Posted on 05/15/2006 7:35:21 AM PDT by unlearner
Everyone likes a good riddle. It's human nature to want to find meaning, solve problems, and seek out purposeful solutions. Dan Brown capitalized on this by writing the best selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code".
Speaking of which, the title of my post is a riddle: WOE ON RON HOWARD, T. HANKS' D.C. FIB. By rearranging the letters of the title, you can find a meaningful question posed about this novel and film. The solution is in the context of the story, as the answer resembles a major puzzle within it.
If it is not obvious at this point that T. HANKS is for Tom Hanks (not "thanks") and D.C. is for Da Vinci Code (not the US capitol), you may want to sit this one out and let someone else solve the riddle. Tom Hanks plays the main character in the upcoming movie directed by Ron Howard and adapted from the Dan Brown novel. (The official movie website is at http://www.sodarktheconofman.com, using a phrase taken from the book.)
The film and the book are a big fib. That is, they are a lie. "Yes", some object, "but they are fiction. They are not meant to be taken literally." Not quite. The story is intertwined with historical fact and historical fiction. Leonardo Da Vinci was a real person. So was Jesus. So was Mary Magdelene.
The story extends poetic license to depicting these characters in what many would consider a slanderous light. It goes beyond this to the point of denigrating biblical doctrines and substituting fairy tales in their place.
If Jesus fled persecution and had children by Mary, then the most essential doctrines of Christianity are false: the atoning death of Christ on the cross, the resurrection, the spiritual body of Christ (i.e. the Church - Christ's bride). Mr. Brown fails to see that a relationship with Mary would make Jesus an adulterer, and thus a hypocrite, since He spoke against adultery.
The movie is to be released May 19, 2006- just in time to celebrate the aniversary of legalized homosexual marriages. ("Legalized" by judicial edict, not legislation, and only in Massachusettes.) Do I exagerate? I do not know if this is intentional, but of course Tom Hanks has been a champion of liberal causes such as homosexual rights, as is demonstrated by the Academy Award winning propoganda piece, Philadelphia. (I would be amiss not to point out Mr. Hanks also has been a champion of some conservative causes as well- such as supporting our troops.) Co-star, Ian McKellan, is a militant homosexual activist who, while being interviewed, has bragged that he likes to vandalize Gideon Bibles which have been freely donated to hotels. I wonder if the movie will throw in the idea that some famous historical figures may have been homosexual.
Anyway, you can count me out for being one of the crowd to go see this movie when it opens. By the way, I read the book for free using my local library. I did not want any of my money to go to its author or publisher. If I ever watch the film, I will wait for a free coupon from RedBox or until my library has a copy. May I suggest to those conservatives who cannot wait for the DVD, don't go see The Da Vinci Code on opening day. Wait as long as possible. The longer you wait, the less money goes to those who made and distributed it. And they are liberal. This movie is the liberal answer to The Passion of the Christ.
It should come as no surprise. Most Hollywood movies contain many references to Jesus. Hollywood has no problem making Jesus a major subject matter within its films, as long as those references are limited to things such as using His name like a four-letter filth word. This happens, on average, several times in a typical Hollywood film. Yet movies like The Passion of the Christ, which attempts to portray the actual events surrounding Christ's death, are unacceptable to the liberal elite in Hollywood. A similar protest, albeit slightly quieter, was made against Chronicles of Narnia which contains what some interpret as allegorical references to Christ.
Here's my take on Dan Brown's novel under discussion. Aside from the callous insult against biblical Christianity as well as special insults reserved for Catholics, the story is fairly well told. Not amazing, but OK. Some parts are weak. When we are awkardly informed a major character is allergic to shell fish, it is obvious instantly this is a not-so-subtle setup for his later demise using this plot device. The overall plot is weak, too. The explanations for why these supposed secrets have been protected in a secret society are convoluted. Why are they important enough to preserve but not important enough to tell? Why are the secret group sex rituals necessary? The memories of a girl walking in on her uncle in the middle of one of these rituals is quite over the top. It is just too hard to swallow Brown's take on these things having some sort of intrinsic beauty. To me it is just incestuous and disgusting.
It has already been pointed out, but may be worth repeating, that Brown has his facts so mixed up as to be unrecognizable. Gnostic gospels never gained much foothold in early Christianity because those closest to the actual events were present to refute these errant writings. They were not removed by a Constantine persecution. Brown would transform the legalization of Christianity into the persecution of all desenting views. And what's more, even if the Gnostics were an alternative Christianity, they would never come close to supporting Brown's fascination with "the sacred feminine". Gnostics despised women, the physical, and the sexual. None of this fits.
Ok. That's my two cents worth. But what about the riddle? With a little effort some Freeper is sure to solve it . The way to find the answer should be clear to anyone who is familiar with the riddles in the book. Any takers? I will provide some additional hints if no one is able to solve it.
Having special services to teach people that a fiction book is fiction does not seem like a good way to spend my time.
I might write a book, "Don't Eat the Green Eggs and Ham" if "Debunking the Da Vinci Code" is successful.
Chapter 1: I am NOT Sam
Chapter 2: Reasons to not tolerate Green Eggs
Chapter 3: Do not eat them in the House (of God), or with a Mouse
Chapter 4: Do not eat them in a box, nor with a fox
Subchaoter 4: Little foxes spoil the vine
Chapter 5: The dangers of eating Green Eggs in a car
Chapter 6: Eating Green Eggs in a tree is a practice of druids
Chapter 7: Eating Green Eggs in a Train is prohibitted by most states
Chapter 8: Some eat Green Eggs in the dark because their deeds are evil
Chapter 9: How eating Green Eggs in the rain can destroy our eco-system
Chapter 10: Eating Green Eggs with a goat is Satanic
Chapter 11: Why Noah didn't eat Green Eggs in the ark
Chapter 12: Jehovah's Witnesses have adopted the Green Eggs approach to prosylitize
Chapter 13: There is no Chapter 13...it is bad luck
Chapter 14: How to win someone who has ingested Green Eggs
Chapter 15: Catalog on all my other spiritual books, with a special 50% off coupon for my latest book, "Why Horton should not be listening to the backward-masking Whos"
I have read several of his clarion call articles.
Well said, LOL
Methinks they doth protest too much - makes one wonder what they may be afraid people will wonder about and maybe even do some historical - (as apposed to hysterical) research.
For one thing, they may discover that Dan Brown is being vilified for making up this story about the relationship between Jesus and MM - that they were married. Good grief, it isn't his idea ...it's been around and written about for nearly 2000 years and there are many current publications, NOT fiction, that purport the same thing - including one of the most popular by a life long Catholic, Margaret Starbird.
I wont go any further as I wouldn't want to disturb minds set in concrete.
If one's own beliefs are so weak that they must be spoon fed and led - well...
They just built one near me, through the Star Gate to middle earth, about ten minutes if I decide to walk.
OK. Apparently, you are the only one trying on the riddle. Everyone else is just using this as a springboard to rehash old arguments about the story (which is OK I guess).
Final hint: The question begins with "How".
Care to take one last shot at it?
I got: IS DAN 'COD FART' BROWN A HOOKER? but had a couple of leftover letters...
OK. Apparently, you are the only one trying on the riddle. Everyone else is just using this as a springboard to rehash old arguments about the story (which is OK I guess).
Final hint: The question begins with "How".
Care to take one last shot at it?
Did you know John Kerry was in Viet Nam and skammed...err, received three purple hearts?
Also, just a comment. I am surprised that John Kerry isn't a Vikings fan. His three purple hearts and yellow backbone match their team colors very well.
Excellent rant. Sadly, many are still in denial. The fish don't know they're wet, I always say. I wish we would for once get over this tired old debate over "it's fiction, people!" There is no debate! It is fiction, and it offends, insults, twists history and, as all popular art does, has a huge impact on our views, values and behavior.
Ding, ding, ding, ding.
We have a winner.
Puzzle: WOE ON RON HOWARD, T. HANKS' D.C. FIB (a riddle)
Rearrange the letters to find the answer.
Solution: HOW DARK IS THE CON OF DAN BROWN?
F15Eagle got it.
So don't watch it!
Do you think by your carping and complaning and dimestore ontology that you're going to stop people from watching it?
Brown attempts to insinuate that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Brown himself has said in interviews he belives this to be true. The Bible doesn't record this event ever happening. If it did, then it casts serious doubt on the integrity and accuracy of the Bible, and also takes the authority out of it in a person's life. Once you take the authority out of the Word of God, it becomes easy to justify nearly anything.
OK, so we have Unlearner and Revolting Cat as self-described gullible moviegoers. Anyone else, or do we have some people who still know how to think for themselves? :)
In one of the first pages Brown claims that the background information in the book is accurate. In other words, he's claiming that this novel is historical fiction. It's not. So Brown is either a liar, an idiot, or a lazy researcher. Most likely he's a bit of each.
What do you object to about what he has said (that you have read?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.