• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Dan Brown: The Da Vinci Code

blueboatdriver said:
HALO anything that paints the catholic church in a bad light is fine by me).

What exactly do you mean by this. Surely you must resign your post.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reasoned response. I do apologise for daring to have a different opinion to you. Obviously, that makes me unfit to hold the post of moderator and indeed, unfit to be a member of this forum. I shall rectify that immediately.

By the way, this post contains more than a little of something called sarcasm. I'm sure someone will explain it to you if you don't understand.

PS "What exactly do you mean by this?" I thought it was perfectly clear.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/03/09/davinci.code.ap/index.html

Wow. Staggering numbers in this age I think.

I took the book strictly for it's entertainment value. I found it to be a quick, easy read, and entertaining. I can overlook problems with small details, or historical accuracies in a book like this. I don't think Brown intended it to be historically correct on such a level. It's a good story, and a good read. I'm not sure it deserves the hype and celebrity it's getting. I would hesitate to call it a great book.
 
I can overlook problems with small details, or historical accuracies in a book like this. I don't think Brown intended it to be historically correct on such a level.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how I feel about it. Look at the forum this thread is in, for crying out loud - FICTION!

Cheers
 
Motokid said:
I don't think Brown intended it to be historically correct on such a level.
Click to expand...

I've seen and heard TV and radio interviews with him where he is adamant that everything in the book is meticulously researched. He seems to honestly believe the academically panned alternative history that forms the backbone of The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail.

The Solomon Key will be a pile of predictable crap, too. He's probably sitting at home reading The Hiram Key as we speak. :rolleyes:
 
Is it possible Brown is helping feed the media/marketing beast by making claims to historical accuracy just to get/keep people talking about his book?

I have not heard him speak, or read any of his interviews.
 
Probably. :(

Interesting to note that there's no plans to release a paperback version in the States yet. The British paperback is the phenomenon over here.
 
Halo said:
6. Sophie's reaction to what she saw happening in the rite irritated me. OK, she was shocked, but she was home from university, so was an adult, yet
two people shagging
made her cut off all communication with her beloved grandfather, the person who brought her up and her only living relative
(as far as she knew).
I thought she must have witnessed them sacrificing a baby or something.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I felt the exact same thing. Not a reasonable reaction to something that she could have *asked* for an explanation.

ds
 
direstraits said:
Hmm... I felt the exact same thing. Not a reasonable reaction to something that she could have *asked* for an explanation.
Click to expand...

Yes, but since it was written, primarily, for a society so puritanical it comes as no surprise. Every character, regardless of their nationality, is American. The reason why
sex
can stop a family keeping in contact for so long becomes obvious when you look at the nation's reaction to a bare tit on TV. :rolleyes:
 
My explanation would have been simpler - Dan Brown couldn't conjure up a better way to tie in the estrangement between grandfather and granddaughter. :D

The reaction was pure media whiplash, imho, and could have happened in any country. It probably circled the world a little more times than it should have due to the time and place.

ds
 
The fact that Mr. Brown couldn't come up with anything more credible to explain the estrangement indicates he lacks creativity. Even those "prudish" Americans being discussed in this forum find it pretty ludicrous. Any evening spent in front of the television in the States is likely to create more disgust than what so appalled Sophie. Although I admit that I am far more offended by stupidity and inaneness than bared portions of the human anatomy.

I have read and recently re-read this book (I have to lead a book discussion shortly), and I have to say that any interest I had when I read it the first time has evaporated. Mr. Brown has spent far more time weaving existing theories and ill-conceived webs of confusion into this book than he spent crafting the language or developing characters.

I think it is a mediocre book. I know why it remains on the NYTimes Bestseller's list, but it isn't a book I would recommend
 
I think that's great. I learn a lot about from that, like the work of Leonardo Da Vinci, especially his paintings. I'm very interested in The Last Supper. It says there is a woman in that picture and an extra hand trying to kill her. It makes me believe that there are a lot of false sayings about Jesus History.
By the way, I've read Angels and Demons. They are in a way very similar but I think it's still a good one. Lots of interesting facts(I guess so) in that and a very surprising ending! :]
 
The biggest problem with that cardinal's plea is that he says the book is anti-Catholic. The book could have been anti-Catholic but Dan Brown chickened out and
made the real villain an English loner/eccentric instead of going with the Vatican or some other subsection of that hierarchy
.
 
Whether this book is good or bad, whether the details given in the book are correct or not, one thing is for sure -- the book is certainly popular!
The fact that this thread has 240 replies and 8600+ views is proof enough for that!
 
True. What amuses me is that folks continue to debate the accuracy of the text, when the author says that except for the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals, it's a work of fiction.
 
Dan Brown said:
FACT:
The Priory of Sion?a European secret society founded in 1099?is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

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

Real facts:
Priory of Sion: 20th centruy invention, founded 1956 to support cheap housing projects. The historical stuff was invented later on by its founder, Pierre Plantard, who in 1993 admitted in court it was all a fake. Since it was invented in 1956 its kinda hard for Leonardo to be a member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard

Artwork, architecture etc : There are websites dedicated to the countless errors made by Dan Brown in his descriptions of artwork etc. For example Dan Brown puts a lot of meaning into the name Mona Lisa, but Leonardo named the picture La Giaconda. The name Mona Lisa was attached at a much later date. Something Dan Brown could have discovered had he spent 5 min in a library, googeled for Mona Lisa or asked his art historian wife.

People/places errors: Dan Brown has probably never been to Paris or the other places he is visiting. There are countless geographical/cultural errors in the book. Why didnt he buy a map of Paris to get the locations correct?

Historical errors: A book based on a "clever" interpretation of historical facts should at least get the historical facts correct. He should have stayed awake during history class in school, then he might have known that the Pope was actually living in France and not in Rome when the templars were killed. Another interesting fact that Dan Brown seems to forget is that it was actually King Phillip of France that had the Templars arrested and killed, not the pope. This is just a few of the many obvious errors in the book.

All these errors would not be so bad if Dan Brown actually went out and said he made it all up. But instead he claims he did "amazing research", and continues to talk about the "facts" even when proven wrong countless times. And yes there is a lot of people that think the Davinci Code is based on the truth.
 
Zolipara said:
Real facts:
Priory of Sion: 20th centruy invention, founded 1956 to support cheap housing projects. The historical stuff was invented later on by its founder, Pierre Plantard, who in 1993 admitted in court it was all a fake. Since it was invented in 1956 its kinda hard for Leonardo to be a member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard
Click to expand...

The best bit about this is, if you visit some forum related to this topic, there are those who says that Dan Brown must have been telling the truth and the fact that the Priory has been outed as a hoax is only to ensure that people think it is a myth so that the real Priory can go about their almighty task.

:rolleyes:
 
The Da Vinci Code

Has anyone read this book?? Im thinking about reading it soon. Did you like it if you read it??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top