I just discovered this book in the library. For those of you who (like me) were fascinated by the concepts presented in “The DaVinci Code,” (DVC) you may want to check out this book: “Secrets of the Code,” subtitled “The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind the DaVinci Code,” edited by Dan Burstein.
Regardless of your opinion of Dan Brown’s writing, he did present some fascinating theories, and you and I are not alone in wanting to know more. This book is Burstein’s efforts to ferret out the facts, with a compilation of various sources (many of which were used by Brown). I am just now reading the introduction, and for those of you who tend to skip the intro, I recommend you read this intro, as it recaps the theories put forth by Brown in DVC, and the major issues Burstein attempts to resolve. Whether or not he does…well, we’ll see.
Aside from the crappiness of Brown’s writing (acceptable in a thriller), the ideas in the Da Vinci Code are complete nonsense. What exactly impressed you about them? The way he fabricated big chunks of history to lend more credence to his cheesy conspiracy theory plot?
The fact that you believe Brown’s theories to be “complete nonsense” does not mean that I do, or that others do. Perhaps because I am a woman, the theory regarding Mary Magdalene is of special interest to me; I also admit to some antipathy towards the Roman Catholic religion, and for a very long time have had questions about how the Bible was written and how it was interpreted. If you didn’t like Brown’s book and have no interest in pursuing his theories, then disregard my post. My O.P. was meant for those who have an open mind and an interest in learning more about the evolution of the Christian religion, the politics of religion, Jesus, and the efforts to keep women from assuming any major role in religion, etc., etc.
I have not made up my mind about Brown’s theories – that is why I was glad I found this book – I hope it will enlighten me; perhaps Brown is full of it, but I’m not going to say he is until I know more.
Do yourself a favor and run searches for the DaVinci Code where some of our illustrious members basically tear the book to ribbons. The book is factually incorrect in several areas.
Sycorax, the book is fiction. The theories about Mary Magdalene, Knights Templar, all of it. None of it’s real, it’s just designed to entertain. That’s acceptable to me as far as it goes. I have no problem with a good wacky theory in a novel.
What grates is the way Brown makes up bits of history and mathematics to suit the fictional conspiracy theory that is central to his plot, rather than shaping the fiction to meet the actual history and mathematics. Would that have been so damned hard? Brown’s fictionalisation of history is illogical and it gives credulous people incorrect ideas.
If you’re doing a search round here, look for Cecil’s column on phi (why the everloving fuck does Brown always capitalise it?) and Fibonacci sequences. Also try googling for information on the Council of Nicaea - the Wikipedia is a decent source. (For some reason, Brown’s lies about the Council of Nicaea really bugged me).
I didn’t intend this to be a great debate. I’m not trying to convince anybody of anything. I KNOW the book is a novel, but he’s drawn on long-standing myths, legends, rumor, others’ research (including experts), etc., and just maybe there’s something there. I read the threads regarding Brown’s book. I thought there were some dopers who might be interested in reading some of his source material – research done and reported long before his book. If you believe everything in his book is bunk and don’t care to be enlightened as to how/why he came up with the theories, then ignore this thread. I didn’t even expect responses – just letting others know about this latest book which addresses all of the controversial ideas in Brown’s book. I’m only on the intro at this point, but no doubt it debunks some, maybe all, of Brown’s theories.
Oh!! :dubious:
I didn’t know that “fascinating” also meant “half-baked”. :wally
Most if not all his theories had scholars ROTFHOTTASTTWFO-rollingonthefloorholdingontotheirassessothattheywouldn’tfalloff :rolleyes:
ouryL, if you want to call Brown “half-baked,” that’s fine. However, I’m not sure whether your snide comments are directed at Brown (in which case, fine) or at other posters (in which case, please, not in this forum.) I’ll interpret that your comments are aimed at Brown, but I want to remind posters that personal attacks or insults are not permitted outside the forum called “BBQ Pit.”
I just wanted to let you know that I thought the subject matter was a great deal of fun to read about even if it is fiction. Thanks for the suggestion about the book, I will check it out sometime.
I have to say that I find it all pretty amusing. I mean, the BOURNE IDENTITY (yes, I mean the first one, I didn’t read the second one) was “based on facts” – there really are countries like Switzerland and Austria, there really is a CIA that has secret agents, there really is amnesia, etc. But nobody runs around worrying about which parts of that book are true.
Yet, when Daniel Brown cooks up a thoroughly implausible and completely fictional plot about Jesus running off on his motorcycle with Mary Magdalene, producing offspring who are a closely hidden secret of the Catholic Church disguised as drinking cups and part of the worldwide conspiracy led by the Evenings of Malta (no, wait, that’s not right, but it’s close)… people are rushing to buy it and speculate on how much is true. We live in a strange age.
Its been a while but isn’t the big plot twist in the *Illuminatus Trilogy * the same as the Davinci Code. Only done better, funnier and thirty years ago?
No, actually the plot twist was that all the main female characters were manifestations of the Goddess & that Hagbard Celine was a leader of both the anti-Illuminati Erisian-Discordian Counter-Conspiracy AND the Illuminati itself.
I finally got around to actually reading The DaVinci Code in the past couple of days; I figured I’d better catch up with everyone else. I already knew the basic plot and so on, so I thought I was prepared.
Yowza, it’s painful. Ow ow ow. Astrological symbologists! Bad writing! Walt Disney a Grail-worshiper (which explains Mathmagicland)! Women are sacred, but bad oppressive men aren’t and need sex to meet God! And every single new piece of information “completely stuns” the characters; they’re never just suprised or anything. And Sophie has a “haunting, mysterious gait.” Argh.
I think I can see why people are so caught up in it though. Spy thrillers are an established genre; no one expects those to have much semblance to reality. But Brown, though he hasn’t invented this type of book, is pretending that all the junk in there is established history and scientific fact (PHI! and bees–I agree the caps are painful). He just throws it out there like everyone already knows this stuff, and since pretty much everyone has heard of the Nicene Council but doesn’t know exactly what happened there, he can tell a completely wrong version of events and fool a lot of people. And, of course, goddess stuff is trendy now (as it was not 30 years ago), and the publisher made sure there was plenty of hype.
I don’t get it myself. I mean, Holy Blood, Holy Grail (the first place that I know of that printed this now extremely tenderized dead horse) didn’t cause this kind of stir. I know not everyone is up on their kooky occult conspiracy theories but this plot has been the center of a multitude of books (both fiction and “non-fiction”), a couple of movies, at least two video games, several comic books, and so on. What is it that’s made people suddenly go “Oh! There’s an idea!”
I finished this bunkum a couple of days ago. A great page-turner, but with the most Godawful writing.
I’d already read the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, as well as the Tomb of God, so I was familiar with most of the conspiracy theorizing, but it is quite bizarre to see how many people are taking Brown’s fiction seriously, as opposed to the “non-fiction” alternatives.
Did you also notice how everyone “staggered backwards” whenever they were told something that “stunned” them (I’m forever having to dodge people in the street staggering backwards in surprise). Of particular cringeworthy note were the hopelessly enthusiastic reactions of the students in the lecture scenes. I nearly gnawed my own arm off in embarrassment.
On the liner notes it says that Dan Brown taught creative writing. WTF? I guess he knows how to write a best-seller, but he sure don’t know how to rite good. Who on earth begins a book with the words “Renowned curator…”?
