Am I the only one who knows nothing about The Divinci code?

[Grumpy's Wife]

Opus Dei??? Anyone?

 

[declansdad]

So if people take it as simply a work of FICTION, it is entertaining. My problem is that it tries to pass itself off as 100% truth, when most of it is completely false.

It is a work of fiction and Dan Brown has never said it wasn't. People have made this into an issue when it really never needed to be one. It is a mystery that has religious connotations. It wasn't he first and it certainly won't be the last.

It is an enjoyable book but as many have said Angels and Deamons is better.

 

[Christine]

tiff,

The book didn't make me doubt Christianity or even question Christianity and Jesus. What it made me question was the actual Church (in this case, the Catholic church). I do believe that there was a "movement" way back when to suppress the female presence in the Church back then. "Trashing" Mary Magdalane was one of the ways. I think this book sheds some light on the fact that there was more to Mary Magdalane then most of us have been spoonfed. So, what I came away from the story with was that a long time ago the Church was EXTREMELY powerful and manipulated facts to make organized religion work for them.

I'm not sure that all of this stuff will actually come across in the movie--probably won't.

 

[rie'smom]

The mystery,to me, is why a judge in England ruled that The daVinci Code was not a plagerized version of Holy Blood,Holy Grail,a non-fiction book which states in almost the same words exactly what Dan Brown
wrote several years later.When I first started to read Brown's book, I thought," I read this several years ago."-it's that similar!
As for the conroversy, it's a work of fiction. Those who are influenced by the book/movie can't be that firm in their faith in the first place.
Some have posted that the church has lied in the past,yada yada,so it could be true-that's hokey reasoning! I don't get where that huge chasm is breached with inane statements like that.

 

[DisneyGerry]

As an avid EWTN watcher, where almost are there programming this last week are on topics regarding the 'Davinci Code,' and all are against this blasphemous movie which is hurtful to Christ and all Christians. That is good enough for me not to bother with the movie/ book. I am curious since I love history, but I know curiousity killed the cat!

 

[mickeyfan2]

The mystery,to me, is why a judge in England ruled that The daVinci Code was not a plagerized version of Holy Blood,Holy Grail,a non-fiction book which states in almost the same words exactly what Dan Brown.

ITA. He did copy the Holy Blood, Holy Grail book and got away with it.

 

[alabamaalan]

Yeah, but he and the judge were probably both Masons, so he got away with it.

 

[DISUNC]

As an avid EWTN watcher, I see many if not all programs showing episodes against 'Davinci Code.' All say it is blasphemous to Christians. That is good enough to me not to bother with the movie/ book. I am curious since I love history, but I know curiousity killed the cat!

I find this sad, because it simply isn't true! As a Catholic, it always bothered me when the church TOLD me what to watch or read! As a adult I truly believe I can make my own decisions. As a American I ALWAYS question any Authoritative body. It is not only our right, but our responsibility!

I understand the Churches stand, and that is fine for them. However, I do believe you should satisfy your curiosity, this book is VERY ENTERTAINING! If you do read it and find anything blasphemous, just put it down.

 

[roberrl187]

I didn't have the time to read the book, but when I started seeing the trailers on tv for the movie, it peaked my curosity. I purchased the unabridged audio version from Itunes and am enjoying it alot.

I'm about 1/4 of the way through the audio and so far there hasn't been anything in the book that has made me question my faith. It is an enjoyable fictional story. Tonight I will look to see if Angels and Deamons is available for my ipod.

 

[captJack88]

The book, in mho, is a less than average mystery wrapped around a controversial theory, but I wanted to see what all the hype was about so I read it, and I was not overly impressed with the book. I too thought Angels and Demons was a much better read. I have no intention of seeing the movie, and I don't think Tom Hanks is a good choice to play Robert Langdon.
Protesting the book simply drives up the sales of the book, the more they yell and scream about it, the more publicity the book gets, and more people go out to see what all the yelling is about. I really think it has been given more credit than it is due and Dan Brown is laughing all the way to the bank!

 

[sodaseller]

As an avid EWTN watcher, I see many if not all programs showing episodes against 'Davinci Code.' All say it is blasphemous to Christians. That is good enough to me not to bother with the movie/ book. I am curious since I love history, but I know curiousity killed the cat!

You may not wish to watch it. Heck, it may be a mediocre movie. But please don't rely on EWTN. You will be led into error for sure if you do

You certainly should not rely on "the DaVinci Code" as accurate history. It is not. It is fiction

 

[Brutie]

I knew nothing about it either. I had seen that a lot of people on different boards were reading it and I thought it was odd that so many people were so interested in a book about Leonardo DaVinci...lol

I never thought anything else about it until just last week when hubby told me it was about some guy who said Jesus had a wife. I said "okie dokie", and this guy got that from DaVinci's paintings? That is all I know about it. I did see on CNN last night that Ron Howard is making a movie about it with Tom Hanks but thats all I know.

 

[sodaseller]

The mystery,to me, is why a judge in England ruled that The daVinci Code was not a plagerized version of Holy Blood,Holy Grail,a non-fiction book which states in almost the same words exactly what Dan Brown
wrote several years later.When I first started to read Brown's book, I thought," I read this several years ago."-it's that similar!
As for the conroversy, it's a work of fiction. Those who are influenced by the book/movie can't be that firm in their faith in the first place.
Some have posted that the church has lied in the past,yada yada,so it could be true-that's hokey reasoning! I don't get where that huge chasm is breached with inane statements like that.

The judge did not rule that the ideas behind the DaVinci code were freely borrowed from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and other sources. He ruled that that was not illegal - writers are free to fictionalize "facts" written elsewhere without attribution

http://www.slate.com/id/2137797/

Let's start at the beginning. One of the basic principles of copyright law is that you can't copyright historical facts, though you can own how you express those facts. Say you write the first article ever saying that John F. Kennedy had Addison's disease (a fact). If the law says that you now own that fact, almost anyone who wants to write about Kennedy's life or illnesses needs your permission. That's a broad right, one that's not just a damper on future scholarship and authorship but possibly a damper on that fact itself—you might, for example, be a Kennedy loyalist who wants to keep his disease secret forever.

The authors of Holy Blood make a different argument. They say that it's one thing to repeat a fact or two. But it's another to steal the essence of a work that required an enormous effort to write and research. Holy Blood took 10 years to put together (though, according to its critics, it's still full of errors). And figuring out how to assemble the facts into a compelling work meant a lot of sweat. Back in 1982, Newsweek presciently said of Holy Blood that "the plot has all the elements of an international thriller." A similar argument persuaded an English court to rule for a plaintiff just like Leigh and his co-authors in the 1980 case of the Hofburg Spear. The premise was just that too much was stolen.

This is not a ridiculous argument. Why should Dan Brown be able to walk away with tens of millions of dollars if Leigh and his pals put in all the hard labor? The answer is that Leigh et al., had a choice: They could have decided to portray their work as fiction, not history—and that, in the words of American judge Frank Easterbrook, "makes all the difference." When you, as an author, make a claim to present the truth, you both gain something and lose something. You have a shot at changing what we think to be true, and you may gain reader interest. But you cannot own the truth the way you might own elements of a fictional story, like the character "Rocky." To claim the truth is fine, but to own it is not.

 

[crcormier]

Loved the book, really enjoyed the storytelling. Is it an assault against Christianity? No, it's a work of fiction. Thoughtful fiction, I think, and if people wonder about things and want to do research afterwards, great. But I would not trust nor would I want to be part of any church or organization that thinks I'm not smart enough to make my own decisions. If a church wants to have discussions about the book and it's fictional theories, great. But let people think on their own. That's what faith is, and one of the major tenets of Christianity is that God gave us free will. Why would a church want to quash it?

 

[wvjules]

As an avid EWTN watcher, I see many if not all programs showing episodes against 'Davinci Code.' All say it is blasphemous to Christians. That is good enough to me not to bother with the movie/ book. I am curious since I love history, but I know curiousity killed the cat!

Seriously??? You allow a television channel to dictate how you live your life w/o question?


Back OT, I don't understand how people get so worked up over this book/movie. What part of FICTION are people not getting?

 

[declansdad]

I still don't see how something that has been clearly stated as a work of fiction and has not tried to hide it, could be seen as attacking christianity. I also find it interesting that christianity has been screeming bloody murder about "being attacked" when it has attacked other religions throughout history.

 

[Disney Doll]

The only thing I know about it is that Tom Hanks is in the movie with really, really BAD HAIR (worse than his usual!)

I read somewhere that he loves his hair in the movie and so is going to keep it that way for a while. He's naturally curly, so I think it's been chemically straightened.

Personally, it's not his best look, IMHO.

 

[rie'smom]

The judge did not rule that the ideas behind the DaVinci code were freely borrowed from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and other sources. He ruled that that was not illegal - writers are free to fictionalize "facts" written elsewhere without attribution

http://www.slate.com/id/2137797/

Plagerism is plagerism no matter what pretty cover anyone puts on it.

 

[Cor44432]

Love the book, and I hope the movie is just a as good.

I do agree that getting all worked over a piece of fiction is more trouble
than it's worth (unless the Catholic church has something to worry about?)

Of course, many people believe the bible to be "fiction" also, so who's to
say someone else's interpretation of those events shouldn't be considered
also..hmmmmm

 

[Papa Deuce]

All you need to know is that you will burn for all eternity if you liked and believe it.


I can't wait for the movie!