Not merely the best, but that it was also IMPORTANT, because it was BASED ON THE TRUTH! :rolleyes:
First, the whole “Jesus had kids” conspiracy theory was nothing new in 2003, and The Da Vinci Code was hardly the first novel to deal with this topic. Heck, well before the book came out I’d already played a computer game (Gabriel Knight III: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned) that covered much the same territory in a more intelligent manner.
Second, although normally I’d say the blame for taking as fact something read in a work of fiction lies squarely on the shoulders of the dim-witted reader, The Da Vinci Code is a special case. Dan Brown claims in a page at the beginning of the book (before the story begins) that although the book is a work of fiction the Priory of Sion is a real organization founded in the Middle Ages and the descriptions of art, documents, and rituals contained in the novel are accurate. That’s a pack of lies. Brown was just trying to stir up interest in his stupid, poorly written book. But since there are plenty of novels that DO contain well-researched factual information, I can’t wholly blame those who fell for Brown’s trick.
Eyebrows 0f Doom, you may have forgotten this, but at the height of DaVinci Code-mania there were all kinds of “Behind The Da Vinci Code” type things on TV, in magazines and newspapers, and in the bookstores. It was Da Vinci Code this and Da Vinci Code that, and unlike with say Harry Potter-mania people were acting like this was a book that deserved attention because it contained important facts and ideas. If The Da Vinci Code attracted more scorn than the average fun summer beach read it’s because it was not presented as just another fun summer beach read.
God, yeah. Back in…2003 or something, my boss asked me if I’d read it. I said, quite truthfully, that I didn’t usually read fiction. He opened his eyes real wide and said “But it’s not fiction! It’s true!”
Fortunately, then we got distracted by actual work stuff before I could say anything I’d regret.
That was in the same office where someone told me she loved Ann Coulter and agreed with everything she said.
The movie was pretty good, surprisingly. And entertaining. The story was crappy. The science was laughable; hilariously so. Tom Hanks played an unabashed atheist, well. But the movie was not irreverent and did not bash God, although the Catholic religion got a bit bruised. I thought this movie was better than the first. The action scenes and scenery rocked.
It’s a secret Illuminati Plot! <----This line from the previews just makes it impossible for me to take the movie seriously at all. Dan Brown sucks ass. Neal Stephenson was once described as Umberto Eco without the charm. Dan Brown would be Umberto Eco without the clue.
Stellan Skarsgaard on the other hand is a fabulous and amazing actor, even when he plays in mediocre movies he’s awesome (King Arthur) “Finally a man worth killing.” And when he reproduces he makes some of the most fantastically beautiful offspring alive: Alexander Skaarsgaard.
I like that on both counts.
As a Renaissance art historian, I am very irritated by Dan Brown. Made class more difficult for a couple of terms, as I had to try to un-teach some bologna, and some students would sagely nod since I hadn’t a clue and was part of the misguided establishment.
What do you call the opposite of schadenfreude? You know, misery at seeing other people being successful? There must be a name for it. I see an awful lot of it going on here…TRM
I’m currently in Paris and I’ve heard stories of hundreds of tourists wandering around the city retracing the actual true steps that the characters trod. In reality, this was a little problematic as Mr. Brown’s grasp of geography was a little tenuous. If he’d done some advanced research (such as maybe looking at a map) it might have been a less non-euclidean adventure. The Parisians were happy enough to take the tourist dollars though.
Well, most of the art described in the book was real, and the Prieure du Sion hoax fooled the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail long before it fooled Brown.
I don’t remember seeing any such page in the book, anyway.
He didn’t claim that most of the art was real, he claimed that ALL of the art AND architecture AND documents AND secret rituals were described accurately in his book. That simply isn’t true.
*I don’t believe it “fooled” Brown at all, I think he knows perfectly well that the whole thing was a hoax. If Brown does genuinely believe the things he’s claimed as fact (not merely in the book but in many interviews on the subject) then he’s either a nutjob or a very bad researcher. About 20 years passed between the publication of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code, and in that time even MORE evidence came to light that the Priory of Sion and all related “historic” documents were the work of Pierre Plantard and friends. Even the most casual research on Brown’s part should have indicated that it was hardly accepted fact that “The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization.”
Nope, you’re right. He is the ultimate bad guy, impersonating an Illuminati master. There is another bad guy, an unnamed assassin, who does most of the murders, but he is hired by McGregor’s character.
Personally, I thought that both books were cheesy, but they moved so fast they were definitely enjoyable reads. But I wouldn’t base my life on anything “factual” in them, I’m not a psycho. And they are labeled as fiction after all.