The Da Vinci code

[Beren3000]

Anyone read the book?

What do you think of the theory that Christ was a mortal?

[Beor]

Yeah, man, that book kicks ass!

Check it out, I think that theory is quite a theory. Being brought up a Lutheran, it is hard to totally go back on everything I have ever learned, but hey, here we go. I think it is a valid theory. I can imagine the church doing that kind of stuff, espically back then. And the divine feminine thing is quite a thing too, espically since I think that women could run this place a lot better than guys for the most part anyway. I like the book, but I like the stuff presented in the book better. It is pretty incredible

[Beren3000]

I can't say I didn't like the book. The mere conception and plotting of such a story is overwhelming in its own right.
I also enjoyed the insights on the divine feminine, Hieros Gamos, and all that symbolism stuff...
However, being a devout Orthodox, I can't bring myself to believe that theory in any way, because there is a LOT of arguments that can go against it. For example: according to the theory, Christ is a mortal man but a great one. If so, why then hallow and almost worship his alledged wife?

Anyway, there's one thing I don't get about the sacred feminine concept. If the concept preaches union between male and female to achieve harmony, how come it gives precedence to females; shouldn't it preach equality instead?

[Beor]

I think it is because women are supposed to be divine anyway, for they can bring kids into the world. They are the place where all the magic takes place (uh-huh). The premise is that the only way that a man can glimse "God" is through a union of "love" (sex) with a woman, the climax, or "orgasm" being the point of divinity. Thus, orgasm=good.

They could worship ol Mary Magdelene, because she held the royal bloodline, and is, since Christ is the center point of Christianity, the prime candidate for the physical representative of the divine feminine.

remember, orgasm=good

[Beren3000]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
I don't think you need a novel to tell you THAT!!

But anyway, you just refuted yourself:

Originally posted by Beor
since Christ is the center point of Christianity

but according to the theory of the book, Christianity is wrong. So how can they then revere Christ's "wife" and his "bloodline" as royal??

[BeardofPants]

While it raised some interesting ideas, it really annoyed me how Dan Brown treated everything as factual. Misleading at best. And badly written. At times he almost came across as 'lecturing', in his efforts to cram some of his 'theories' in there. Characters were flat, and ill-developed.

[Coney II]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
While it raised some interesting ideas, it really annoyed me how Dan Brown treated everything as factual. Misleading at best. And badly written. At times he almost came across as 'lecturing', in his efforts to cram some of his 'theories' in there. Characters were flat, and ill-developed.

Agreed. Seems he did a lot of research and used quite a lot of his own educational background for the book. It's just a shame that he decided to write this novel for the "brain dead" bestseller list As a bog-standard thriller that didn't require much in the way of thought, it was ok tho' .

In the hands of another author, one who wouldn't pander to such a formulaic style.........this could have been a cracking novel

On the plus side. Dan Brown's attempts at conveying romance between the two main characters gave me some of the best chuckles from a book for a long time

[Beren3000]

I disagree with you there. I think the book was well written. As to the lecturing tone, well...it's a new approach isn't it?

[Beren3000]

Anybody here read other works by Dan Brown (I read Digital Fortress)?

[Grey_Wolf]

The plot of this book reminds me of Michael Baigent's The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy which is about the same thing.

[Jabberwock]

I've read Brown's Angels and Demons and I have to say that all the way through reading it I was thinking 'why am I reading this?' and yet I read it really fast and enjoyed most of it. It wasn't an amazing book. I would even say it was all that good, but I still enjoyed it. I'm thinking of reading The Da Vinci Code, but Im waiting for soft cover. I've heard heard critics say that what Brown does in his books is better done by someone like Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum. I've read that and its .... well, daunting in it's erudition. I liked it too. I have to say that Eco writes novels that read like text books and text books that read like novels. Brown, from what I've read, is a second rate, but very entertaining author.

[Beren3000]

I don't get it! Why is everyone bashing Brown this hard?

[Beor]

hey, man, dont worry, I got Brown's back. I aint the smartest person in the world, but I think he writes well, and if it comes off as a lecture, then it does, but I like the style. It makes it seem more real, and I think it generally kicks ass. I also read 'Angels and Demons' and 'Deception Point', and I thought they were also good. Although it seemed like A&D was about the same story as the Da Vinci code, just with a different series of riddles and a different backdrop. Still, I liked them both

[Beren3000]

I'm with you Beor. I think the guy's style is great. So what if he sounds like a textbook from time to time? And by the way, is Deception Point interesting? I'm considering reading it.
I'd also recommend you read Digital Fortress

[Coney II]

Originally posted by Beren3000
I don't get it! Why is everyone bashing Brown this hard?

I don't think it's so much a case of bashing.....just that Brown doesn't write in a style a lot of people enjoy (and then, millions do enjoy it).

It's all about personal taste

Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum. I've read that and its .... well, daunting in it's erudition.

I was discussing daVinci Code with a coupla friends and they reccomended this title, as covering a lot of the same themes but better written......looking forward to getting into it in the next coupla weeks

[Jabberwock]

I wasn't so much bashing Brown as I was saying that I don't know what it is about his writing that makes me want to read it. I'm not normally attracted to such fast paced novels. I like something I can emerse myself in and live with the characters for a while, but when the events of a novel take place in a few days, as in A&D, I usually hate the book.

As for Eco. Expect a history lesson in every chapter. Foucault's Pendulum is not nearly as fast paced as Brown's writing. It's about Rosecrusians (sp), illuminati, freemasons, etc. Mostly it's about how people can let their imagination get the best of them. I loved the book, but I'm also a big fan of Eco's nonfiction essays, which are much better than his novels. THere is an essay in one of Eco's books called Serendipities which goes into a bit more detail on the historical stuff presented in Foucault's Pendulum which might help someone reading the novel. The other essays in Serendipities are really interesting too.

[Mercutio]

"Dismantling the Da Vinci Code".

Its a bit long, gives away some of the book (so if you don't want spoilers, I suppose you can't read it, sigh). It talks about errors Brown made in research (or lack thereof), his unreliable sources, etc. And the author of the article and magazine it appeared in are quite legitimate.

[Beren3000]

Mercutio, I can't thank you enough for this link! I'll read it fully when I have time *runs to grab GCE papers *

[Mercutio]

Don't understand me wrongly about this (and my post with the review). Go ahead and read "The Da Vinci Code" and enjoy it (as a fictional novel). Just make sure you understand it is very very historically inaccurate and misinterprets many Christian aspects (to a quite demeaning degree sometimes).

[Beren3000]

I hope you weren't talking to me? If that's the case, then don't worry: I've read The Da Vinci Code ages ago already