The DaVinci Code

most douglas coupland books are pish also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I think you'll find there is pish woven thro' it, rather than facts. The theories are also the worst kind of bunkum. Wild hypothesis based on total conjecture, based on fraudulent "evidence".

People think it's a historical account because Dan Brown has stated that it's a novel based on actual historical events, records and art.

---

There are facts woven through it, however. ;) I haven't read it in some time now, so I can't cite examples, but a few things corroberate history. More things sound plausible enough to people who only have a passing understanding of the era and/or da Vinci, and some things are outright "pish" (though those aforementioned people wouldn't know that).

I recall the Catholic Church being very upset with it.

My extensive arts and histories education finally pays off? Though, knowing this forum, I'll be asked to cite examples, which'll mean reading it again...guess I'd better dig it out. ;)

:shruiken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

I recall the Catholic Church being very upset with it.

---

Didn't he make some ridiculous claims about Opus Dei in the book.

Oh and you can understand them getting a wee hair upset when he said that most of their teachings about Jesus were incorrect. I think most religions would get upset in similar circumstances. At least they didn't taka a fatwah out on him.

Or did they.

based on fact :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

based on fact :dabs:

---

:nob: off, Rodney R Roddington Jnr.

i'm just saying. a sensical theory is what started him thinking of the ideas for these books :smilie4:


so based on fact as in, fact started them, not that the stories are really tangled up with fact as much as people think :ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i'm just saying. a sensical theory is what started him thinking of the ideas for these books :smilie4:


so based on fact as in, fact started them, not that the stories are really tangled up with fact as much as people think :ermm:

---

The "theory" which he based the novel on was pish.

Strangely enough I did actually read "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" when it came out at first and did quite enjoy it. That however was about 20 years ago.

:dabs:

not read the book, we do have it in the house though :ermm:


i'll read it and get back to you though. i do believe teh jesus survived the crucifixion and then went to do more family stuff :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

There are facts woven through it, however.

---

And just look at the reaction one can achieve by the 'weaving' of a few facts...

The ostensible "novel" becomes "proof" of a "conspiracy".

I am glad for such tripe; I can legitimately spend down my over-supply of punctuation. :dry:

It's merely interesting to note, as many novels (and films) allege a great many things about the Catholic Church, which traditionally remains silent. Speaking out this time probably made people go, "Hmm. Maybe there's something to it."

What I would've done in that position though, I really can't say.

:shuriken: