Thursday, July 06, 2006
DaVinci Code
Well, I guess I had to do it. I broke down and read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. I'm not ordinarily the person who has to see the hot new movie or read the book everyone else is reading so I can stake my place at the watercooler.
But I have to admit-- as a bit of a controversialist-- that my interest was piqued by all the high dudgeon aroused by the thriller. So I thought I should take a look at it before the movie came out. I purchased a copy at a locally-owned bookstore in town.
Now I have done some research on the Grail and the Templars on my own in the 'non-fiction' section of the library, so I was familiar with a lot of the stuff they used as the MacGuffin in the story. None of it came as a shock or surprise to me.
The book was well-plotted. Not well-written. Engaging enough to hold my attention, despite a few hackneyed turns of phrase (like this one). The meaning and significance of things were explained well enough. I wouldn't say it was a book that will last forever as a classic.
It seems to me that whatever long-lasting impact it will have is cultural: will the ideas used for the story become more widespread? Will the alternate history presented in this work of fiction grab hold of people's imaginations and cause them to look at the orthodox story with just a little more skepticism?
I think it would be healthy if they did. There's already far too many 'true believers' in the world to make it a safe place to live.
# posted by newbie @ 8:43 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I saw the movie. I rarely look at books, except for reference purposes.
From what I gather, the movie follows the book pretty closesly, but a few people were upset that their favorite details were excluded.
To me it looked like any other story where the writer spun a fictional yarn around a few known facts. It's the Ice Station Zebra formula. I didn't understand the controversy or the fuss.
From what I gather, the movie follows the book pretty closesly, but a few people were upset that their favorite details were excluded.
To me it looked like any other story where the writer spun a fictional yarn around a few known facts. It's the Ice Station Zebra formula. I didn't understand the controversy or the fuss.
# posted by 
: 12:45 AM
: 12:45 AM
Reading backwards, as post go down the page, I had to answer this post as well.
I, too, have read some of the background material that Brown presents as "truth" on the opening page. It is "bunk."
A quotation I was reminded of this evening may be appropriate here:
"I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. The resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of inifinity...I search in vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the Gospel. Neither history, nor humanity, nor the ages, nor nature, offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or explain it. Here everything is extraordinary."
- Nepolian Bonapart
The emporer was a student of history, and HE was impressed with the historical record and the difference Christ made to mankind. Can we be less impressed?
I, too, have read some of the background material that Brown presents as "truth" on the opening page. It is "bunk."
A quotation I was reminded of this evening may be appropriate here:
"I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. The resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of inifinity...I search in vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the Gospel. Neither history, nor humanity, nor the ages, nor nature, offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or explain it. Here everything is extraordinary."
- Nepolian Bonapart
The emporer was a student of history, and HE was impressed with the historical record and the difference Christ made to mankind. Can we be less impressed?
more quoes from the notorious dictator:
"Everything is more or less organized matter. To think so is against religion, but I think so just the same."
"As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them."
"I am surrounded by priests who repeat incessantly that their kingdom is not of this world, and yet they lay their hands on everything they can get."
"All religions have been made by men."
"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares, "God wills it thus." Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
"If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god."
"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
"Skepticism is a virtue in history as well as in philosophy."
there's ample reasons to doubt the mere existence of jesus, let alone the miracles and status attributed to him.
"Everything is more or less organized matter. To think so is against religion, but I think so just the same."
"As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them."
"I am surrounded by priests who repeat incessantly that their kingdom is not of this world, and yet they lay their hands on everything they can get."
"All religions have been made by men."
"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares, "God wills it thus." Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
"If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god."
"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
"Skepticism is a virtue in history as well as in philosophy."
there's ample reasons to doubt the mere existence of jesus, let alone the miracles and status attributed to him.
# posted by : 11:50 AM
: 11:50 AM
So, anonymous is a student of good ol' Napolean (I'll look up the spelling one of these days)!
It seems that the little general actually WAS a bit schizo, huh?
Well, to one who sees "ample reason to doubt the very existence" of the most significant person ever to walk the earth (yes, I am prejudiced, but present a better candidate), it seems that Napolean is as good a source of quotes as any.
And isn't it nice to hide behind Anonymous?
It seems that the little general actually WAS a bit schizo, huh?
Well, to one who sees "ample reason to doubt the very existence" of the most significant person ever to walk the earth (yes, I am prejudiced, but present a better candidate), it seems that Napolean is as good a source of quotes as any.
And isn't it nice to hide behind Anonymous?
same anonymous here.
you were very happy with napoleon when he agreed with you. now he's 'schizo' because he was smarter than all that.
tell me, do you still think he's a brilliant student of history, or is he 'bunk' now, too?
as for jesus there's not one contemporary account of him and even the existence of his home town nazareth has not been verified.
you were very happy with napoleon when he agreed with you. now he's 'schizo' because he was smarter than all that.
tell me, do you still think he's a brilliant student of history, or is he 'bunk' now, too?
as for jesus there's not one contemporary account of him and even the existence of his home town nazareth has not been verified.
# posted by : 7:25 AM
: 7:25 AM
Actually, I saw the quote, and I thought it significant. None of your quotes change Napoleon's accessment of the historical Jesus. He apparently chose to deny the authority carried in such a person.
And yes, the fact that he said things from both points of veiw seems to qualify as schizophrenic.
I commend you on your knowledge of the historical character of Gen. Bonapart. It is sad, though, that you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
That the accounts by Matthew, an apostle, and Mark, a young observer from Jerusalem who became a disciple of Peter, are not considered "contemporary" accounts is strange. And Luke's account is a very reasoned record drawn from accounts by eyewitnesses, quite possibly as a report to a Roman official. You can be sure that he would not have "made things up."
And then there are references by Josephus (born near the time of Jesus' death). Of course, some of the material MAY have been added later. But not all of it.
The fact of an incertainty to the "existence" of Nazareth may just be an indication that, since the town rejected him, it failed to prosper. It was a small hamlet, anyway, and did not show up often in the Roman records.
Ask yourself, if the city did not exist, and the "non-contemporary" writers were telling a story to a later generation, why invent a town? Even Matthew used wordplay to explain why Jesus dwelt there. Perhaps, even when he was writing, the town had begun to die.
It is good, I suppose, that you remain Anonymous. But then, it doesn't look like we get many viewers to this little discussion any way.
Have a nice day.
Post a Comment
And yes, the fact that he said things from both points of veiw seems to qualify as schizophrenic.
I commend you on your knowledge of the historical character of Gen. Bonapart. It is sad, though, that you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
That the accounts by Matthew, an apostle, and Mark, a young observer from Jerusalem who became a disciple of Peter, are not considered "contemporary" accounts is strange. And Luke's account is a very reasoned record drawn from accounts by eyewitnesses, quite possibly as a report to a Roman official. You can be sure that he would not have "made things up."
And then there are references by Josephus (born near the time of Jesus' death). Of course, some of the material MAY have been added later. But not all of it.
The fact of an incertainty to the "existence" of Nazareth may just be an indication that, since the town rejected him, it failed to prosper. It was a small hamlet, anyway, and did not show up often in the Roman records.
Ask yourself, if the city did not exist, and the "non-contemporary" writers were telling a story to a later generation, why invent a town? Even Matthew used wordplay to explain why Jesus dwelt there. Perhaps, even when he was writing, the town had begun to die.
It is good, I suppose, that you remain Anonymous. But then, it doesn't look like we get many viewers to this little discussion any way.
Have a nice day.
<< Home
