What are you reading tonight?

[Worthy4England]

Intrugued by Worthy's evident fascination with the critics.

I don't have any fascination with critics.

You said it was overhyped, I suggested that it actually got roundly panned.

As for Stephen Fry, given his professed athiesm and if he loathes ALL those books about the Holy Grail etc. then he was never going to like this one now, was he? Having read some of his own offering, The Liar, he undoubtedly has plenty of opinion on anything that could come out of (or go into) an anus, as the Liar tells us page after page, which in my book makes him an expert on arses rather then books.

I'm fine with people either liking or disliking any book. Plenty that I don't like, but that doesn't make it shit, it just means I didn't like it.

Although I'd probably say "fook me that was shit, didn't get past page 100"

[thebish]

Despite you stating that rights and wrongs don't come into The Da Vinci Code Bish, I'm suspecting that they do somewhat in your case, hence your "bag of crap" description for what most of us see as an enjoyable fictional novel. People are ever finding "revelations" and putting forth theories on religion as you very well know. None of it is ever world changing and soon passes on. The Grail legends have been around a very long time and I suggest you read Sinclair's non-fiction works, The Sword and the Grail and Rosslyn , Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas's "The Second Messiah" and "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and several such like books for what The Da Vinci Code is really based on. All of it is supposition and legend mixed with some accepted truths and it's all been round the block many times.

The real appeal in Dan Brown's book, at least for me, was his clever use of reality, location, architecture and art combined with a few flights of fictional fantasy to write a very readable book. As a life-long Christian I'm neither offended or a member of the "outragerati" (sorry Bruce) by any of it. Indeed, anything that's neither provable or disprovable is a surefire basis for interest and controversy. I applaud him for being clever enough to write it.

Tango - i dislike it for TWO reasons.

1. it is clunkily written with little wit and obviously formulaic.

2. he CLAIMS it is based on historical fact - and it isn't. He doesn't claim it is based on LEGEND or SUPPOSITION - he actually said that the background history - the theology/the art/the church organisation etc. - were FACT and 100% true. They manifestly aren't.

I am not offended by it - I just don't like it and I think it is intellectually dishonest. (I don't see how your being a lifelong christian has anything to do with the matter in hand at all.)

[thebish]

Intrugued by Worthy's evident fascination with the critics.

I don't have any fascination with critics.

I was teasing!

As for Stephen Fry, given his professed athiesm and if he loathes ALL those books about the Holy Grail etc. then he was never going to like this one now, was he?

no? I thought most people viewed Brown's work as an attack on the Catholic Church. I don't see why Fry's atheism would lead him to dislike what is in great part a very negative portrayal of the catholic Church... quite the opposite I'd have thought...

[TANGODANCER]

I am not offended by it - I just don't like it and I think it is intellectually dishonest. (I don't see how your being a lifelong christian has anything to do with the matter in hand at all.)

no? I thought most people viewed Brown's work as an attack on the Catholic Church. I don't see why Fry's atheism would lead him to dislike what is in great part a very negative portrayal of the catholic Church... quite the opposite I'd have thought...

As a Catholic, I didn't see it as either. Would have thought that had something to do with it?

[thebish]

I am not offended by it - I just don't like it and I think it is intellectually dishonest. (I don't see how your being a lifelong christian has anything to do with the matter in hand at all.)

no? I thought most people viewed Brown's work as an attack on the Catholic Church. I don't see why Fry's atheism would lead him to dislike what is in great part a very negative portrayal of the catholic Church... quite the opposite I'd have thought...

As a Catholic, I didn't see it as either. Would have thought that had something to do with it?

I was just wondering, in your response to me - where the "as a believer" angle came from in your reply - or the insistence that it didn't offend you. I hadn't said it offended me - nor suggested that it offended you. In fact I hadn't viewed the book in an "as a christian" manner at all.

it's much simpler than that:

1. poorly written
2. intellectually dishonest

[TANGODANCER]

I was just wondering, in your response to me - where the "as a believer" angle came from in your reply - or the insistence that it didn't offend you. I hadn't said it offended me - nor suggested that it offended you. In fact I hadn't viewed the book in an "as a christian" manner at all.

it's much simpler than that:

1. poorly written
2. intellectually dishonest

I didn't anywhere use the words "as a believer" or insisted on anything old chap. Don't put words in mouths. I just expresed a view, just like yourself.

[Worthy4England]

Intrugued by Worthy's evident fascination with the critics.

I don't have any fascination with critics.

I was teasing!

As for Stephen Fry, given his professed athiesm and if he loathes ALL those books about the Holy Grail etc. then he was never going to like this one now, was he?

no? I thought most people viewed Brown's work as an attack on the Catholic Church. I don't see why Fry's atheism would lead him to dislike what is in great part a very negative portrayal of the catholic Church... quite the opposite I'd have thought...

Not sure why you'd think quite the opposite. He says in the quote you posted.

I just loathe all those books about the Holy Grail and Masons and Catholic conspiracies and all that botty-dribble.

His athiesm would necessarily lead him to like a negative portrayal of any book that has any religious aspect. He might just be ambivalent to the entirety of books that discuss anything to do with religion. But he does state (if it's a direct quote), that he loathes them all...

I'm starting to think you don't read stuff properly.

[Prufrock]

Intrugued by Worthy's evident fascination with the critics.

I don't have any fascination with critics.

I was teasing!

As for Stephen Fry, given his professed athiesm and if he loathes ALL those books about the Holy Grail etc. then he was never going to like this one now, was he?

no? I thought most people viewed Brown's work as an attack on the Catholic Church. I don't see why Fry's atheism would lead him to dislike what is in great part a very negative portrayal of the catholic Church... quite the opposite I'd have thought...

Not sure why you'd think quite the opposite. He says in the quote you posted.

I just loathe all those books about the Holy Grail and Masons and Catholic conspiracies and all that botty-dribble.

His athiesm would necessarily lead him to like a negative portrayal of any book that has any religious aspect. He might just be ambivalent to the entirety of books that discuss anything to do with religion. But he does state (if it's a direct quote), that he loathes them all...

I'm starting to think you don't read stuff properly.

Are you missing a 'n't' at the end of 'his atheism would' Worthy? If not I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm not entirely sure what atheism has to do with it, though I'm sorely trying (and it seems failing), now others have brought up talk of religion, to try not to make jokes about certain books of fiction being intellectually dishonest or poorly written .

[TANGODANCER]

No deliberate introduction of religion Pru. The Da Vinci Code is about that topic, is all.

[thebish]

Intrugued by Worthy's evident fascination with the critics.

I don't have any fascination with critics.

I was teasing!

As for Stephen Fry, given his professed athiesm and if he loathes ALL those books about the Holy Grail etc. then he was never going to like this one now, was he?

no? I thought most people viewed Brown's work as an attack on the Catholic Church. I don't see why Fry's atheism would lead him to dislike what is in great part a very negative portrayal of the catholic Church... quite the opposite I'd have thought...

Not sure why you'd think quite the opposite. He says in the quote you posted.

I just loathe all those books about the Holy Grail and Masons and Catholic conspiracies and all that botty-dribble.

His athiesm would necessarily lead him to like a negative portrayal of any book that has any religious aspect. He might just be ambivalent to the entirety of books that discuss anything to do with religion. But he does state (if it's a direct quote), that he loathes them all...

I'm starting to think you don't read stuff properly.

he doesn't say he loathes it because he is an atheist... and - no - I entirely disagree with your premise that being an atheist would lead someone to "like a negative portrayal of any book that has any religious aspect." that's just ludicrous!

[Worthy4England]

Intrugued by Worthy's evident fascination with the critics.

I don't have any fascination with critics.

I was teasing!

As for Stephen Fry, given his professed athiesm and if he loathes ALL those books about the Holy Grail etc. then he was never going to like this one now, was he?

no? I thought most people viewed Brown's work as an attack on the Catholic Church. I don't see why Fry's atheism would lead him to dislike what is in great part a very negative portrayal of the catholic Church... quite the opposite I'd have thought...

Not sure why you'd think quite the opposite. He says in the quote you posted.

I just loathe all those books about the Holy Grail and Masons and Catholic conspiracies and all that botty-dribble.

His athiesm would necessarily lead him to like a negative portrayal of any book that has any religious aspect. He might just be ambivalent to the entirety of books that discuss anything to do with religion. But he does state (if it's a direct quote), that he loathes them all...

I'm starting to think you don't read stuff properly.

Are you missing a 'n't' at the end of 'his atheism would' Worthy? If not I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm not entirely sure what atheism has to do with it, though I'm sorely trying (and it seems failing), now others have brought up talk of religion, to try not to make jokes about certain books of fiction being intellectually dishonest or poorly written .

I did miss an n't...Ta!

[thebish]

I just expresed a view, just like yourself.

hmmm... what actually happened is that I expressed a view in response to Pru

then you weighed in with an attempt to tell me that my view was other than what I said it was...

you wrote (directly addressed to me):

Despite you stating that rights and wrongs don't come into The Da Vinci Code Bish, I'm suspecting that they do somewhat in your case, hence your "bag of crap" description for what most of us see as an enjoyable fictional novel.

I stated a view - you said that my view was not what I said it was.

(that's what actually happened)

[Prufrock]

The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights' Abuse. Sickening stuff.

Would like to get onto this myself. Not likely to happen in a while though.

Have you listened to Geoffrey speaking on this at LSE?
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/vide ... spx?id=714" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am now reading Jonathan Powell's Blair/Machiavelli book, however. Absolutely compelling.

Probably the wrong thread for this....

Fixed!


I hadn't seen that, cheers. LSE really do seem to do very well on this front. I'm going to finish the book before I listen though I think. It is, typically givent he author, very engaging stuff, but very unpleasant, and really, outrageous as well.

As for the Powell book, I absolutely tore through it. Fascinating stuff.

[Worthy4England]

Intrugued by Worthy's evident fascination with the critics.

I don't have any fascination with critics.

I was teasing!

As for Stephen Fry, given his professed athiesm and if he loathes ALL those books about the Holy Grail etc. then he was never going to like this one now, was he?

no? I thought most people viewed Brown's work as an attack on the Catholic Church. I don't see why Fry's atheism would lead him to dislike what is in great part a very negative portrayal of the catholic Church... quite the opposite I'd have thought...

Not sure why you'd think quite the opposite. He says in the quote you posted.

I just loathe all those books about the Holy Grail and Masons and Catholic conspiracies and all that botty-dribble.

His athiesm would necessarily lead him to like a negative portrayal of any book that has any religious aspect. He might just be ambivalent to the entirety of books that discuss anything to do with religion. But he does state (if it's a direct quote), that he loathes them all...

I'm starting to think you don't read stuff properly.

he doesn't say he loathes it because he is an atheist... and - no - I entirely disagree with your premise that being an atheist would lead someone to "like a negative portrayal of any book that has any religious aspect." that's just ludicrous!

So do I entirely disagree with it. As Pru pointed out, I missed an 'n't' off would.

You could potentially have deduced that from the sentence that followed it.

I didn't say that he loathed it because he was an atheist, I said he loathed it, because he said he loathed anything to do with the Holy Grail etc. etc.. I said

given his professed athiesm and if he loathes ALL those books about the Holy Grail etc. then he was never going to like this one now, was he

Surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that being an athiest could be a contributory factor to not wanting to read a book regarding the Holy Grail?

[Worthy4England]

It is, typically givent he author.

I don't get that bit... Give not he author?

[Prufrock]

Not doing well with the letter 'n' or the letter 't' today are we? Whoops.

[thebish]

Surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that being an athiest could be a contributory factor to not wanting to read a book regarding the Holy Grail?

it's possible - but I certainly don't think it is the "given" that you seem to think it is. I see no reason for assuming Fry's atheism is a contributory factor in disliking the DaVinci code at all.

can you not enjoy a book about something that you don't believe in?

[Worthy4England]

Surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that being an athiest could be a contributory factor to not wanting to read a book regarding the Holy Grail?

it's possible - but I certainly don't think it is the "given" that you seem to think it is. I see no reason for assuming Fry's atheism is a contributory factor in disliking the DaVinci code at all.

can you not enjoy a book about something that you don't believe in?

Yes you can enjoy a book about something that you don't believe in. But not usually when you've said fairly explicitly that you "loathe" the particular subject matter...

You continue to assume that his athiesm isn't a contributory factor. I'll sit here quite happily in my belief that I think it probably is.

[thebish]

Surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that being an athiest could be a contributory factor to not wanting to read a book regarding the Holy Grail?

it's possible - but I certainly don't think it is the "given" that you seem to think it is. I see no reason for assuming Fry's atheism is a contributory factor in disliking the DaVinci code at all.

can you not enjoy a book about something that you don't believe in?

Yes you can enjoy a book about something that you don't believe in. But not usually when you've said fairly explicitly that you "loathe" the particular subject matter...

You continue to assume that his athiesm isn't a contributory factor. I'll sit here quite happily in my belief that I think it probably is.

he described his hatred of grail-tosh to be the reason - he loathes grail-tosh - but I see no reason to equate that with his atheism. plenty of non-atheists don't like grail-tosh.

[clapton is god]

Dunkirk: The men they left behind by Sean Longden.

Started this a few days back and its proving to be an excellent insight into the true story of Dunkirk. Full of little anecdotes and facts to make you wonder how the hell we ever won the war. One little snippet I found interesting was that before Dunkirk, when we had doubled the size of the army in very quick order but didn't really have a clue what to do with all these men, was that tank crews in the BEF couldn't attend tank lessons until they had perfected the use of the sword! Presumably because tanks were derived from cavalry regiments. What a way to run a war!