Da Vinci Code

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Finally forced myself to sit down and read the thing last week. Meh, I thought. At least the movie will have Ian McKellen and Audrey Tatou.

I also thought Brown did a silly and reductionistic thing; while I liked what he did trying to crack the standard Christian story out of its theological permafrost (lifting gratuitously and at times self-consciously from reams of people before him), it seemed like all he did was transplant all the symbols into an interpretive framework that was just as rigid as the one he wanted to criticise. Plus there were a bunch of historical glosses that kept me shaking my head as well.

Yes, of course it's a bit of fiction, but of course people are talking about it as if it weren't (especially its harshest critics). Other thoughts?

[Alexis]

i thought it was good. it tells a story that most people don't know about and probably should.

having never read brown's stuff, and having not read a mystery/thriller/suspense novel in QUITE awhile i was impressed with the pace of the novel. i think i read it in 2 or 3 days. one of those "can't put it down" pharmacy books. but that's all it was, nothing more or less, and it least it did what it was well.

having said that. i read deception point, by the same author about a week later and was VASTLY disappointed. it too was a fast paced interesting story. but i would venture to say the guy has a formulaeic (sp) plot line. insert different character names, setting, and objective, with all the same plot highs and lows, coming at the same points in time. it reminded me why i don't read mystery/thriller/suspense novels.

he writes well enough. but it's all redundant. i would compare reading his novels to seeing a new band. you love them, the sound it great, the get ya dancin, so you decide to go see them a couple nights later in the next town over, and wham! it's the EXACT same show, same setlist same everything, just in a different bar with a different set of people there. i wouldn't read another one of the guys novels for a long long time.

[Guest Low Roller]

I really enjoyed the book when I read it. The kicker for me was that I was living in Paris at the time when I read it, so I could picture the book unfolding. That made it that much more special. I enjoyed the plot and the framework it was trying to unravel, but ultimately didn't have that final punch, as the denouement was a cheap cop-out I thought.

I certainly didn't picture Tom Hanks in the role, and I think he is a terrible choice to play the part.

Lift your hand if you saw David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson in the lead roles....

Edited May 15, 2006 by Low Roller
The truth is out there

[Birdy]

i didn't mind the book.. it was definately a cheap read, but kept my mind occupied, and definately it was a 'can't put down'er. i can't really say i was 'disapointed' either, as my expectations weren't high in the first place.

but damn has it ever opened up a flurry of roman catholic church/cultish books to come! wowza. talk about a group of get rich quick authors!

[bouche]

Tom Hanks is gonna kick ass in it. There is no doubt. Remember his performance in Big? Oh man, I could have sworn that he was a 12 year old. HE's THAT GOOD!

[MamaPink]

I liked the book a lot - I can't wait to see the movie!

[Paan]

Meh.... don't think I'll waste my time on any more of his books.

[can-o-phish]

Well, I was given the book to read from a friend and from the get-go it was evident that it was written with the full intention of ending up on the big screen...very little doubt that the movie will not stray far from the book...not much to re-write for the screen at all...

Definitely not the best fiction I've read but as a fiction piece that was written for the masses it was well-crafted, or maybe I should say well thought out as it revolves around one of the two most talked about and debated subjects, religion; the other being politics...

I was really suprised that Hanks was cast as the leading male...that's Hollywood for ya...I'll be seeing it on cheap night for the other actors cast in the film...

[d_rawk]

I haven't read it, but flipped through it and didn't care much for the writing. I was amazed, though, that Brown allowed himself to be duped by Plantard, rather than learning the lesson that Baigent and co. (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) should have/already have learned.

Mostly, I'm all for anything that puts the Catholic Church on the defensive. But Brown is just ... ridiculous as a historian. And a bad writer, to boot. People talk about it as though it weren't fiction, because Brown has taken them by the hand and lead them in that direction. Still, I don't mind a whole lot. That story needs to be ripped out of the hands of the people who have controlled it for so long -- Brown's version is dubious and not very convincing, but it is at least not the standard line. If nothing else, I can appreciate that.

I would love to engage that guy in a theological debate. *Love* to.

[NewRider]

I found a paperback copy on the side of the road in Guelph the other day. I'm gonna start reading it after I finish Bob Dylan's Chronicles: Volume One

[Davey Boy 2.0]

i hear that's where most guelphites get their books (j/k)

[Deeps]

So last night I'm listening to the CBC and there is a guy from a Christian group that is speaking his boycott The Da Vinci code rhetoric. He says....

"People read the things in this book and actually believe that they are real! I can't believe this is happening."

The irony of a Christian being astounded at people believing the contents of a dubious book is astounding.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Widely believed unbelievable excerpt from another book no? Turns out its not that uncommon I guess.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

The obsession with "literal meaning" is really a modern phenomenon, which is another point where I find Brown frustrating. Myth and allegory were perfectly fine for most folks beforehand - there where the poetry is.

I ran across this quote from Origen (ca. 185-254) this morning:

Since there are certain passages of scripture which... have no bodily [literal] sense at all, there are occasions when we must seek only for the soul and the spirit, as it were, of the passage. Who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, "planted a paradise eastward in Eden," and set in it a visible and palpable "tree of life," of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of "good and evil" by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name...? And when God is said to "walk in the paradise in the cool of the day" and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events.

People in the distant past thought with more nuance than they often get credited for; it's probably us moderns that are more screwed up.

The people working themselves up about the "dangers" of The Da Vinci Code are no doubt among the same people frothing over Harry Potter and the realities of magic and witchcraft. Imo, it signals an inability to distinguish between the literal and the metaphorical (and there are categories in the DSM-IV for that kind of thing).

[Paan]

... and I heard that the albinos have put up a million dollars to take out Dan Brown.

[d_rawk]

That's a good and important point, DEM. Thanks. The tendency towards literalism (or even inerrancy or infalliability) really reduces deep and rich stories to ... not much at all.

If I were to tackle the same subject, in opposition to Dan Brown, I'd probably approach it from the perspective of the Jesus and the Adam character being essentially the same. That is, the entire biblical story, Hebrew Bibble and Christian New Testament, as the journey of one individual soul. I tend to think that the themactic narrative qualities of the collected books are what are interesting, rather than the particulars. The (constant!) story of election/selection --> crisis --> salvation/deliverience, as an example.

Jesus - in the earthly sense - as the inheritor of David's kingdom, and - in the spirtual sense - as the inheritor of Adam's karmic debt feels about right. "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Y'know? Jesus not only as the redeemer of sin, but the author of sin. I'm sure I'd be burned at the stake for that, should any proper Christian ever hear me say it.

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22-23)

(I'm not preaching. I'm playing out loud.)

Jesus referred to himself as "Adam Kadmon".

"The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit." (1 Cor 15:45)

Jesus: "I am the First and the Last." (Rev. 1:17)

More provocative and with more biblical precedent, methinks.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Jesus not only as the redeemer of sin, but the author of sin. I'm sure I'd be burned at the stake for that, should any proper Christian ever hear me say it.

Maybe, though it depends if you're talking about a corporeal, fallible Jesus, or an ideal, transhistorical Christ (christos). The latter is safeguarded by theology; the former is the stuff of history, and what things like Kazantzakis' Last Temptation are about. People fuck up, and it's not always their fault. Blame it on what sociologists call the "complexity barrier".

Christ is, after all, just a title, viz. an "Anointed One". I mean, if, say, CJ upended a bottle of olive oil over my head (movie forthcoming), I could walk around calling myself Dr. Evil Mouse Christ, as could any who had witnessed the event. That says nothing about where I'd end up at the end of the night (I think the nearest OPP station is outside of Manotick), or about how good my hair (or what's left of it) would taste with some feta, kalamata olives, and sundried tomatoes, but taxonomically, it would work.

Otherwise, I think it's just an epistemological impossibility to go saying that Jesus per se shared an identity with any other characters in scripture, along with all their experiences.

Is that what you meant, though?

[bouche]

some critic"It's a movie about whether the greatest story ever told is true or not, and it's not the greatest movie ever screened, is it?" said Baz Bamigboye, a film columnist for London's Daily Mail. "As a thriller, well," he continued, shrugging.

Are critics (ick) expecting this movie to be any different than the book? I mean they likely have read it, so what are they expecting out of the movie? A surprise?

[d_rawk]

Is that what you meant, though?

Yes, essentially. Note that I'm not actually buying into my own line of bull ... it's a bit of beer-inspired fluff. But the suggestion is that the biblical narrative - from the first word of the OT onwards - is the narrative of souls in a general sense, and that the progression of fallible man to Christhood is expressed through, and demonstrated through, one particular example. On the surface this would seem to make Jesus rather extraneous ... but I'm not sure that is actually the case, if he is seen as the first to make (or at least complete) the journey, and thus make it available to all through the pattern of his life. (And possibly the point of departure from karmic law to a law of grace, but this is more difficult ground to tread). Following it through, it does at least suggest that the actual existence of Adam, David, Jesus (all of whom I am conflating into manifestations of the same individual) isn't important. They would serve their purpose even as a fiction. (But it's 5am and I easily distract myself. That part of it isn't the point). Brown is provocative in a "OMG!! Jesus fucked a woman, and his offspring are the grail, and he never died on a cross" kinda way, whereas this is suggesting "You think that's bad? Jesus is the *source* of sin, *you* are the grail, and the cross never fucking mattered!"

Mostly I'm just getting carried away with teasing Brown, I think. How much more seductive would it all be if I tied it together by referencing the Secret Gospel of Mark and driving home my points with "Secret initiation, dude. Secret initiation. And a whole lot of mansex -- Jesus style."?

It is getting a bit thread hijack-y (not having a whole lot to do with the Da Vinci Code -- where's my heady religion forum?), but I'm curious why this should be epistemologically impossible? It does draw a bit on something approximating reincarnation, but that is something that seemed to unphase many of the early Christians. The arc of the resurection narrative can be seen pointing in this direction, though perhaps not concretely.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

the suggestion is that the biblical narrative - from the first word of the OT onwards - is the narrative of souls in a general sense, and that the progression of fallible man to Christhood is expressed through, and demonstrated through, one particular example.

If I'm reading you right, this would be a kind of archetype-driven, all-this-is-in-you approach to literature, which I think is the point of myth (in the best sense of that word). Then the question becomes who you most identify with in the story (as well as being capable of identifying with everyone in it), as in any other story.

It's always the more curious when that story has been written, redacted, and edited within a tradition for so long; just how do all of those (self-) identifications and meanings come into (and out of) phase among all the people involved, and in their audiences? It's an interesting reminder of how much the human brain is capable of injecting meaning into what might otherwise be a random bunch of stuff.

[d_rawk]

Yeah, that is sort of the way that I approach things biblical (the above posts not really being representative of where I stand, but rather an example of why drugs are bad ).

Your second paragraph is spot on. Speaking of finding meaning in the random, incidentally, the whole Da Vinci Code phenomenon has reminded me of the Bible Code wave that hit years back ...

I think keeping historical context in mind is very important, but that also a sort of postmodern - and yes, I hear the collective groans - reading of texts of the sort that are included in collections like the bible is of incredible value. I do tend to see these things as archetype-driven and all-this-is-in-you, definately -- I know that I always end up referencing the Quakers, but this is particularly part of what I appreciate about them. The recognition of the 'divine spark within' and that they found that having their roots in Christianity was not sufficient to keep them tied to it, though they remain perpetually influenced by it.

But yeah, Jesus, for example, is practically a living example as an individual of the same patterns and stories that occur frequently before him (though those patterns often tended to affect peoples or nations before being so succinctly expressed through the life of an individual). Of course, I think that he did much of this very deliberately and consciously ... you don't have his kind of scriptural knowledge and still ride a donkey into Jerusalem without knowing what that type of action suggests, for example. Although does the writer of Mark just interject these things in order to hit you over the head with the idea that the man is the fulfilment of prior prophesy? Open questions. Always. But those patterns (of peoples, nations, individuals, etc..) are still what affect us daily, so I see the narrative as having precedence over the consideration of the actual. I don't reject the actual, but I do see it as secondary. Are the biblical stories "true"? I suspect *mostly* so. But I can't imagine why it should matter.

For some reason I'm tempted to start talking about the beatitudes. I'm restraining myself.

Anyways, as far as the movie -- it has been getting really bad reviews, particularly for the dialogue. Curious to know what anyone who sees it has to say ...

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Of course, I think that he did much of this very deliberately and consciously ... you don't have his kind of scriptural knowledge and still ride a donkey into Jerusalem without knowing what that type of action suggests, for example. Although does the writer of Mark just interject these things in order to hit you over the head with the idea that the man is the fulfilment of prior prophesy?

There's always the matter, too, of "template" stories - e.g. the flight into Egypt after the birth and the return, as a kind of mirror on the Exodus story; the Individual is intended to reprise the experience of the People... and all that.

People so easily lose the point of stories, as if they're "just" stories, and don't mean anything if they're not anything "more".

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Funny - for some reason the Chinese seem set to enjoy this flic -

Beijing beats Cannes to Da Vinci premier

... while China's censors have edited sections out of Hollywood films in the past, they approved The Da Vinci Code for theatrical release without any cuts in late March.

A significant backlash against The Da Vinci Code has emerged worldwide over the past few weeks, most surprisingly in Asia, despite the fact that the major religions in the region are Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam.

Christian leaders in countries such as Thailand, Singapore, India and South Korea have been aggressive and vocal in urging censorship, bans and boycotts.

In the Philippines, where the majority of citizens are Roman Catholic, the Manila City Council banned The Da Vinci Code on Thursday. It threatened to issue fines or jail time to theatres caught screening it or those selling pirated versions for personal viewing.

[d_rawk]

There's always the matter, too, of "template" stories - e.g. the flight into Egypt after the birth and the return, as a kind of mirror on the Exodus story; the Individual is intended to reprise the experience of the People... and all that.

Yes! Yes! This is exactly what I'm talking about.

People so easily lose the point of stories, as if they're "just" stories, and don't mean anything if they're not anything "more".

And this too! :laugh:

[M.O.B.E]

finally gave in and saw this lastnight up at the Linsay Drive-in...the drive-in experience was better than the movie. I dont see what all the hype was about. I havnt/refused to read the book(s)* and was reluctant to see the movie. It was a good story but nothing more than that. I dont see this movie even winning an award or at least it shouldnt in my view.

I wonder what the David Ike version would be like?? I found this story similar to the Children of the Matrix book he wrote.

*counting Angels& Demons

[Alexis]

just so you know...angels and demons the book has nothing to do with the da vinci code movie. adn in the da vinci code book, what took place in a&d had no relevance to the story. it's metioned maybe 3 times in passing.

i also don't really see what the controversy is all about...i mean i do, but i don't see why that's a big deal...ooooo alternate theory! never seen one of those before!!