Posted on 03/18/2006 2:58:43 PM PST by ConservativeStLouisGuy
|
It is somewhat ironic to see Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, sitting in a British court and defending himself against charges of plagiarism by the writers of a previous book about the Holy Grail. Ironic because both books are utter nonsense. Brown's defence against plagiarism is that his work is original. His defence against writing rubbish is that his book is fiction and he doesn't claim to be a historian. Problem is, that's not entirely true. Brown includes a "fact" section and slips in references to various non-fiction works throughout his book. As flawed as these volumes may be, they are genuine books and are used to convey a sense of authenticity to Brown's text. They also serve to convince the gullible that his thesis has some credibility. The Holy Grail, he argues, was not an object but a person - Mary Magdalene. Who carried the child of Jesus. Brown writes that this is ancient wisdom. Not quite. It is in fact an anti-Christian libel that was first stated not before but 100-300 years after the Gospels were written. There is no evidence at all that it is true, but acres of proof that it is sheer fabrication. Then come the mistakes. The heroes of the book are chased by a crazed and murderous "Opus Dei monk." There is, however, no such thing as an Opus Dei monk. Opus Dei is an organization of orthodox Roman Catholics, composed mostly of lay people. There are some priests within the organization but no monks. Nor is Opus Dei sinister or violent. It educates, works with the marginalized and performs charitable works. After this, Brown says that during the Middle Ages the Church burned five million women as witches. Really? If so, there would have been almost no adult women left anywhere in Europe. In fact around 40,000 were killed, for various reasons. Brown bases much of his story on precise details of the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci. Yet he mistakes the size of a central piece, The Virgin of the Rocks, by 18 inches. He writes extensively about the Priory of Sion and says that is was founded in 1099. It was actually founded in the 1950s. He also writes that until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD nobody believed that Jesus was divine. Laughable. Christians always believed that Christ was divine, from the earliest martyrs in the years after the Resurrection. The Gospels, claiming that Jesus was God, were written in the first century and we have actual copies from the second. Christian writings outside of Scripture, such as those of Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Clement, also date from the second and early third century and they too, of course, claim divinity for Jesus. One doesn't have to agree with the claim, but only a fool or a liar would pretend that the claim was not made. All the Nicaea Council did was to codify these beliefs. There was no time when followers of Christ thought of him as anything other than the son of God. If so, they would not have died for him. Leading medieval historian Sandra Miesel goes so far as to say that the book is so full of errors that, "I'm actually surprised when The Da Vinci Code is correct about anything at all." The anti-Christian and in particular anti-Catholic bigotry in the book is astounding. If someone had written such horrors about, for example Muslims, he would not be published, let alone become a bestseller. Hypocrisy, just like dishonesty, wins the day yet again. |
(bump for the truth)
Perhaps not squealing about the book every week or so would keep it off the public radar.
It's like Tom Cruise and the Scientology episode on South Park. Now EVERYONE wants to see it.
I am really surprised that Ron Howard got himself involved in this project.
I am, too. His Apollo 13 ranks as possibly my all-time favorite movie. But like A13 actor Ed Harris, I suppose they're all Hollywierd once they're off-screen.
I wonder what Clint has to say about the issue?
What about the the prequel in this "Robert Langdon series", it was 'Angels and Demons' (published July 2003). I guess it too had some revelations about the Catholic Church and its people and inner workings. No uproar here either.
Many other books have been written about this 'Bloodline theory' used in 'The DaVinci Code'. Did anyone say or was there an uproar about 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' when it was published in 1982? How about its sequel 'The Messianic Legacy' published in 1987? Both books published over 20 years ago, both with the same story line as 'The DaVinci Code'. Both claimed to 'rock the foundations of Christianity'. Did they? Frankly, no. No outrage then, no uproar so to have it now with this one book, because it's a best seller, is a bit hollow.
IMHO believers look at these books, DaVinci Code et all mentioned, as fiction because they know the truth. They are fiction because they are entertaining reading. They have something real in them and then the writer moves the plot along to ... sell books. Those people who think they are nonfiction and true will never be converts anyway and are searching for something that they can't find. (Not sorry, my belief)
I think we should do our best to write the history we are living accurately and rely on the ancient writers that they too captured the truth of their times. Just like the recent work of fiction 'National Treasure', somethings were true and some were not. That's entertainment and a writers prerogative or some fancy word that eludes me right now. Many items of fiction have a slight basis in fact otherwise they are pure fantasy.
Maybe we need a Commission to ban or burn books. How else can you stop authors from writing books that may not be liked or wanted. [No not really.] Personnaly I enjoyed the book as entertaining reading, nothing more nothing less. I did not believe the bloodline theory. Not when I read it almost 40 years ago and not today.
This utter nonsense sold 30 Million Copies. I do not believe in the basic premise of the novel. However give the bastard his due.
>>"I wonder what Clint has to say about the issue?"
If you mean Eastwood, he has always made it a practice of not criticizing the work of other film makers. For that, I respect him.<<
Clint Howard.
Not much. He is not in the movie
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.