high commercial value. The difficult decision I have got to take is whether I am willing to exploit that.”



Coming up this Sunday May 1 2005 on ABC Radio National's "The Spirit of Things":
_A runaway bestseller on the fiction lists, Dan Brown's novel about the Holy Grail has people wondering if it's true. Macquarie University's scholars of early Christianity - Chris Forbes, Malcolm Choat and Alan Dearne - pick out the fact from the fiction, and University of Sydney's Carole Cusack provides the medieval and feminist background to The Da Vinci Code. _

Radio National also recently featured an interview with Dr Malcolm Choat, a specialist in Early Christianity at Macquarie University, on the same topic.


----------



## Corvis

*Re: Ian McKellen in "Da Vinci Code"*

Sounds like a great cast. I can't wait to see how these people do in the movie.


----------



## spirit

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*



> Here is a God who impregnated somebody else's virgin wife — which struck me as rape — and then loaded down his only son with all the sins of the world, and allowed him to be tortured to death.


 I’m not a Christian as such, but I’d like to share my opinion on this. I *don’t* believe that Jesus was the only child of God. We’re all the children of God, and I don’t believe any parent would really do that, unless you really want to boggle down into the theory of Karma. Jesus dies for a cause that he believed in, and I don’t reckon we was really force. He though that was what God expected of him, and so he did what he though he had to do. 



> It also struck me as patent nonsense that this God allowed even little babies to be permanently damned to fry in hell forever unless they'd been baptized.


  
Ah,  this just made me laugh. I don’t believe in hell.


----------



## Corvis

*Re: Ian McKellen in "Da Vinci Code"*

I just saw a trailer for The Da Vinci Code when I saw Star Wars Episode III. It looks like it's going to be awesome. Did anyone know that it's being directed by Ron Howard?


----------



## e.Blackstar

*Re: Ian McKellen in "Da Vinci Code"*

It's ironic that the Da Vinci Code will be released the same date as Star Wars.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Ian McKellen in "Da Vinci Code"*



Corvis said:


> I just saw a trailer for The Da Vinci Code... Did anyone know that it's being directed by Ron Howard?



If that's true, it'll be good — Ron Howard don't make junk! And here's an intriguing review of the book from the New York Times: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/nytimes.html

Barley


----------



## Ithrynluin

*Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'*

I read _The Da Vinci Code_ and enjoyed it immensely. I haven't read a good thriller in years. It was interesting and provocative, which prompted me to check out the New Testament of the Bible and also _De-Coding Da Vinci: The Facts Behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code_ by Amy Welborn which was so so.

I look forward to reading _Angels and Demons_ sometime in the future.


----------



## e.Blackstar

*The Da Vinci Code*

Noting some people's opinions in this thread, I'd like to ask everyone.

Who has read Dan Brown's _The Da Vinci Code_, and what did you think of it?


----------



## Niirewen

*Re: The Da Vinci Code*

I read it and loved it. It was a few years ago though, so I don't remember all the specifics. I thought it was very interesting and I could hardly put it down. I've also ready _Angels and Demons_ and _Digital Fortress_ by Dan Brown, both of which I enjoyed. I don't usually like the suspense-type novels, but I really like his books.


----------



## Wolfshead

e.Blackstar said:


> Noting some people's opinions in this thread, I'd like to ask everyone.
> 
> Who has read Dan Brown's _The Da Vinci Code_, and what did you think of it?


I read it and thought it was great. It's clearly badly written, and most of the material is utter fabrication, but I found it a thrilling page-turner. Went through it in no time.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Wolfshead said:


> I read it and thought it was great. It's clearly badly written, and most of the material is utter fabrication, but I found it a thrilling page-turner. Went through it in no time.



Speaking of reading and re-reading, I just finished skimming this thread from its beginning. It has some of the luster left over from the days when politics and religion were legitimate topics of discussion on this board, and some really fine minds put up some really fine posts. Alas for the loss of those days.

Barley


----------



## Wolfshead

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Speaking of reading and re-reading, I just finished skimming this thread from its beginning. It has some of the luster left over from the days when politics and religion were legitimate topics of discussion on this board, and some really fine minds put up some really fine posts. Alas for the loss of those days.


Not beating the dead donkey are you, Barley?  I believe politics and religion were banned when I posted the thread and we had to be really careful about what we said. I still maintain it's ridiculous  

Anyway, I quite liked looking back and seeing how my opinions have changed since the start of the thread. Since I posted the thread I've learned *a lot* about the subject matter and am not so intrigued by it, basically because it's rubbish


----------



## Ithrynluin

I have just finished _Angels and Demons_ and must say it is an astonishing read. I enjoyed _The Da Vinci Code_, which was a captivating read in its own right, but Robert Langdon's first adventure is, in my opinion, many times more so. I observed a few similarities between the two works, mainly character-wise, so I was naturally suspicious of every single person involved in A&D. Alas, that did not help me in unmasking the culprit!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Wolfshead said:


> I assume other people have read these books? I read _The Da Vinci Code_ a while back, and _Angels And Demons_ last week. What do people think of them?



I must say I'm surprised that this thread has been allowed here — so far. Does anyone think that the subject cannot lead to a discussion of religion???

Anyway — I've not read the book, nor do I plan to (most of you know my position on various religious dogma only too well), but I intend to see the movie. I remember a big TTF flap some time back about _Opus Dei,_ with Joxy coming to its defense. (The movie _Van Helsing_ with Hugh Jackman may also have raised some Catholic hackles by insinuating that there was an underground Catholic organization of 007 types geared to wiping out demons and monsters.)

But back to TDVC — I want to see it because (a) it seems to have a good plot, (b) it's directed by Ron Howard and (c) the cast includes Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany, fine actors all, all three of whom were interviewed by Jay Leno on _The Tonight Show_ on successive nights in the last week or two. The movie clips they showed were quite intriguing.

Barley


----------



## Wolfshead

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Does anyone think that the subject cannot lead to a discussion of religion???


As I think I might have said before, I don't think it necessarily has to. If you stay away from theology then it's a bonafide discussion about history. Brown never questions the existence of God, it's all about the history of the Church, and a discussion about the history of the church doesn't have to be about religon as such.

As for the film, I've heard it's quite **** and only kept from being abysmal by McKellen and Bettany. However, I'm off to see it this evening, so I'll wait to pass my own judgement. It'll make loads of money anyway cos the franchise is so large.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Wolfshead said:


> ...I'm off to see it this evening, so I'll wait to pass my own judgement. It'll make loads of money anyway cos the franchise is so large.



I almost saw it yesterday, but thought better of fighting the crowds. So I'll wait until the initial furor dies down. (Maybe I'll wait until it comes to cable TV  ) It is fascinating to me to see how various Christian factions (generally the more fundamentalist/orthodox types) are jockeying to make a silk purse out of this (according to the critics) sow's ear, and to make lemonade out of this lemon. It's almost the flip side of what happened when Mel's Jesus movie came out. 

I observe what is for me the spectacle of believers of ensconsed and "legitimized" dogma (by virtue of its ancientry) attacking another (more recent and therefore illegitimate) dogma which dares to negate their own... 

Who was it that said "Can't we all just get along?" 

Barley


----------



## Wolfshead

So, did anyone else think the film was a bit rubbish?


----------



## Starbrow

Yes, I was disappointed. With Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Ian McKellan I expected it to be much better. 

Of course, I didn't think the book was as great as so many claimed.


----------

