What are you reading tonight?

[Puskas]

I actually quite enjoyed the book, although the film didn't match it in quality at all. Brown used theories put forward in a more serious text "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail"

The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail - a serious text??????
Really?
So if you consider that serious, what would you describe as, say, a piece of completely baseless speculation of no serious merit whatsoever?
I believe it's important to differentiate the two categories.

My post says " A more serious text" meaning it was written as a research project by the two authors and not as a novel. I made no suggestion as to its truth or otherwise as the last line of my post should clearly state.

No, you didn't. I was querying your use of the term "serious"

And research project? Hmmmm. It doesn't take much research to say, "And just suppose that....", or "And could it be that..."

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Blink, Malcolm Gladwell

Decided pretty quickly that I'd like it

[thebish]

And research project? Hmmmm. It doesn't take much research to say, "And just suppose that....", or "And could it be that..."

it would be a fair summary of Dan Brown and all that ilk to write..

"Hey - here's something intriguing - if it's true - then this might have happened - but if that happened, then surely this is possible, which, if we add this dubious-but-possible scenario would mean this has to have happened - the startling implication of which is that maybe this could have been true - but if you accept that, then you cannot escape the entirely arbitrary conclusion that this particular chain of events led to this new startling truth which is rather shocking - no?"

[TANGODANCER]

And research project? Hmmmm. It doesn't take much research to say, "And just suppose that....", or "And could it be that..."

it would be a fair summary of Dan Brown and all that ilk to write..

"Hey - here's something intriguing - if it's true - then this might have happened - but if that happened, then surely this is possible, which, if we add this dubious-but-possible scenario would mean this has to have happened - the startling implication of which is that maybe this could have been true - but if you accept that, then you cannot escape the entirely arbitrary conclusion that this particular chain of events led to this new startling truth which is rather shocking - no?"

I think it might be worth taking into account that The Da Vinci Code is just a novel; a fictional story that perports to be nothing more. It's repeating a previous post I know, but Dan Brown took some historical facts: the paintings, marbles, sculptures and their creators etc, added known locations like the Paris meridian, Rosslyn Chapel, The Templar Church in London, The Louvre Museum etc, and wove a story around them based on the claims of two other guys who forwarded a theory about Mary Magdalene in a non-fictional work.(Okay, call it fiction if you will) Nowhere does he claim it to be anything else. Add a few puzzles in and use your imagination to peruse a decent read. At least, that's how I found it. In fact, I bought it first day out and thorougly enjoyed it. Hey, I might even read it again now. I also got conned into buying the DVD. I won't bother watching that again though.

Rosslyn Chapel ( I place I've many times threatened to visit but not got there yet) has a past linked with the Knights Templar, Freemasonry and a lot of French history and legend. Cut away the hype and there's still a lot of fascinating history to peruse only indicated at in The Da Vinci Code, plus Languedoc, Montsegur, Rennes le Chateau, The Cathars and the Turin Shroud all have interesting links. As I stated in my previous post, make of it what you will. History is a fascinating subject.

[Prufrock]

And research project? Hmmmm. It doesn't take much research to say, "And just suppose that....", or "And could it be that..."

it would be a fair summary of Dan Brown and all that ilk to write..

"Hey - here's something intriguing - if it's true - then this might have happened - but if that happened, then surely this is possible, which, if we add this dubious-but-possible scenario would mean this has to have happened - the startling implication of which is that maybe this could have been true - but if you accept that, then you cannot escape the entirely arbitrary conclusion that this particular chain of events led to this new startling truth which is rather shocking - no?"

I think it might be worth taking into account that The Da Vinci Code is just a novel; a fictional story that perports to be nothing more. It's repeating a previous post I know, but Dan Brown took some historical facts: the paintings, marbles, sculptures and their creators etc, added known locations like the Paris meridian, Rosslyn Chapel, The Templar Church in London, The Louvre Museum etc, and wove a story around them based on the claims of two other guys who forwarded a theory about Mary Magdalene in a non-fictional work.(Okay, call it fiction if you will) Nowhere does he claim it to be anything else. Add a few puzzles in and use your imagination to peruse a decent read. At least, that's how I found it. In fact, I bought it first day out and thorougly enjoyed it. Hey, I might even read it again now. I also got conned into buying the DVD. I won't bother watching that again though.

Rosslyn Chapel ( I place I've many times threatened to visit but not got there yet) has a past linked with the Knights Templar, Freemasonry and a lot of French history and legend. Cut away the hype and there's still a lot of fascinating history to peruse only indicated at in The Da Vinci Code, plus Languedoc, Montsegur, Rennes le Chateau, The Cathars and the Turin Shroud all have interesting links. As I stated in my previous post, make of it what you will. History is a fascinating subject.

Aye Brown tells a good story, if nothing else, and I quite enjoyed the books. Not sure why it has to be 100% history to be enjoyable. As long as people realise that.

Mate last year lived behind Saint Sulpice. Boy do they get p*ssed off with folk wanting to go in looking at the Rose Line, which btw, doesn't exist.

[Bruce Rioja]

Not sure why it has to be 100% history to be enjoyable. As long as people realise that.

Exactly, but clearly Browne involved various facts and objects which in turn stir up this very debate.

[TANGODANCER]

Aye Brown tells a good story, if nothing else, and I quite enjoyed the books. Not sure why it has to be 100% history to be enjoyable. As long as people realise that.
Mate last year lived behind Saint Sulpice. Boy do they get p*ssed off with folk wanting to go in looking at the Rose Line, which btw, doesn't exist.

Unfortunately some people take it all for real. They actually did a TV programme with three
"enthusiasts" wandering around with copies of the Da Vinci Code and spouting some collossal bilge about it all. We live in the age of the internet, where even Wikipaedia etc can tell you about the Paris Meridian and the guide medalions, which also are nowhere near the place in the Louvre that that book claims. Then again, as I said, it's an enjoyable work of fiction that had the author laughing all the way to millionairedom. Folk believe what they will despite the improbables. If all the claimed relics of the true cross were assembled together they could re-plant Sherwood Forest and still have enough left to build Noah's Ark. Now where did I put the book?

[Prufrock]

Not sure why it has to be 100% history to be enjoyable. As long as people realise that.

Exactly, but clearly Browne involved various facts and objects which in turn stir up this very debate.

Did he ever claim it was other than a made up tale loosely based on historical sites and events? I ask coz I don't know. If people are given that proviso then I can't see a problem. If TD, as a religious bloke, and more, a Catholic, can accept the book as a story, and not supposed to be taken seriously, I cannae see why so many have to get so annoyed. Similarly twonks wandering around talking about far reaching modern conspiracies covering up living descendatns of Jesus, and such like get treated as they should, by a crowd of folk crossing the road from their side to the other.

[Lord Kangana]

The bible is a fairytale anyhow. You don't see people looking for Hansel, Grettel, and houses made of sweets inhabited by a witch in every forest you get to, so heaven knows what they're looking for elsewhere.

[TANGODANCER]

The bible is a fairytale anyhow. You don't see people looking for Hansel, Grettel, and houses made of sweets inhabited by a witch in every forest you get to, so heaven knows what they're looking for elsewhere.

Heretic. Auto de Fe for you mate.

[Puskas]

The bible is a fairytale anyhow. You don't see people looking for Hansel, Grettel, and houses made of sweets inhabited by a witch in every forest you get to, so heaven knows what they're looking for elsewhere.

Heretic. Auto de Fe for you mate.

Auto de Fe? Is he Abdoulaye Fe's brother?

[thebish]

Not sure why it has to be 100% history to be enjoyable. As long as people realise that.

Exactly, but clearly Browne involved various facts and objects which in turn stir up this very debate.

Did he ever claim it was other than a made up tale loosely based on historical sites and events? I ask coz I don't know. If people are given that proviso then I can't see a problem. If TD, as a religious bloke, and more, a Catholic, can accept the book as a story, and not supposed to be taken seriously, I cannae see why so many have to get so annoyed. Similarly twonks wandering around talking about far reaching modern conspiracies covering up living descendatns of Jesus, and such like get treated as they should, by a crowd of folk crossing the road from their side to the other.

i'm not sure who's getting annoyed?

[thebish]

The bible is a fairytale anyhow. You don't see people looking for Hansel, Grettel, and houses made of sweets inhabited by a witch in every forest you get to, so heaven knows what they're looking for elsewhere.

heaven??

[TANGODANCER]

Not sure why it has to be 100% history to be enjoyable. As long as people realise that.

Exactly, but clearly Browne involved various facts and objects which in turn stir up this very debate.

Did he ever claim it was other than a made up tale loosely based on historical sites and events? I ask coz I don't know. If people are given that proviso then I can't see a problem. If TD, as a religious bloke, and more, a Catholic, can accept the book as a story, and not supposed to be taken seriously, I cannae see why so many have to get so annoyed. Similarly twonks wandering around talking about far reaching modern conspiracies covering up living descendatns of Jesus, and such like get treated as they should, by a crowd of folk crossing the road from their side to the other.

i'm not sure who's getting annoyed?

Usually the faithless rather than the faithful.

[Prufrock]

Not sure why it has to be 100% history to be enjoyable. As long as people realise that.

Exactly, but clearly Browne involved various facts and objects which in turn stir up this very debate.

Did he ever claim it was other than a made up tale loosely based on historical sites and events? I ask coz I don't know. If people are given that proviso then I can't see a problem. If TD, as a religious bloke, and more, a Catholic, can accept the book as a story, and not supposed to be taken seriously, I cannae see why so many have to get so annoyed. Similarly twonks wandering around talking about far reaching modern conspiracies covering up living descendatns of Jesus, and such like get treated as they should, by a crowd of folk crossing the road from their side to the other.

i'm not sure who's getting annoyed?

Yeah coz that book came out in a flurry of non controversy.

[TANGODANCER]

i'm not sure who's getting annoyed?

Yeah coz that book came out in a flurry of non controversy.[/quote]

The news of making a film of it all seemed to cause some controversy initially. If I remember correctly there were all sorts of elements expressing views, but when a Vatican spokesman was interviewed their reaction was more amusement than anger, as it should have been with a fictional novel. The church did refuse to let cameras into Westminster Abbey and they used another cathedral (can't remember which) to film the Abbey scenes. Then again, it takes all sorts. The topic was controversial because of its content. It shouldn't have been as theories abound forever about this subject. All in all, it was still a work of pure fiction.

[boltonboris]

Did he ever claim it was other than a made up tale loosely based on historical sites and events? I ask coz I don't know. If people are given that proviso then I can't see a problem. If TD, as a religious bloke, and more, a Catholic, can accept the book as a story, and not supposed to be taken seriously, I cannae see why so many have to get so annoyed. Similarly twonks wandering around talking about far reaching modern conspiracies covering up living descendatns of Jesus, and such like get treated as they should, by a crowd of folk crossing the road from their side to the other.

I'll have to dig out my copy, but I'm pretty certain he credits it with being "historically factual from the onset" or words close to that. Any books printed after the lawsuit with the two other guys, probably won't state this, nor will the copies state it after he went 'stellar' I doubt..

[Puskas]

I was of the opinion that the Da Vinci Code was nothing more than an adventure story - a badly written one, but that's not a crime.

My complaint, above, was directed against the book that inspired it - The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. A work which claims to be a serious historical piece, but is nothing more than a collection of suppositions and implausible assumptions. The fact that the authors take the Rennes-le-Chateau hoax seriously undermines it from the start.

The most unforgivable part of it, though, is the fact that it's chronically boring. I bought it about ten or eleven years ago, in an airport, before flying to Barcelona with some friends. I was searching through the "Superstious and small-minded bullshit" section in the bookshop (also known, on occasion, as the New-Age or Spirituality section) looking for something funny to read on the plane, and that leapt out at me. It wasn't funny, it was just dull, badly written and done with almost no research.

[thebish]

Not sure why it has to be 100% history to be enjoyable. As long as people realise that.

Exactly, but clearly Browne involved various facts and objects which in turn stir up this very debate.

Did he ever claim it was other than a made up tale loosely based on historical sites and events? I ask coz I don't know. If people are given that proviso then I can't see a problem. If TD, as a religious bloke, and more, a Catholic, can accept the book as a story, and not supposed to be taken seriously, I cannae see why so many have to get so annoyed. Similarly twonks wandering around talking about far reaching modern conspiracies covering up living descendatns of Jesus, and such like get treated as they should, by a crowd of folk crossing the road from their side to the other.

i'm not sure who's getting annoyed?

Yeah coz that book came out in a flurry of non controversy.

ahh - sorry - my misunderstanding - I thought (wrongly) you meant in this thread...

[thebish]

I was of the opinion that the Da Vinci Code was nothing more than an adventure story - a badly written one, but that's not a crime.

My complaint, above, was directed against the book that inspired it - The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. A work which claims to be a serious historical piece, but is nothing more than a collection of suppositions and implausible assumptions. The fact that the authors take the Rennes-le-Chateau hoax seriously undermines it from the start.

The most unforgivable part of it, though, is the fact that it's chronically boring. I bought it about ten or eleven years ago, in an airport, before flying to Barcelona with some friends. I was searching through the "Superstious and small-minded bullshit" section in the bookshop (also known, on occasion, as the New-Age or Spirituality section) looking for something funny to read on the plane, and that leapt out at me. It wasn't funny, it was just dull, badly written and done with almost no research.

indeed - and so was my caricature - I said "Brown and that ilk" - the ilk was the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (and soooo many others before and after) - and Brown was the Da Vinci Code - and I wrote that because I have a strong memory that Brown (at least initially) seemed to make some kind of a claim about his book being factual - but later said that the factuality claim was part of the fiction - or summat like that...

one thing that irritated me at the time was the rash of tv documentaries (usually on channel 4) about this amazing and shocking new discovery called the Gospel of Thomas - and a repeated pattern of stacked implausabilities which used the common tactic of suggesting that something is possible - and then concluding that because it is possible then it must have happened - and stacking several of these on top of each other to lead to a "shocking" conclusion...

when the truth is that the Gospel of Thomas is not a new discovery at all - in fact it was very very very old news when I trained in Oxford 25 years ago...