The Da Vinci Code

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by DWAlphaGam
WORD.


By the way, why don't we just start posting spoilers here instead of starting a whole new thread, which can get confusing? If you're not finished reading the book, don't read past this point. Don't say we didn't warn ya.

But I already started a new thread

[phisigduchesscv]

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
But I already started a new thread

Let's post the spoilers on the other thread and leave this to those that are trying to get the book. In fact I'm going to go to that thread and respond to ADduncan about the book being fictitious etc.

[DWAlphaGam]

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
But I already started a new thread

Ok, that's what happens when I only respond to posts from my e-mail and I don't actually go and check in the forum. Guess I'll head over to the other thread when I get the chance.

[SigmaChiCard]

I've recently read both The da Vinci Code & Angels & Demons. A&D was good, but nothing compared to the code...it is obvious in the writing that Mr. Brown matured much as a writer between the books.

I truly loved the da Vinci code. I am infatuated with the Fibonacci sequence and Phi (which I too pronounce Fee...maybe it's a math thing). Also, I knew about the connection between Sangreal....although I was a little off because I had thought (without ever having done the research) that Sang Real was Blood of Christ....my AP English teacher was a bit off. It was neat though because by knowing that I predicted where the book was going to go, because there was quite a bit of time between the two revelations. I wish I'd read A&D first.....it'd have been better, but the code just overclouded it. I recognized the fibonacci sequence as I saw it. I don't think it mentioned it, but that number 1.618 is the result of a convergence of the fibonacci sequence. By dividing two consecutive numbers in the fibonacci sequence they approach 1.618 by the property of convergence in that they alternately approach it from above and below....essentially they bounce around it until they get high enough that they essentially equal it. Also most Greek & Roman architecture is built in accordance to it's ratio. Also, by sectioning off a golden rectangle (whose length to side ratio is 1.618) you can create a logarithmic spiral. It's such a fascinating number....to see a writer achknowledge it in any way is a great honor as something of a amateur scholar of the phenom. The bit about the pentagon I didn't know & found very interesting. I considered number theory as a college degree as a result of my likening to the sequence's oddity. I only know the basics, but I'm amazed by it.

So forgive me...I'm drunk...I've been rambling.....my tol is low these days. But the book is great because it's so possible. I remember reading in the last year that there truly has been a lot of speculation about Jesus & Mary Magdeline having been married & there is no question that The Last Supper has a ghostly hand + knife that belongs to no one, a woman who matches Jesus next to him and a very upset prophet next to Mary. Everyone loves a conspiracy.

And in A&D I' love the concept of the antimatter that truly would react with anything to produce the purest form of energy, combining positrons + electrons and neutralizing one another. Crazy stuff. Good stuff. It's late...good night!

Hope all are well,

Cory

[_Opi_]

hmmm..this sounds like a phenomenal book..and I'm a book worm. I just heard about it like a week ago when my roomie bought the book. Cant wait to read it..(even though a new semester is starting and I wont have time)...

[Lady Pi Phi]

I definitely agree with SigmaChiCard that The Da Vinci Code is the better book.

I just bought Digital Fortress so I'm pretty excited to read that. I don't expect it to be as good as The Code, but I'm still hoping it's an exciting read.

[dzandiloo]

I don't know how I've missed this thread, but I had to post. I'm really depressed. I got the Da Vinci Code for Christmas, and will finish it today.

Does anyone else HATE it when they finish a fabulous book? I don't know what I'll do with myself now...and this is the first book in my entire life, that I haven't flipped to the end when I thought I figured it out (I'm terrible about that!).

Guess I'll go back and read this entire thread when I'm done...

[Sister Havana]

I read the Da Vinci Code last year, since it was a book for one of my book clubs. Not the type of book I'd normally pick up, but WOW. I read it on the plane to NYC and then had to finish reading it that day...I wanted to know what happened!

It is a fantastic book.

[ISUKappa]

The controversy surrounding The DaVinci code on another message board I frequent piqued my interest and I bought it and Angels and Demons. Read both in I think 4 days (I'm a total book junkie. I'll stay up until 2-3 a.m. reading because I don't want to stop and then hate myself for being so damn tired the next day). Yes, we must take fiction with a grain of salt, but if it gets us thinking and opening our minds, so much more the better, correct? That doesn't mean I'm going to drop everything I learned growing up in the Christian faith after reading the book, nor am I going to completely discount the possibility of something happening like in the DaVinci Code.

Brown's fast-paced writing style really helps keep the books moving along, but some of his forshadowing is kind of cheesy (I think). Like, "But if she only knew what would wait her later that day. . ." Mentally, I'm waiting to her the "dum dum dum" organ soundover in the background. But I still LOVE his books. I've read all 4 of them now, and though they all cover very different subject matter, they're all good, intriguing reads. I really hope he does more books with Robert Langdon.

[Lady Pi Phi]

I definitely agree with you ISUKappa.
We should take fiction with a grain of salt (after all it is fiction), but it does make you think. What if this is true? Wouldn't that be interesting.

I tend to think he did a little research when he wrote Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code. I doubt he pulled all of that out of his a$$. If he did, he's a damn good writer!

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
Is that thing about "The Last Supper" really true?

Ummmm, no.

"DaVinci Code" is a great read, but is, as others have said, fiction. (Even if the author thinks otherwise about his conspiracy theory premise.) I haven't come across any reputable scholar that will concur in his historical surmises however. The scholars of Leonardo (who will point out that anyone who has actually studied the artist would call him "Leonardo," knowing that "Da Vinci" was not his name as such but simply means that he was an illegitimate child "from Vinci") seem to pretty uniformly reject all of Brown's assertions about "The Last Supper," "The Madonna of the Rocks" and "The Mona Lisa." For example, the "disembodied hand" and knife in "The Last Supper" belongs to Peter, who will later use the knife to cut the soldier's ear in Gethsemene. Disintegration in the mural, which was noticed as early as 1517, makes the hand look "disembodied," but reference to Leonardo's preliminary drawings and to early copies of the mural clearly show the hand belonging to Peter. And John frequently was shown as a beautiful young man in the art of the time. As for the Mona Lisa, contemporary documents establish that the model was a woman.

Similarly, most reputable scholars I have read reject the whole Mary Magdalene theory. (Again, her name gives a clue -- "Mary of Magdala" is a name for an unmarried woman; if married, she would have been called "Mary, wife of Jesus" or "Mary, Mother of ___.") Even the "hidden gospels" that Brown purports to rely on as showing the Jesus and MM were married also have Jesus recommending celibacy. The historical data just won't hold the claim up.

There are other errors peppered throughout the book that call the whole into question. Some of Brown's claims about Constantine and the Council of Nicea (including Constantine's role and the establishment of canon of Scripture, as well as the idea that the Jesus-MM relationship was pretty well accepted until the Council wiped it out) can be easily refuted. And at one point, Brown says that the name "Yahweh" comes from a misreading of the Hebrew "Jehovah." Just about any elementary book on the subject shows that is the other way around.

Brown definately did research, but in the writings of real scholars. Instead, he relied on conspiracy theorists, "Templar-philes," and "scholars" who have taken bits of this and that and tried to hobble it together.

Still, I thought the book was great fun to read. Facts should never get in the way of a good story.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Ummmm, no.

"DaVinci Code" is a great read, but is, as others have said, fiction. (Even if the author thinks otherwise about his conspiracy theory premise.) I haven't come across any reputable scholar that will concur in his historical surmises however. The scholars of Leonardo (who will point out that anyone who has actually studied the artist would call him "Leonardo," knowing that "Da Vinci" was not his name as such but simply means that he was an illegitimate child "from Vinci") seem to pretty uniformly reject all of Brown's assertions about "The Last Supper," "The Madonna of the Rocks" and "The Mona Lisa." For example, the "disembodied hand" and knife in "The Last Supper" belongs to Peter, who will later use the knife to cut the soldier's ear in Gethsemene. Disintegration in the mural, which was noticed as early as 1517, makes the hand look "disembodied," but reference to Leonardo's preliminary drawings and to early copies of the mural clearly show the hand belonging to Peter. And John frequently was shown as a beautiful young man in the art of the time. As for the Mona Lisa, contemporary documents establish that the model was a woman.

Similarly, most reputable scholars I have read reject the whole Mary Magdalene theory. (Again, her name gives a clue -- "Mary of Magdala" is a name for an unmarried woman; if married, she would have been called "Mary, wife of Jesus" or "Mary, Mother of ___.") Even the "hidden gospels" that Brown purports to rely on as showing the Jesus and MM were married also have Jesus recommending celibacy. The historical data just won't hold the claim up.

There are other errors peppered throughout the book that call the whole into question. Some of Brown's claims about Constantine and the Council of Nicea (including Constantine's role and the establishment of canon of Scripture, as well as the idea that the Jesus-MM relationship was pretty well accepted until the Council wiped it out) can be easily refuted. And at one point, Brown says that the name "Yahweh" comes from a misreading of the Hebrew "Jehovah." Just about any elementary book on the subject shows that is the other way around.

Brown definately did research, but in the writings of real scholars. Instead, he relied on conspiracy theorists, "Templar-philes," and "scholars" who have taken bits of this and that and tried to hobble it together.

Still, I thought the book was great fun to read. Facts should never get in the way of a good story.

That's interesting. Thanks.

It's not important to me whether it's true or not (although I admit it was an interesting theory that piqued my curiosity). But it definitly was a good story, that kept me interested from start to finish.

[GPhiLlama]

Dan Brown got an audience with the Pope when he was researching "Angels and Demons" so that he would have Catholic procedure down pat. If you look at the notes in the front, they explain about CERN's reasearch, not to give anything away.

I read A&D first, and I have to say that I enjoyed DVC more, but A&D had a darker premise to it. When my mom read DVC, we were both online searching the topics!
And I've heard the theories in the book before, so it's not just a bunch of crack. The guy is good.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by GPhiLlama
And I've heard the theories in the book before, so it's not just a bunch of crack. The guy is good.

Yes, but have you heard them from any reputable scholar who knows what he or she is talking about, or just from conspiracy theorists who have read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and spend way to much time sharing those theories on the 'net?

For someone who spent that much time researching the Vatican, he sure screwed up in a number of places where he lays blame on "the Vatican" for events that happened before "the Vatican" existed as such or while the popes resided in Avignon, not Rome.

Like I said, it's a great read, but the theories that underlie it are indeed, for the most part, crack.

[dzandiloo]

Here's an interesting Article from the Dallas Morning News about the reaction some are having to the book.