My Weekend -- book reading
-
I had been wanting to read DaVinci Code for a long time but just didn't have the motivation (just no time that's all). But now the movie release getting closer and closer, last Thursday I decided to get the book and read it. So I did. Whew. Setting aside religious preferences (I'm Hindu -- just if anyone curious), I thought it was an amazing novel. Brown did a fantastic job depicting the details for the characters, places, architectures, his surroundings, the moods, thinking process etc. Now that I've read the book, the movie will not be as much fun unless Ron Howard decides to throw more twists & turns into the story line. Anyways, I read Angels and Demons last year and I found that much more fascinating than Da Vinci Code. Having read Angels and Demon the climax of Da Vinci Code was much more predictable. :( I wished either I had read A&D after DVC or DanBrown should've tried harder on climax for DVC! Oh and also, they're shooting Spiderman 3 right out side my apartment/work building so I had fun watching the filming. The six minute scene for which they've blocked streets of Cleveland downtown for 2 weeks will seem lot more glamourous in theatre than in reality :) . NBC News on filming[^] - Malhar
I listened to The DaVinci Code on CD a few years back, and thought it was OK. It was a decent story, with decent writing. It was very marketable given the storyline. I recently finished Deception Point, also by Brown, and was considerably underwhelmed by his authoring skills. I think his style is well suited to be transferred to film. His characters aren't interesting or very deep, but the plot and storyline moves ahead and a fast enough pace not to matter. BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright-- modified at 11:57 Monday 24th April, 2006
-
DavidCrow wrote:
If you do not take into account that his depiction of the Christian faith is flawed.
For crying out loud, IT'S A NOVEL! It's like complaining that The Golden Child isn't an accurate portrayal of Buddhism. :rolleyes:
viaduct wrote:
The Golden Child isn't an accurate portrayal of Buddhism.
:omg: it isn't??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I am completely kidding... if the smileys were not sufficient indication... _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
DavidCrow wrote:
If you do not take into account that his depiction of the Christian faith is flawed.
For crying out loud, IT'S A NOVEL! It's like complaining that The Golden Child isn't an accurate portrayal of Buddhism. :rolleyes:
:confused: It isn't? BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
viaduct wrote:
The Golden Child isn't an accurate portrayal of Buddhism.
:omg: it isn't??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I am completely kidding... if the smileys were not sufficient indication... _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
beat me to it. :) BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
:confused: It isn't? BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven WrightLOL
-
Just to be clear I think the Da Vinci Code is a pile of crap. But it is still fiction and should be taken as such. If one more person tells me how shocked they were about the Christian faith after having read the Da Vinci Code I am going to freaking explode. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Basing your knowledge of Christianity on this novel is like assuming Heinlien's novel Stranger in a Strange Land is a biography. Never the less, I get a kick out of supposedly good Christians getting upset about this book's portrayal of their 'faith'. Just how rock solid are these complainer's faith? When I'm feeling a bit mischievous during a conversation with a Christian zealot I've been known to preface a comment with, "...in the novel The Da Vinci Code..." just to watch them change colors. ;) Pictures of the menu available at the drive-thru
-
beat me to it. :) BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wrightbrianwelsch wrote:
beat me to it.
It isn't a race.... :laugh: neener neener neener... ;P _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I may not agree with all of the alarmists out there, but, as for this book, there have been a number of episodes on television that purport that the events in the book are not fiction, but are based on fact. That then, is why the fact checking is done.
The only fact I would've needed was that it was television...a medium of communication that makes the Hearst style of yellow journalism read like a dictionary. Pictures of the menu available at the drive-thru
-
DavidCrow wrote:
If you do not take into account that his depiction of the Christian faith is flawed.
For crying out loud, IT'S A NOVEL! It's like complaining that The Golden Child isn't an accurate portrayal of Buddhism. :rolleyes:
viaduct wrote:
For crying out loud, IT'S A NOVEL!
I understand that, but Mr. Brown makes the statement that his novel is based on facts. It's just that his 'facts' cannot be substantiated by anyone. Therein lies the difference.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
-
Paul Watson wrote:
how shocked they were
I've had lots of people recommend it, but none have changed faith or complained about it either. I have yet to actually read it, too busy reading C# and Design Pattern books. ;) I will admit to a fondness for "hard science fiction" which is a very popular style in an extremely small group of people. The concept involves laying out a strong foundation in science then projecting the technology forward through logical means. It is still fiction since any projection of a technology into the future is pure guesswork whether the writing is done by a nuclear engineer or an english school teacher, either could still be "possible." But the preponderance of science thrown in on hard science fiction leaves many readers in the cold, but me begging for more -- both probably because most of the writers are engineers prior writing. All in all, it simply defines the style of writing, and the reader's esoteric tastes. However, no matter how much I enjoy James P. Hogan, I have never once tried to check his facts on gravity drive propulsion.... :rolleyes: _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
James P. Hogan
Or Robert Forward, Gregory Benford, Ben Bova, ... :cool:
Software Zen:
delete this; -
viaduct wrote:
For crying out loud, IT'S A NOVEL!
I understand that, but Mr. Brown makes the statement that his novel is based on facts. It's just that his 'facts' cannot be substantiated by anyone. Therein lies the difference.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
DavidCrow wrote:
that his novel is based on facts.
Using historical figures, people that really did exist is all the requirements for "based on facts". You are making the exact same assumption as the people loosing faith, that "based on facts" means the "majority are facts," or even the substance is the facts. The substance, the plot, may have absolutely nothing to do with facts (and rarely does in "based on" type literature), but in using historical figures and events, but changing motivations or back-story related to events it is still "based on facts" but is still massively fiction. Taking real people, real events, and providing 100% fictional backstory is extremely common in fiction. I have not read this particular novel, but from what I gather it uses historical people and places and occasional events, with complete fictional interleaving with a completely fictional plot. When this is used in fiction the goal is to make the fiction seem as "real" as any facts, that is a sign of a good writer. As much as I like hard science-fiction, I don't care for this in other fiction genres which is why I have not read it yet. A poor writer would craft this so it was easy to tell fact from fiction. I am not sure if you are complaining that the writer is too good or that you prefer bad authors? Reading a quick synopsis, they refer the plot concept to "national treasure" which copy-cats the plot elements with a change of characters and backstory. Similarly with that since it used real people, real objects, real-events, but interleaving them with a fictional backstory, one can "legally" say "based on facts" which is all that is necessary. But it is still complete fiction. Just because the liberty bell exists and Ben Franklin wore glasses does not make the movie "national treasure" suddenly non-fiction. All the hub-bub has just generated more interest in the book. So if anyone is to be given credit for this book being popular, it is the controversy and free publicity. So pat yourself on the back, you and all the others making the fuss are the ones that guarenteed he got a movie deal from what I gather is "clumsy prose." I think I got enough out of the synopsis though, I'll pass on reading it myself. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
DavidCrow wrote:
that his novel is based on facts.
Using historical figures, people that really did exist is all the requirements for "based on facts". You are making the exact same assumption as the people loosing faith, that "based on facts" means the "majority are facts," or even the substance is the facts. The substance, the plot, may have absolutely nothing to do with facts (and rarely does in "based on" type literature), but in using historical figures and events, but changing motivations or back-story related to events it is still "based on facts" but is still massively fiction. Taking real people, real events, and providing 100% fictional backstory is extremely common in fiction. I have not read this particular novel, but from what I gather it uses historical people and places and occasional events, with complete fictional interleaving with a completely fictional plot. When this is used in fiction the goal is to make the fiction seem as "real" as any facts, that is a sign of a good writer. As much as I like hard science-fiction, I don't care for this in other fiction genres which is why I have not read it yet. A poor writer would craft this so it was easy to tell fact from fiction. I am not sure if you are complaining that the writer is too good or that you prefer bad authors? Reading a quick synopsis, they refer the plot concept to "national treasure" which copy-cats the plot elements with a change of characters and backstory. Similarly with that since it used real people, real objects, real-events, but interleaving them with a fictional backstory, one can "legally" say "based on facts" which is all that is necessary. But it is still complete fiction. Just because the liberty bell exists and Ben Franklin wore glasses does not make the movie "national treasure" suddenly non-fiction. All the hub-bub has just generated more interest in the book. So if anyone is to be given credit for this book being popular, it is the controversy and free publicity. So pat yourself on the back, you and all the others making the fuss are the ones that guarenteed he got a movie deal from what I gather is "clumsy prose." I think I got enough out of the synopsis though, I'll pass on reading it myself. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
The book clearly states that: 1) the New Testament is false testimony; 2) the doctrine that Jesus' divinity was created by Constantine in the fourth century; 3) Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene; 4) The Last Supper included Mary Magdalene instead of John; 5) The Gnostic gospels teach "sacred feminine"; 6) the Priory of Sion was created in 1099 by Knights Templar. None of these are even remotely based on facts. There are so many errors in the novel that one has to wonder if Brown did any fact-checking at all. The problem I have with this is that folks will come away from reading the novel and viewing the movie and think that this is what Christianity is all about.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
-
The book clearly states that: 1) the New Testament is false testimony; 2) the doctrine that Jesus' divinity was created by Constantine in the fourth century; 3) Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene; 4) The Last Supper included Mary Magdalene instead of John; 5) The Gnostic gospels teach "sacred feminine"; 6) the Priory of Sion was created in 1099 by Knights Templar. None of these are even remotely based on facts. There are so many errors in the novel that one has to wonder if Brown did any fact-checking at all. The problem I have with this is that folks will come away from reading the novel and viewing the movie and think that this is what Christianity is all about.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
DavidCrow wrote:
The problem I have with this is that folks will come away from reading the novel and viewing the movie and think that this is what Christianity is all about.
There is also a group of people intrigued by the story, who have gone and done further research to understand what was truth. There are probably a dozen books written discussing the ideas put forth in The DaVinci Code, and filtering through the fact and fiction. So while some people will take it for fact, those people weren't interested in the truth anyway. More often, I think it got people talking about Christian history. The fact still remains it is sold as a work of fiction, so anyone remotely aware of what that means will get that even those things that seem plausible and real should be taken with a grain of salt. BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
The book clearly states that: 1) the New Testament is false testimony; 2) the doctrine that Jesus' divinity was created by Constantine in the fourth century; 3) Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene; 4) The Last Supper included Mary Magdalene instead of John; 5) The Gnostic gospels teach "sacred feminine"; 6) the Priory of Sion was created in 1099 by Knights Templar. None of these are even remotely based on facts. There are so many errors in the novel that one has to wonder if Brown did any fact-checking at all. The problem I have with this is that folks will come away from reading the novel and viewing the movie and think that this is what Christianity is all about.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
which is what makes it a work of fiction. Again you are trying to say "based on" means all is facts the exact same assumption of the people you are complaining about. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
DaVinci Code is a pretty good read. But, I'm with Paul on it. It's fiction and a good story. If you try to read more than that into it, well you probably sufffer from lots of other delusions as well. :) For any math nuts, I just started this[^] one on the weekend. It's a pretty good read as well. [EDIT] How did I hijack all the threads from above. :confused: :confused: ?? Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] When I want privacy, I'll close the bathroom door. [Stan Shannon] GOOD DAY FOR: Moonlighting, as porn star Savanna Samson has launched her own wine label. Her Sogno Uno, an Italian red, received an "outstanding" 90 to 91 score from influential wine critic Robert Parker. "I wanted to do something my parents could be proud of," she said. (Reuters in CNNMoney.com) -- modified at 10:11 Monday 24th April, 2006
-
which is what makes it a work of fiction. Again you are trying to say "based on" means all is facts the exact same assumption of the people you are complaining about. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
I know the difference between "based on" and "factual", Jeffry. In the novel, which you claim to not have read, Mr. Brown states that the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. How is that to be misconstrued? In fact, not one ranking scholar has come forward to support Mr. Brown's history book. That, in and of itself, says a lot.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
-
I know the difference between "based on" and "factual", Jeffry. In the novel, which you claim to not have read, Mr. Brown states that the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. How is that to be misconstrued? In fact, not one ranking scholar has come forward to support Mr. Brown's history book. That, in and of itself, says a lot.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
DavidCrow wrote:
that the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.
I interpret it the same way I interpret hard science fiction, which also claims to be "accurate" as far as fiction as in "possible with current knowledge" but when one does not know something, it is still fiction. Accurate does not necessarily mean factual, it means projected from known concepts through known means, at least in fiction. A historical fiction can be accurate, but still be fiction in that the clothing is correct, the dates are correct the time and place is correct and the entire plot and characters are physically possible, but completely fictional. Accurate fiction is a constant argument. I suggest you take a look at the arguments with hard-science fiction authors as to the accurate portrayal of the future and the arguments for and against them. Getting your dates and settings right is accurate, making up a name that is period correct is accurate, putting him in a situation that is period correct is accurate, but all of that is still fiction. Historical or future, you can be accurate without being completely factual. I guess I am accustomed to the arguments being from the hard science fiction area. I still don't see a big deal. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I know the difference between "based on" and "factual", Jeffry. In the novel, which you claim to not have read, Mr. Brown states that the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. How is that to be misconstrued? In fact, not one ranking scholar has come forward to support Mr. Brown's history book. That, in and of itself, says a lot.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
DavidCrow wrote:
in this novel are accurate. How is that to be misconstrued?
any road map you find in the store is "accurate" but if it is flat, it is not reality/factual. Any globe you find may be "accurate" but if it is spherical it is not reality/factual. At the store a food item may have "less sugar" but may have more calories, the information is accurate but misleading. "Accurate" simply means you dotted your "i's" and crossed your "t's" it has no other meaning. "accurate" is one of the most misleading terms used in politics, fiction, life in general. In my work people represent the earth as a flat object, their representation is completely accurate. There are others who represent the earth as a perfect sphere, their representation is completely accurate. NASA uses an ellipsoidal representation with offset gravitational vectors, their representation is also accurate. How can all three representations be accurate? easily, because none of them are factual. Accuracy implies accuracy to what. Without a qualification, it implies only within a reasonable understanding or interpretation, no more, no less. A flat map will be accurate under 1meter within 100km of its origin. A spherical representation of the entire earth is accurate to within 250 meters everywhere on the earth. If your needs require no more accuracy, then it is a completely accurate representation, even in locations where it is 1/4 of a kilometer off. Which is where you get into "more accurate" if accuracy meant completely factual and 100% true, then how could you get something that is more perfect? Each representation is more accurate to the next. And is the reason why airports rely on local navigation beacons rather than innaccurate map "representations" because for landing requirements no map is accurate enough. The need for accuracy in some areas and less in others allows all representations to be used and all representations are accurate and industry standard and approved for government and inter-government use, including, and especially the flat earth represention which conveniently fits better in a book, a computer screen or a piece of paper. Next time you want a road map for your location, ask for the pop-up edition based WGS-84 international gravitational models. But it's accuracy is still only under 1 meter for the whole earth. A flat map, in one local area, is still more accurate, it simply looses its accuracy as a function of distance from the projection point. So even wi
-
viaduct wrote:
For crying out loud, IT'S A NOVEL!
I understand that, but Mr. Brown makes the statement that his novel is based on facts. It's just that his 'facts' cannot be substantiated by anyone. Therein lies the difference.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
DavidCrow wrote:
Mr. Brown makes the statement that his novel is based on facts.
Exactly. Based on. If there are two true things in the novel and the rest is fiction then it can be said to be "based on facts". Chill out about it, believers will believe regardless of how mad religion is shown to be, unbelievers wouldn't believe even if god appeared and told them the winning lottery numbers.