Interesting - The Da Vinci Code

[Maephina]

Anyone who's read this book may have found it an interesting perspective on how things "may" have actually been regarding christ. I personally believe this to be a work purely fictional.

That said, some of you may find this equally interesting
> Top Cardinal Blasts 'Da Vinci Code' as 'Cheap Lies'

The most interesting thing to me about this?
Why take it so personally?


Discuss

[Decavolt]

1. He's catholic.
2. He's a cardinal.
3. The novel is a work of fiction pushed as fact, or at least mostly-fact and he, being a catholic cardinal needs to steer the mindless lemmings in the right direction since they clearly can't think for themselves.
4. The book was crap, wether taken as fact, fiction or a coloring book.

If you have any interest whatsoever in The Da Vinci Code concept, do yourself a favor and read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Ecco, which was written 15 years earlier. Dan Brown's (even his name is stupid) The Da Vinci Code is like the Cliff Notes version of Umberto Ecco's book, and even at that he did a horrible job. Wikipedia put it very well:

Umberto Eco's earlier Foucault's Pendulum also deals with conspiracies, including the Holy Blood theme and the Temple. It has recently been described as "the thinking man's Da Vinci Code".

[Vallikat]

Minor hijack, and I apologize in advance.

The thing about broadening your mind is that it tends to broaden your mind.

I'm a smart girl. I'm not a super genious, but I'm smart. I can infer and analize and draw conclusions. I can even take something I've read and carry it out a step or 10 further.

My point? I haven't read The Da Vinci Code or Foucault's Pendulum (but I plan on reading the former as soon as I can finally track down which family member currently has it and will likely read the later, because the topic interests me). But I've read 2 of Dan Brown's other novels. So I'm familiar enough with his writing to know what you're trying to say, Decavolt, at least as far as Dan Brown is concerned. I'm minorly bugged by it. Enough to where it took me a minute to decide if it was worth the post or not. In the end, well, here we are.

Anyway, the face paced, easy read, made for the hyperactive brain, Dan Brown version is probably going to have a greater appeal to me. Not because I'm not "a thinking man" (which seems to imply a lesser intelligence). But because it's just going to be easier. I like to be challenged. I really and truly do. But if a series of descriptive two-syllable words get me to the same place as a series of dry 10-syllable words do, I'm gonna take the two-syllables every time. See, that way my brain is freed up to draw my own conclusions and really give the topic a good think. I don't tend to like it when someone else does too much of the thinking part for me. I also tend to like descriptions. I'm a visual person. Paint me a picture and let me ruminate on the rest.

You can keep your intellectual snobbery. I'll sit here in the average Jane's room listening to Nicklecreed and reading Dan Brown. Then I can use my brain to figure things out all on my own. Oh, sure, like I said, I'll likely read Foucault's Pendulum for perspective. You're a smart guy. I'm sure it's an excellent read. I just don't like the implication that simpler = stupider and complicated = better.

Oh, and, BTW, I'm a Catholic. But I tend to not think of myself as a lemming either.

I still love you and all. After the playing of The Unicorn Song last week, I'll love you until the day I die (or until you do something to make me hate you, whichever comes first ). But sometimes things bug me and I let them go and then sometimes things bug me and I decide not to. Lucky you, I was in a mood to write.



Ok, I'm done whining. Cardinals, Da Vinci Code, bible, Jesus, controversy... continue...

[Decavolt]

The implication wasn't at all that simpler = stupider, and more complex = smarter. I was saying Dan Brown's book, on it's own, is crap. Simplicity is the core of my professional work, and there's nothing stupid about it.

I was raised a catholic. Hell, I was even an altar boy, so I wasn't trying to bash catholics.

..to steer the mindless lemmings in the right direction since they clearly can't think for themselves...

I meant just what I wrote - mindless lemmings. Not intelligent people who can think for themselves. Just because one apple is green, it doesn't mean all apples are green, and I certainly wasn't trying to say anything to the contrary. All catholics aren't morons, of course not. All morons aren't catholic either. There are an awful lot of non-catholics that are in love with The Da Vinci Code. I highly doubt that the cardinal's message was meant only for catholics, nor do I think it even needed to be said to anyone who could in fact think for themselves. It was for the rest. The lemmings.

I didn't like The Da Vinci Code at all. I thought it was short-sighted and pretty much slapped together, considering the subject matter and the depth it truly could have had. Ecco's book wasn't better because he used bigger words, or because he described a tree in more detail than Brown. That wouldn't make it better, it would just make it longer. It was better because Ecco thought it through and wove a much better story.

There's no need to get offended unless you think you're a mindless lemming (I know better), in which case I insulted you pretty hard. I wasn't at all throwing mud at catholics, just at Dan Brown and a book I didn't like - which is just my opinion when it comes down to it.

[Vallikat]

The one thing I didn't say (because I quite simply forgot to say it) was why I decided to post (and not to stick it in a PM if I really wanted to say something to you about it).

I wasn't exactly offended or even exactly not offended. I tend to live my life in the middle. I climb down on one side of the fence to watch and enjoy NASCAR. Same side of the fence that allows me to press a few macro buttons and giggle and blush while listening to some damn good music. On the other hand I climb down on the other side of the fence for some good conversation or even, to gather some statistical data to determine who my picks should be for that week's race (ok, that last thing probably only requires that I peek in on that side of the fence to make sure it's still there, but I still do plug in my brain a little ).

Anyway my post was speaking up for the middle grounders such as myself. Though I picked on you specifically, I meant to state that on broader terms this isn't the first time I wanted to post something similar to other people's posts as well. There are not just intellectuals and mindless lemmings. There's a whole lot of us hanging out perfectly happily right here in the middle.

[Zephem]

Hmm, so it seems like Brown basicly did a rehash on something that had been previously written.

Sometimes this can be good. Right now, if I remember correctly, there is a revision of the Bible coming out that will use much more modern language. This might be a bad thing as well. As the translations are adjusted, some of the message might be lost. I am going to be laughing my booty off once they come out with one of the apostles saying 'Oh cool, it's Jesus' when he hails Jesus as he makes an entrance to do some awesome water to wine or other party trick.

It can be bad, though. From what Decavolt has said, the new work, The Da Vinci Code, is apparently blurring the facts a bit. While watering down a topic to make it easier to understand for a more general audience can be a great thing, it's apparent that by doing that with this material has only caused more damage and disservice to the topic than actually assist it.

What I didn't like about the cardinal's message was he was calling for a ban of the book. Honestly, book banning is getting annoying.

Well, that's all I can think of. I wasn't raised as a catholic, or anything else for that matter. I am getting this image in my mind that a photoshopped Decavolt picture might need to surface where he looks like an innocent altar boy.

[Vallikat]

Meanwhile...

Guess what they're talking about on my local news tonight?


So my mom is also a catholic. She goes to church on Sundays and she most definately believes in the teachings of the catholic faith. She sure as hell knows more about it than I do, despite my 12 years of catholic school. Even she said this Cardinal is being paranoid and rediculous.

[Aameul]

Right now, if I remember correctly, there is a revision of the Bible coming out that will use much more modern language. This might be a bad thing as well.

It's neither a good thing or a bad thing. The Bible is a living book. It started as an oral tradition passed along from priest to priest in the time of the Old Testament. It was never even collated into a coherent book until 2nd century A.D. So basically, the bible has been undergoing revision for millenia and the inevitable next translation will simply be a continuation of that.

As an example, many catholics who are bigoted against homosexuals point to a certain passage in one of the letters of Paul in the New Testament. It is, IIRC, the *only* passage in the New Testament that refers to homosexuality as wrong. However, I had a teacher in college (head of the Univ. of Notre Dame Graduate studies program in theology) who maintained that when you go back to the original language that particular letter was written in (Greek IIRC), the word used was a more general term for "person of questionable morals". i.e. someone who was sexually promiscuous rather than homosexual. However, at some point, this somewhat ambiguous word got translated as homosexual and it has stayed there for many centuries.

Oh, and The DaVinci Code? Somewhat addictive popcorn action-adventure. Definitely not a bastion of scholarly work. For comparison, Michael Crighton (Andromeda Strain, Jurrasic Park, Timeline, etc) writes far better "research novels" on both a technical and storytelling level. The DaVinci Code is ultimately a very shallow novel. So while I busted through it in 3 days afterwork, I wasn't struck with a "OMG Wow!" feeling like I normally do when I read books that fast.

edit: Oh, and I was born and raised Catholic and went to 16 (Yes, 16) years of catholic school yet I'm not a mouthbreathing drone. In my experience the protestant/evangelicals tend to run towards that extreme more than the catholics. But then again I haven't voluntarilly gone to church under my own power for 5 or 6 years.

[Zephem]

Aameul: Agreed. When I was doing research a couple years ago, I thought of learning Greek only so I could form my own opinions. There are several instances that are similar to what you're describing. It'd be nice if they were working on a new translation based on the original work rather than a derivative of a derivative.

By the way, I still like pie. Although, only chocolate and whipped cream pie.