Kurgan Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Okay, now I know this is probably a non-issue for many people here, and it's hardly a "serious" discussion topic, however considering I've read how millions of people apparently think the novel/movie is based on careful historical research, I figure this would be worth posting here, if for no other reason, than as a resource for people who are curious about how to answer believers in the DVC being "more than fiction." As an academic I share some concern over the widespread acceptance of the fiction as somehow being credible. I have followed the author of the page for over a month on the IMDB.com forums (a cesspool compared to this place!) and can vouch for his integrity. The site is unique in that it's written by an atheist and seeks to create a complete debunking of the claims in the novel (and thus also the movie) from a historical standpoint. Anyway, enjoy: http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/ I hope this will not be taken as advertising, I just felt it was a good resource to share. The author seems very open to constructive feedback as well. PS: You have to be a member of IMDB.com (free) to view this, but I put up a list of some useful links (some of which have found their way into the above page) with other information, including links to primary sources, video and multimedia, etc. http://imdb.com/title/tt0382625/board/nest/43170947?d=43209489 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Am I the only one who can just assume that it's fiction? I don't really need proof that it's fiction, Dan Brown never claimed the controversial parts were, and on top of that, they're just not believable (to me anyways). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 3, 2006 Author Share Posted June 3, 2006 As I said, I wasn't really posting to correct people like you, I was posting this as a resource for anyone who wished to use it to correct the many "believers" out there on the internet, or just purely for their own trivia. Actually Brown did claim that the novel was factually based. He only admitted the thriller storyline was "fiction." He claims to believe the "history." Many people doubt he actually does, and is only doing this to create controversy and sell more copies, but since so many fans seem to take him at his word, I figure it's something worth correcting. Again, I'm not insinuating people on this forum are that gullible, just providing a hopefully helpful resource. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 It's BS, I started reading it but got bored real quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 4, 2006 Author Share Posted June 4, 2006 The link I posted or the novel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Saw the movie... yeah, it's fiction. Interesting though. I liked it. My kind of movie. The perfect balance of action and story. But that's a different topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 4, 2006 Author Share Posted June 4, 2006 I hate to sound arrogant, but I guess I'll never get much out of religious thrillers... I just know too much! Ha... Gotta turn the ol' brain off sometimes I guess! Anyway, opinions aside, I just wanted to help people educate those odd folks who think the conspiracies are real... and yes, such oddballs exist. But let's face it, this is teh Internet! Still I've seen some crazy polls that claim 32% of canadians thought the backstory was true or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Actually Brown did claim that the novel was factually based. Dan Brown is a talentless ******** anyway. How he's managed to convince people he can write a book is beyond me. Infact, if I didn't know any better, I'd say he were some sort of evil magician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWally Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I don't see how anyone can believe some of the things that Brown writes about. Especially on the topics of The Council of Nycea (spelling?), Opus Dei, The Priory of Sion, The Knight Templar's, etc.... He has practically no factual base for any of his claims... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 The link I posted or the novel? THe Novel, I should have been more clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWally Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 So I definately just read on Fox news that The DaVinci Code was banned in Pakistan in defense of the Christian Minority, for having offensive and blashphemous material regarding Jesus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 He has practically no factual base for any of his claims... I was unaware that fiction needs to have facts for its claims... considering that fiction means not real to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 But people are taking it very seiriously, because they believe anything anybody tells them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 But people are taking it very seiriously, because they believe anything anybody tells them Then they're fools. It's fiction, they should leave it the hell at that and get on with their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 As an academic I share some concern over the widespread acceptance of the fiction as somehow being credible. I second that concern. I see it all the time... Cretinism, IDiocy (I know, I know, IDiocy is a subset of Cretinism), those godawful sci-fi flicks (and political operatives) that quote New Scientist (and Fux News) for their technobabble (and propaganda), as if it was some sort of credible reference... Of course, I can hardly get wound up about the fact that the Church is now the target... What goes around, comes around... But that's for another thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWally Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I was unaware that fiction needs to have facts for its claims... considering that fiction means not real to begin with. Yes, the book is fiction, but In the beginning of the book he claims that all information he writes on Historical Events, and Groups (such as the Priory of Sion, Opus Dei, etc) are all FACT. Brown claims that the only fiction is the book is the story and characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I once had a girl bitch me out for calling Dan Brown a "hack", these people take this pretty seriously Their just like sheep "Four legs good, Two legs bad" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Yes, the book is fiction, but In the beginning of the book he claims that all information he writes on Historical Events, and Groups (such as the Priory of Sion, Opus Dei, etc) are all FACT. Brown claims that the only fiction is the book is the story and characters. Right, historical events like the Crusades, the groups like those listed, really DID happen and some of those groups still exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I have to disagree with a minor point about Brown's presentation of "fact" in the book. It clearly has a "disclaimer" in the beginning that points out that the events themselves are fictional but that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." This would appear not to be true. Perhaps the most prominent instance of this deception is on page 1 where Brown tells the reader, "[t]he Priory of Sion – a European secret society founded in 1099 – is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci." There was a Priory of Sion, but it went extinct in 1617 when the Jesuits took over. The name was revived by anti-semite Pierre Plantard 1956, who invented a descendancy from the Knights of Templar and forged documents to show it. These documents are well demonstrated to be forged and discussed in texts like TheMurdered Magicians:The Templars and their Myth (Peter Parnter 1982: Oxford) and on the Wikipedia page for Priory of Sion, which lists some additional sources (though I've not looked at these). The great thing about the Da Vinci Code is the controversy it's created. People are talking and doubting and, more importantly, questioning. Obviously, substituting one fiction for another isn't the best outcome, but if they can question one assumption, then perhaps most people will come away from the experience with the silly taboo of questioning religious doctrine broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 There was a Priory of Sion, but it went extinct in 1617 when the Jesuits took over. The name was revived by anti-semite Pierre Plantard 1956, who invented a descendancy from the Knights of Templar and forged documents to show it. These documents are well demonstrated to be forged and discussed in texts like TheMurdered Magicians:The Templars and their Myth (Peter Parnter 1982: Oxford) and on the Wikipedia page for Priory of Sion, which lists some additional sources (though I've not looked at these). Actually the Priory of Sion is a completely modern hoax. It never existed (except in the mind of Pierre Plantard) prior (no pun intended) to the 1950's. As a local club started for housing reform, he tried to give it a phony history with his forgeries to help boost his fantasies and delusions of grandeur about being the heir to the french throne. You're probably thinking of the Abbey of Sion, which became part of the Jesuits in 1617. Many see his "FACT" page as basically nullifying the standard disclaimer in any fiction book. Still, unless his statements in interviews are also "part of the fiction" then he can't be absolved of misleading his gullible fans into thinking this is based on credible scholarship. He did base his writings on non-fiction, sadly it was the non-fiction of kooks and conspiracy theorists. It is my belief that there would be no controversy if Brown hadn't gone on a interview spree spouting off that this was all well-researched and factually based. People are gullible yes, but you don't see millions of people saying Lord of the Rings or Star Wars are real! But the average person seemingly doesn't know the Council of Nicea from a hole in the ground. It's a little interesting to me that the primary fans of the DVC are Christians, and seemingly the ones most likely to believe he was "on to something." I've seen a few anti-Christians sieze on the novel as a means to justify their hatred of the religion, but by and large it seems that Christians are the ones reading the novel and buying into at least some aspect of it. I guess Brown hit on a key demographic this time. Making sensational claims about Jesus and wrapping it up in conspiracy theory is a sure fire best-seller. Still, three years on the list and 42 million+ copies later... etc. Anyway, I'm happy to help anyone find the correct information on these topics if they ask, which was the whole reason I posted the info in the first place here. I hadn't really expected a discussion to spring up, since we kinda already talked about the book way back when. The movie really doesn't do much of anything except bring it into the public eye again for a bit. So I definately just read on Fox news that The DaVinci Code was banned in Pakistan in defense of the Christian Minority, for having offensive and blashphemous material regarding Jesus... Just goes to show that political correctness works in our favor sometimes! (Not that I'm pro-censorship, just making an observation here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I don't see how anyone can believe some of the things that Brown writes about. Especially on the topics of The Council of Nycea (spelling?), Opus Dei, The Priory of Sion, The Knight Templar's, etc.... He has practically no factual base for any of his claims... Weeell.... yes and no. All were real institutions. Everything was based on some form of fact... its just that he took major liberties when interpreting their actions and motivations. His books remind me of Michael Crichton.... one does science, the other does history/art/religion... but they both basically throw enough real events, science/art/history, corporations etc.. into their novels to make the fictional parts that link them all together sound much more convincing. He is a crap writer, and i don't know how in the name of god he got enough people to read his books to become one of the biggest authors in the world. And eveery single person i know who has read the DaVinci code says exactly the same thing: "Its interesting, but very badly written. Angels and demons was better. His other books suck." I haven't read any other books so i can't comment... but i wasn't that inclined to after DaVinci Code. I do think its a good thing if it gets people to question the all-too-human roots of christianity... but I don't think that replacing blind belief in the history the church pushes with blind belief in the fiction in tDVC is much of an improvement. His "based on facts" statement at the start is basically the equivilent of those "Based on a true story" things at the start of a movie... and just as inaccurate. But we don't get all this fuss about all those movies.. so i don't see why this merits it either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 As a youth minister, I decided to read the book because I knew some of the kids in my youth group had read it. Overall, it was an okay book...at least, until they started getting into the conspiracy theory stuff. It read like a pretty decent cheap mystery novel up to that point. But once the conspiracy theory stuff started, it just got laborious, its unbelievability being the better part of what made it get boring. Before reading it I was of the opinion that controversy over a novel was unjustified. After reading it, however, I've changed my opinion, especially after hearing of how Dan Brown has been in the public eye saying his assertions are true. Of course, that only justifies some of the response, but there have been more extreme responses (book burnings and hunger strikes) that are just plain stupid. When I got to the conspiracy theory, I couldn't help but roll my eyes and heave a big sigh, because it was all old news to me...old and discredited. The risk, though, and the reason that the Church has been freaking out about the book & movie so much, is that uneducated people read the book and/or watch the movie and take it for what Dan Brown says it is. Even after reading the book for myself and finding out just how outrageously stupid it is, I don't support censoring the book or the movie...I think the Church would be much better served by debunking Brown's assertions, something the History vs. the Da Vinci Code site did very well (thanks for that link, Kurgan, I enjoyed the site immensely), but the Church seems to have been ineffective at (the fact that the press tends to report on the much more outrageous opposition probably has a lot to do with that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Just goes to show that political correctness works in our favor sometimes! (Not that I'm pro-censorship, just making an observation here) I hate censorship deeply and don't agree with what they did, though it is nice to see that the Pakistani government is concerned with the welfare of it's minorities. Albeit the sulution wasn't good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I hate censorship deeply and don't agree with what they did, though it is nice to see that the Pakistani government is concerned with the welfare of it's minorities. Albeit the sulution wasn't good.I literally laughed out loud at that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 What the hell was I thinking?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.