"Fiction"? I've known fiction, and you sir, are no fiction!
Posted on 01/02/2006 8:05:03 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
LONDON -- Westminster Abbey has implicitly criticized churches that opened their doors to the filming of "The Da Vinci Code" last year by denouncing the thriller as "nonsense" that should be exposed by Christians.
The abbey barred the filmmakers from its premises in June, saying that the best-selling Dan Brown novel on which the film was based was "theologically unsound."
But Lincoln and Winchester cathedrals cooperated with the Hollywood adaptation, as did Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland.
The film -- starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou and Sir Ian McKellen -- is expected to be one of the blockbusters of the year when it is released in May.
The novel, which has sold more than 25 million copies worldwide, is replete with secret societies, cryptic clues and an albino assassin.
Now Westminster Abbey's canon theologian, Nicholas Sagovsky, has entered the fray, arguing that numerous factual errors in the book undermine its author's claims to have based it on solid research.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I actually started the book, but the writing style was so poor. It tried too hard. So I stopped.
Oh come on...at least wait to see how it evolves...or maybe the thread is intelligently designed.
[Sidles slowly toward door, poised on balls of feet]
Schiavo!
[Dives out front door, takes cover in ditch in front yard]
[Dives out front door, takes cover in ditch in front yard]
ROTFLMAO. Any way we could add the immigration debate to this thread too? Cause FR World War III.
Oh PLEASE excuse some of us, we thought this website was a forum.
Your point being?
Oh, please, you sing this song every time this topic comes up.
Brown's OWN WORDS:
Matt How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred? I know you did a lot of research for the book.
Dan Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are--Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.
http://www.booksattransworld.co.uk/danbrown/interview.htm
So please, enough with the "He doesn't believe it" crap. He said in his own words, to the question "How much of this is based on fact," "ABSOLUTELY ALL OF IT."
Yes, yes, we KNOW it's a novel--but he's claiming it's all based on real history, which is bull. So please stop pretending you know something you don't. He MAY be lying--but he says, repeatedly, that this book is based on fact, and you don't know otherwise.
If people enjoy it, fine. But I get suspicious of such a church-bashing book being so prominent on the laps of my fellow commuters in Boston.
funny, because i don't remember ever posting about this before. regardless, it's a rather pedestrian topic. and all of the art, architecture, and secret stuff IS all real. do you dispute that? i'm only saying he takes liberties in how it all inter-relates. some people are so touchy.
I suspect Dan Brown started touting his screed as "history, absolutely all of it," when he realized how many people were swallowing his swill.
Digital Fortress by the same author would rank about 97% on the stupid scale, whereas would only score about 78%.
"Some people are so touchy"--the motto of those who post BS and then try to backpedal when actual facts disprove their silliness. Later.
"“Is this not a work of fiction? Why worry about a few misplaced facts?” I’ll tell you why. While waiting in line to purchase The DaVinci Code at the local Borders bookstore, I scanned a primary chapter of concern, having been informed by Bob Passantino of its historically inaccurate content. A woman behind me spoke up: “Oh! That’s a great book!” I looked back at her. “Not really,” I replied shortly. “It’s full of poor scholarship.” The woman was shocked. “But it’s just fiction,” she replied. Curious nevertheless, she asked for an example. So, I picked one. “Well, it has the date of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls wrong.4 If the author cannot get something that elementary and fundamental right, it is reasonable to wonder what other historical “facts” presented in this text are wrong. And there are a lot of wrong “facts” presented as the historical background to this fiction book.” “Interesting,” she said, nodding. This is why it is important that someone worry about the historical inaccuracies that serve as the historical basis of this fiction book—because most people are not equipped to filter fact from fiction and they will absorb as truth whatever someone says is true.
"Brown opens his novel with the words “FACT” in bold, capital letters and this statement:
"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.
"In terms of documents and rituals, however – and even artwork and architecture5 -- The DaVinci Code contains few “facts” and what few it does contain require serious qualification. All of this might be excused, except that Brown baptizes such aspects of the book with the brand of “FACT,” giving credence to his claims in the eyes of most readers. Also, he puts many of these “facts” into the mouth of a character named Teabing who is described as a reputable historian, which further encourages the reader to accept the historical “facts” in the novel as a factual backbone to the fictional story. I rather think if any genuine, academic historian made certain statements attributed to Teabing, he would be promptly demoted to janitorial duties and remanded for training in History 101. Sadly, Brown’s sleight-of-hand under the cloak of fact has tricked others, including the Book Review Editor of the New York Daily News, who commented naively that “his research is impeccable.”
"On the television special, Brown confesses that he “became a believer” in the theories that he weaves throughout The DaVinci Code after allegedly trying to disprove them."
http://answers.org/issues/davincicode.html
And further down in the same article--only one of many I've read:
"Though beyond our general scope, it is worthwhile to point to a few of Brown’s more egregious factual errors in this area, and in others, that have been noted by reviewers of the book:
"The theory that Leonardo DaVinci included Mary Magdalene in his painting The Last Supper is not accepted by art historians, who say that the “feminine” figure seated to the left of Jesus is the boyish Apostle John as he is normally depicted in artwork of the period. This identification was explicitly rejected by Carmen Bombach, an expert on DaVinci interviewed by Katie Couric on the Today show. The ABC special was only able to locate one art historian, Carlo Pedretti, who agreed that DaVinci had painted this figure as a woman, based seemingly on a faint resemblance of the figure to a woman in another painting. Brown’s response to expert art historians who disagree with him is simply, “We see what we’ve been told to see.”
"Brown incorrectly reports that the ancient Olympics were held to honor Aphrodite. In fact they were held to honor Zeus.
"Contrary to Brown, the Knights Templar had nothing to do with the building of cathedrals.
"A chief henchman in the book is identified as a “monk” of the Opus Dei Catholic organization, although the organization has no monks.
" Brown reports that the Pyramid of the Louvre is composed of 666 panes of glass. In fact, it is composed of 673. See “The Louvre's Pyramid celebrates its 10th Anniversary from 7 to 21 April 1999,” http://www.louvre.or.jp/louvre/presse/en/activites/archives/anniv.htm
"It is claimed that the Church burned five million women as witches over its history. The actual number executed in the “witch crazes” of Europe was somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000; not all were women, not all were burned, and not all were executed by the Church, but rather by political figures using religion to “justify” their deeds [See Bob and Gretchen Passantino, Satanism [Zondervan, 1995), 33-34). "
BTW, I needed no research to see that Brown is laughably out of his element--even though he's married to an art historian--when he claims that that is Mary at the Last Supper; anyone with the most basic knowledge of art history knows that men were often painted with "feminine" features like long hair in DaVinci's time.
It is? What are you talking about, exactly?
The problem is that there are many millions who are utterly ignorant of history and seriously think that Brown's "theory of Jesus" (which directly contradicts and negates the Christian faith) makes some kind of sense, when it is complete nonsense.
To dismiss it as "merely fiction" misses the point. It is being understood by many as "historical fiction" in the usual sense of trying to make a reasonable, if embroidered, telling of "what really happened."
I like to tell people tell people that the difference between The Da Vinci Code and the movie National Treasure is that National Treasure was far more historically accurate and much more meticulously researched.
I recall seeing Digital Fortress a lot back when it came out but didn't know anyone who'd read it. It looked like one of those Illuminati! books to me.
I haven't read the book, but I have heard some things about the general thesis of the book, that Christ married Mary Magdalene, and the Church is covering it up. I can't imagine how that would translate into a movie, especially a blockbuster movie.
...like so many films: "based on a true story."
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.