Right, so why don't people realize that the Da Vinci Code claims to contain Facts?

[Urederra]

What the hell is the matter with that issue? It's a novel, such controversy is only a marketing tactic.
Its just like WWF (aka WWE) Everybody knows its fake and lives with it very well, but you'll still find some idiots whnning and arguing about wrestling being fake.

Yeah... but there is not calumny directed to any particular group of people or organization in the WWF, as far as I know. And if it were, this group of people will have the right to be upset and protest against the slander.

So... why upsets you that a group of people being calumniated in the book protest? is it not the right of people of democratic countries to protest when their rights or, in this case, their honor has been mancillated sullied?

Is mancillated an english word or I just made it up?

Will english speaking people be upset because I make up english words?

EDIT:Checked, I made up the word the verb I was looking for is 'to sully'.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I like the whole "switch Cheezy's thread name around to be ironic so i can whine cause no one listens to me" stunt. I'd expect this from a 13 year old kid, or someone with the maturity of one.
It is true that the Da Vinci Code contains facts. It is also true that it contains things arbitrarily made-up. The problem is distingushing between them, but it doesn't really matter, since the whole work is fiction anyways, thats why its called : "a novel."

 

[Urederra]

Yeah... but you have yet to prove where in the book Brown says that is fiction, as you stated in your OP. whereas we already prove that what he says is that the "descriptions of artwork, monuments, documents and secret rituals depicted in the book are accurate"

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

taken from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary


"novel
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian novella
1 : AN INVENTED prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events"

It is a novel, it says this on the front cover

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I like the whole "switch Cheezy's thread name around to be ironic so i can whine cause no one listens to me" stunt. I'd expect this from a 13 year old kid, or someone with the maturity of one.

I'll pass your criticism of parody along to the Intelligent Falling institute, the Pastafarians and the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH), because I'm sure that they're all run by 13 year olds and their criticism is completely illegitimate.

It is true that the Da Vinci Code contains facts. It is also true that it contains things arbitrarily made-up. The problem is distingushing between them, but it doesn't really matter, since the whole work is fiction anyways, thats why its called : "a novel."

Reported for violating thread rules.

The following spoiler contains fictional statements, but all prostitutes are correctly named:

Spoiler :

Abaddon is an astronaut.
CurtSibling is an engineer.
Cheezy the Wiz is a prostitute.
Urederra is a member of Mensa.

 

[aaglo]

Has it occured to you people, that this claim in the book:
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate
could also part of the story?

 

[VoodooAce]

Yeah... but there is not calumny directed to any particular group of people or organization in the WWF, as far as I know. And if it were, this group of people will have the right to be upset and protest against the slander.

I never felt as though this book was 'directed' at anybody. Rather, Christianity and some of its beliefs, along with some of his beliefs (along with a lot of fiction), were the subjects.

Sure, its your right to voice your displeasure and even protest, but I think a film like 'the passion' was 'directed' at a particular group to a far greater degree than this novel/movie.

With regards to Mary and Jesus being married and having children, I find it at least as plausible as anything in the passion. Weren't Jewish men, particularly Jewish holy men, er, strongly encouraged to make babies? Just what was Jesus up to during the majority of his life that those individuals deciding what would be 'the bible' (hundreds of years after the fact) decided not to include, anyway?

Brown makes an interesting and, at least, entertaining case for this, I think. He has faith in his beliefs, as Christians have faith in theirs. Protesting his book would be like him protesting Christianity, which he doesn't do.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Dan Brown actually believes in the Maria Magdalena stuff?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Has it occured to you people, that this claim in the book:
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate
could also part of the story?

Yes. Much of the argument here is over whether or not an author can legitimately 'lie' outside the novel proper. I say no, for this simple reason:

© Dan Brown

So if "it's a novel" means that nothing between the covers can be taken at face value, some ripoffs should be coming along...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Mesoy i now understand your argument, My apologies.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Your argument is spurious at best. Do you nit pick everything like this?

 

[Atlas14]

This is why I haven't read the Da Vinci Code, probably never will, and have no desire to. All you people, all the people, are so fanatic about this popular book while there are so many other quality fiction novels. I personally like to venture outside of mainstream bullcrap novels and same with the Harry Potter trash. It is a novel, if Mr. Brown claims some stuff is true, then who cares. It will take more than a novelist to convince me of believing all these things, to swerve my faith, or lack of it for that matter, or to become some pseudo-cryptologist person or something that thinks I magically know everything there is to know about decoding Biblical mysteries and lost treasures. In the big scheme of things, Brown claiming his book to contain facts is relatively unimportant. If morons want to believe him, so what? If they are ******** enough to follow the herd like a sheep with a brain the size of a walnut, then they deserve to be lured into being brainwashed with false "facts". These same people, (I realize Im overgeneralizing here, possibly stereotyping, but for the most part Im probably right) never have any personal reading books that they read in their spare time that they find outside of the New Release section of bookstores. They all of a sudden see the media coverage and publicity the Da Vinci Code is getting in the Best Sellers List, and they are sucked into going to the store to get a copy and read it. There's nothing inherintly wrong with this action, except that these people become overobsessed and passionate about a friggin BOOK and engage in heated debates and conventions and what not, making a big fuss about nothing important.

 

[nihilistic]

This is a lie. Many of his descriptions are also fiction.

It bears repeating because nobody seemed to notice it on the other thread...

Replace "notice" with "care". I'm not going to be watching the movie or be reading the book, not because whether I have taken a position on whether the story is true or not, but because frankly, I don't care.

But seriously, if you are religious or whatnot, why can't you respect his right to believe whatever he wants as fact? If you are not, it doesn't matter.

 

[shadow2k]

Yes. Much of the argument here is over whether or not an author can legitimately 'lie' outside the novel proper. I say no, for this simple reason:

So if "it's a novel" means that nothing between the covers can be taken at face value, some ripoffs should be coming along...

What does a copyright symbol have to do with anything?

And whether or not the book can be taken at face value has no bearing on whether it can be ripped off or not. Well, actually that's not true, but it's exactly opposite of what you're trying to convey. Historical facts can't be copyrighted.

 

[classical_hero]

Dan Brown actually believes in the Maria Magdalena stuff?

He actually does. He believes that the painting by Da Vinci has Mary Magdalene in it. But then that begs the question, where is John? There are only thirteen people in the painting and considering that he based the picture on what the Bible says, then he would have included the 12 disciples plus Jesus. No where in the bible are women mentioned in being in the Upper room that night.

 

[Plexus]

I just saw the movie. Damn was it long, boring and mildly offensive.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

right classical hero, thats what i was thinking when we studied that painting in my Art History class, cause there are only 13 people in that painting, and each of the aposles is identifiable based on personality.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The minimal requirement to be considered Christian is to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the messiah. The Qumran community did not do this.

Not that I'm disputing your "minimal requirement" but, in that case - was Jesus himself a Christian?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Not that I'm disputing your "minimal requirement" but, in that case - was Jesus himself a Christian?

That's an open question, methinks.

 

[GenMarshall]

I feel that the Da Vinci Codes just has conspiricy theories that are hertical in nature. I feel and believe that Jesus never had a sacrate bloodline nor was he ever married.