The DaVinci Code
- Thread starter Ninjerk
- Start date
S
Slobodan Burgher
Just to clarify, I am not sure I agree that solely because a book has provoked lots of so-called controversy (TDC) or has produced a real factual difference (good or bad) in the world (ComManif) would make said book a great piece of literature.
In the case of TDC I would go as far as say that it was a great book because it provoked debates about religion but most importantly it seems to have influenced people to seek out other books (and this goes for other books of dubious interest and value such as Harry Potter).
The universal consensus seems to be that it was a good book with a crap ending and that it promises so much and that people inevitable was disappointed with it afterwards. And that this (in my own dubious argument that don't seem to lead anywhere) made readers of TDC realise that reading books is actually quite fun and that there must be better ones out there. In short, after TDC more poeple are reading (again). If this is true I think it is a remarkable achievement even if it was an accidential one.
But back to what I wanted to say :). I still don't think that TDC is a great piece of literature because I feel very strongly that art cannot and should not be judged on its effect on the world, or on how many read the book, or how many copies sold etc.
In short, art can be great even if nobody have noticed it. Most great writers that I love to read weren't even published in their lifetimes.
Would you suggest that John Fante's books weren't (great) literature because he did not reach popular mainstream during his life (or after)?
ps. It is all in the interest of rational discussion so no need for anyone to get hot-tempered or take anything personal etc. keep them egos in check and rein in your hormones! :) ds
In the case of TDC I would go as far as say that it was a great book because it provoked debates about religion but most importantly it seems to have influenced people to seek out other books (and this goes for other books of dubious interest and value such as Harry Potter).
The universal consensus seems to be that it was a good book with a crap ending and that it promises so much and that people inevitable was disappointed with it afterwards. And that this (in my own dubious argument that don't seem to lead anywhere) made readers of TDC realise that reading books is actually quite fun and that there must be better ones out there. In short, after TDC more poeple are reading (again). If this is true I think it is a remarkable achievement even if it was an accidential one.
But back to what I wanted to say :). I still don't think that TDC is a great piece of literature because I feel very strongly that art cannot and should not be judged on its effect on the world, or on how many read the book, or how many copies sold etc.
In short, art can be great even if nobody have noticed it. Most great writers that I love to read weren't even published in their lifetimes.
Would you suggest that John Fante's books weren't (great) literature because he did not reach popular mainstream during his life (or after)?
ps. It is all in the interest of rational discussion so no need for anyone to get hot-tempered or take anything personal etc. keep them egos in check and rein in your hormones! :) ds
No. I never said anything about a books sales being the only qualification for great literature. I do, however, claim that huge sales implies great literature. But Fante's work can surely be great without many readers. A tree that falls in the forest DOES make a sound even if nobody is around to hear it!
oneiros said:
I do believe somebody's jiving here; you no serious, oneiros, are you? Sure your name?s not ?onerous? as in troublesome (stirring up the shit, so to speak). I?ve got a comparison for you; there was once a song called ?Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I?ve Love in my Tummy?; it sold a few million copies; did that make it a better song than, say, ?Chimes of Freedom?; I don? think so.
To paraphrase a master: ?There?s enough stupidity in humanity on any given day to cause your brain to hiccup and your ass to gas a gargantuan fart of insociotude and credulity.? So let it be written....
SD
Okay. And what am I to draw from this? Did I say anything about music? Hm? Did I? No. I wrote about literature. There is a difference. And I did say 'implies'. Not 'huge sales MAKES it great literature.' I did read the book and found it to be good.
That last paragraph of yours... what the hell am I to read into it? Are you calling me stupid? Are you boasting of your own flatulence?
And why do you say I am stirring up trouble? I'm just saying TDC is a great piece of literature. If that is so terrible to you, just the more reason to stick to my claim.
And my name is Oneiros as in the greek word for Morpheus, or the more commonly known Sandman if you will.
That last paragraph of yours... what the hell am I to read into it? Are you calling me stupid? Are you boasting of your own flatulence?
And why do you say I am stirring up trouble? I'm just saying TDC is a great piece of literature. If that is so terrible to you, just the more reason to stick to my claim.
And my name is Oneiros as in the greek word for Morpheus, or the more commonly known Sandman if you will.
Well, mjp, I did laugh my ass off on that one, for sure! Good on Ya! Ha!
No, Mr. Oneiros, I was not starting a flame, just pointing out that popularity is a dubious yardstick (meter-stick, for the metrically inclined). Now, being a card-carrying member of the logistics brigade, I'd have to say (and this is meaning no disrespect, sir) that, by definition, the word "makes" has, as the 43rd definition "Considered as being" and the word "implies" has, as its 5th definition, "Means"; and, it could be construed, that these two usages do have a certain overlap (so you can understand how one would draw, perhaps, erroneous assumptions about your implications).
And on the paraphrase, no personal indications at all; I was sort of looking to show that the "public" (not anyone in present company), must be considered as an unfair judge of what is good (sometimes, by dumb luck, they, the crowd, do stumble upon a true talent, and it gets celebrated; but often, the truly talented [and it has been said by others elsewhere, herein] are overlooked until after their demise). The metaphor that Buk?s life offers has served to bring a ray of hope to many of those so afflicted (with, alas, the curse of true genius?ha! [cough]).
And, no, I was just shitin? you about the ?trouble? remark; thought you would find it funny (admittedly, my sense of humor leaves a little to be desired). Hey, we Norskies, got to stick together (or something like that). I hope this explanation throughly obfuscates the matter properly,
SD
No, Mr. Oneiros, I was not starting a flame, just pointing out that popularity is a dubious yardstick (meter-stick, for the metrically inclined). Now, being a card-carrying member of the logistics brigade, I'd have to say (and this is meaning no disrespect, sir) that, by definition, the word "makes" has, as the 43rd definition "Considered as being" and the word "implies" has, as its 5th definition, "Means"; and, it could be construed, that these two usages do have a certain overlap (so you can understand how one would draw, perhaps, erroneous assumptions about your implications).
And on the paraphrase, no personal indications at all; I was sort of looking to show that the "public" (not anyone in present company), must be considered as an unfair judge of what is good (sometimes, by dumb luck, they, the crowd, do stumble upon a true talent, and it gets celebrated; but often, the truly talented [and it has been said by others elsewhere, herein] are overlooked until after their demise). The metaphor that Buk?s life offers has served to bring a ray of hope to many of those so afflicted (with, alas, the curse of true genius?ha! [cough]).
And, no, I was just shitin? you about the ?trouble? remark; thought you would find it funny (admittedly, my sense of humor leaves a little to be desired). Hey, we Norskies, got to stick together (or something like that). I hope this explanation throughly obfuscates the matter properly,
SD
I read the book and watched the movie.The book was ok but had been too hyped up for me to ever like it.The movie however.Dont go there!It sucks dicks in hell.Tom Hanks's casting as the leading light of the movie was the biggest mistake EVER.He was so unconvincing he should burn in hell.All the contraversy stirred up was great.
The fans of TDC are really wanting to believe all the speculative historical facts so much,I find there is no point in debating with them. Its like trying to talk to a priest about darwin's evolution! pointless
The fans of TDC are really wanting to believe all the speculative historical facts so much,I find there is no point in debating with them. Its like trying to talk to a priest about darwin's evolution! pointless
Oooo, burn!
For my taste, Da Vinci is a hell of a lot better at what it does than, sorry, the enfeebled and sickly Pulp ever was, and I'm more a fan of Charles Bukowski than Dan Brown... I also have to wonder about clairvoyant book reviews by those who have never read a novel they trash as being an example of "poor writing" and offer preexisting explanations of why it just has to be bad because it's such a huge seller and all such books have gotta be trash. What kinda logic and fairness is that?
Da Vinci hasn't got a lot of character development, that's true, but the whole of the action takes place within a 24 hour period, and the non-stop action the primary characters are forced into because of a murder, reveal who they are and how they think"”what I'd call character development of a subtle but indirect nature.
Brown takes on a HUGE subject: the Catholic Church and how they may have manipulated the biggest myth of all time: the life and times of Jesus H Christ himself"”who he was, and did he love women, even marry? If he did, it puts a high-velocity spin on the ball of religion, the opiate of the masses, doesn't it? So it took huge balls for him to write this book and challenge some of the lies that religion tells its followers, the corruption behind it starting from almost year one after the Crucifixion....gawd, and having to deal with the death threats too from the true believers. While it takes on the Catholic Church big-time, it's basically an historical novel, fast-paced as a mystery thriller, with his particular slant on history. Well, so be it: as a writer and free-thinker, he's entitled.
While some critics can argue with Dan Brown's research and reasoning on certain historical points, one thing these Da Vinci "debunking" presentations will never be able to refute is this: the downplay of the feminine role in western civilization and Christianity, primarily by the Catholic Church, and the fact that the Church still considered Mary Magdalene, a close friend of Jesus, as a common prostitute until just a few short years ago: 1969"”to discredit her.
Nor is it possible to refute the recent polymorphously perverse scandals that have rocked the Church after centuries of twisted sexual suppression that may have had everything to do with the doctrinal distortions that Dan Brown has brought out in the open for wholesale review, like pushing the reboot button of Christianity. This institution is in trouble because it is seriously out of balance with itself and has cut off its spiritual nose to despite its face by downplaying, or denigrating the role of women as sacred beings and equals to men, at a time when their healthy presence is needed more than ever as a corrective to some of these Church abuses and scandals. Dan Brown may have done the world a service by showing how the feminine role in the divine was written out of the official history of Christianity 2000 years ago, with help from the biblical Peter whose misogynistic views of women are plainly evident in the scriptures even today, and are still, quite frankly, shocking and debasing. Sorry, but upon this "rock" of a numbskull, of male dominancy, was built the Church.
Dan Brown has brought these matters into the light of day so people can know more of their authentic history, or at least do their own research to make up their own minds about which so-called spiritual path is best for them, and which ones were built on two millenniums' worth of manipulations, obscurations and lies. These obscurations and lies happened down through the centuries through the efforts of a group of petty, insecure and misguided men to ensure their dominance and control over the masses, and they not only found a way to dominate the minds of the masses, but also their vast material resources, worth trillions, and they did this through manipulative guilt, control, holy wars, pogroms, and other hidden but consistent abuses of power.
Those of orthodox faith"”and I happen not to be one of them"”who continue to uncritically support such an institution have more to answer for than any twenty Dan Browns put together. People are angry, and they are angry at the failure of religion to live up to its own standards of behavior and for distorting what may have been Jesus' actual relationship with the women in his life"”or were the disciples only members of an exclusive Men's Club with Jesus as head and women as a species relegated to second class citizenship? To answer these questions, some readers will finally have to turn to their own hearts and minds for a change, instead of some literal interpretation of the so-called truth because not every scrape of wisdom can found in scriptures, the printed page, especially after the scriptures may have been systematically and selectively riddled with scissors for reasons of self-interest, or from political corruption.
The next thing people should ask for is to have the vaults of the Vatican thrown open for public view. Lord only knows what plunder they contain.
I'd like to see Brown do his next book on the havoc brought to the world through the standard religions and how they have divided man from himself and from each other, leading to the insoluble mess that now exists in Jerusalem and the rest of the Middle East. Any writer who has received death threats for his work has touched upon an exposed nerve within the collective consciousness of Man, and he was called upon by the gods to riddle the mess of religion itself. Other than the above points I've mentioned, the book is nothing like Ham on Rye at all. ;-)
Da Vinci hasn't got a lot of character development, that's true, but the whole of the action takes place within a 24 hour period, and the non-stop action the primary characters are forced into because of a murder, reveal who they are and how they think"”what I'd call character development of a subtle but indirect nature.
Brown takes on a HUGE subject: the Catholic Church and how they may have manipulated the biggest myth of all time: the life and times of Jesus H Christ himself"”who he was, and did he love women, even marry? If he did, it puts a high-velocity spin on the ball of religion, the opiate of the masses, doesn't it? So it took huge balls for him to write this book and challenge some of the lies that religion tells its followers, the corruption behind it starting from almost year one after the Crucifixion....gawd, and having to deal with the death threats too from the true believers. While it takes on the Catholic Church big-time, it's basically an historical novel, fast-paced as a mystery thriller, with his particular slant on history. Well, so be it: as a writer and free-thinker, he's entitled.
While some critics can argue with Dan Brown's research and reasoning on certain historical points, one thing these Da Vinci "debunking" presentations will never be able to refute is this: the downplay of the feminine role in western civilization and Christianity, primarily by the Catholic Church, and the fact that the Church still considered Mary Magdalene, a close friend of Jesus, as a common prostitute until just a few short years ago: 1969"”to discredit her.
Nor is it possible to refute the recent polymorphously perverse scandals that have rocked the Church after centuries of twisted sexual suppression that may have had everything to do with the doctrinal distortions that Dan Brown has brought out in the open for wholesale review, like pushing the reboot button of Christianity. This institution is in trouble because it is seriously out of balance with itself and has cut off its spiritual nose to despite its face by downplaying, or denigrating the role of women as sacred beings and equals to men, at a time when their healthy presence is needed more than ever as a corrective to some of these Church abuses and scandals. Dan Brown may have done the world a service by showing how the feminine role in the divine was written out of the official history of Christianity 2000 years ago, with help from the biblical Peter whose misogynistic views of women are plainly evident in the scriptures even today, and are still, quite frankly, shocking and debasing. Sorry, but upon this "rock" of a numbskull, of male dominancy, was built the Church.
Dan Brown has brought these matters into the light of day so people can know more of their authentic history, or at least do their own research to make up their own minds about which so-called spiritual path is best for them, and which ones were built on two millenniums' worth of manipulations, obscurations and lies. These obscurations and lies happened down through the centuries through the efforts of a group of petty, insecure and misguided men to ensure their dominance and control over the masses, and they not only found a way to dominate the minds of the masses, but also their vast material resources, worth trillions, and they did this through manipulative guilt, control, holy wars, pogroms, and other hidden but consistent abuses of power.
Those of orthodox faith"”and I happen not to be one of them"”who continue to uncritically support such an institution have more to answer for than any twenty Dan Browns put together. People are angry, and they are angry at the failure of religion to live up to its own standards of behavior and for distorting what may have been Jesus' actual relationship with the women in his life"”or were the disciples only members of an exclusive Men's Club with Jesus as head and women as a species relegated to second class citizenship? To answer these questions, some readers will finally have to turn to their own hearts and minds for a change, instead of some literal interpretation of the so-called truth because not every scrape of wisdom can found in scriptures, the printed page, especially after the scriptures may have been systematically and selectively riddled with scissors for reasons of self-interest, or from political corruption.
The next thing people should ask for is to have the vaults of the Vatican thrown open for public view. Lord only knows what plunder they contain.
I'd like to see Brown do his next book on the havoc brought to the world through the standard religions and how they have divided man from himself and from each other, leading to the insoluble mess that now exists in Jerusalem and the rest of the Middle East. Any writer who has received death threats for his work has touched upon an exposed nerve within the collective consciousness of Man, and he was called upon by the gods to riddle the mess of religion itself. Other than the above points I've mentioned, the book is nothing like Ham on Rye at all. ;-)
Last edited by a moderator:
your discussion, poptop, brought to mind a book i read
some years back: 'another roadside attraction'
i don't recall any hullabaloo over that novel
and the implications tom robbins had suggested
regarding the catholic church's manipulation of the facts
that form the core of the christ myth
t. d. c. ...
i'll see the film
:D
some years back: 'another roadside attraction'
i don't recall any hullabaloo over that novel
and the implications tom robbins had suggested
regarding the catholic church's manipulation of the facts
that form the core of the christ myth
t. d. c. ...
i'll see the film
:D