wanderlust
Bluelighter
film: The DaVinci Code
the poll added
the poll added
wanderlust said:the poll added
L2R said:As i wrote previously in another thread (utfse)
I didn't mind that it was full of shit (it is).
I didn't mind that it was so mainstream.
I fucking hated the writing style.
DigitalDuality said:The entire reason i loved this book is b/c it was written, not so much in style, but on a level of bullshit crap like Tom Clancy etc.. but presented ideas that most mainstream america doesn't know, never came across, or even contemplated.
I would fathom to guess a good deal of people read this book.. and questioned some very basics of their religious teachings and beliefs.That's what made it exciting to me. Now while i wouldn't take every claim in this book as fact by any means, it does tell alot about christian history the average public isn't presented in church..and it's a bit nice to see the Danielle Steel crowd be challenged a little bit.
Thanks for clearing that up. Most of my answer wasn't directed at you anyway.posner said:That's what I meant.
SillyAlien said:Beyond that, The DaVinci Code is a novel.
novel: a extended fictional work in prose; usually in the form of a story
I would fathom to guess a good deal of people read this book.. and questioned some very basics of their religious teachings and beliefs. That's what made it exciting to me. Now while i wouldn't take every claim in this book as fact by any means, it does tell alot about christian history the average public isn't presented in church..and it's a bit nice to see the Danielle Steel crowd be challenged a little bit.
I never said the author wasn't a cheap whore out to sell as many copies of his work as possible, by whatever means possible. I enjoyed the book, I couldn't give two shits about the author. If I were to start worrying about the scruples or politics of every author of every work I pick up at avery airport I happen to hop into, I would never read a damn word. Most people, authors included, have something or other I disagree with, sometimes very strongly. Some of these people are downright assholes who treat other people like shit. If people are worried about "accidentally" putting money into the pockets of some authors whom they will eventually discover to be assholes, but at the same time wish to read their material so as not to be left behind in the world of what's what and who's who, I would suggest picking up a free copy of said "questionable" author's material at their local library.AmorRoark said:Yeah, too bad Dan Brown doesn't share your sentiments. He called the DaVinci Code NON-FICTION, not a novel. The author's intent was very clear to me... mystify radical religious theories to sensationalize himself. I can't enjoy an author's work who writes with such an intent in mind.
Nothing new, miss starry. You have no doubt at least heard of Jack London (1876-1916). I drooled over every single one of his novels when I was 13-16, as have many millions of people before me and after, yet many of those books had essentially exactly the same plot and characters. Not to mention a huge portion of the whodunit genre in general.miss starry said:I just couldn't get over the fact that Dan Brown wrote basically the same book twice, made craploads of money, and nobody seemed to notice.
SillyAlien said:I never said the author wasn't a cheap whore out to sell as many copies of his work as possible, by whatever means possible. I enjoyed the book, I couldn't give two shits about the author. If I were to start worrying about the scruples or politics of every author of every work I pick up at avery airport I happen to hop into, I would never read a damn word. Most people, authors included, have something or other I disagree with, sometimes very strongly. Some of these people are downright assholes who treat other people like shit. If people are worried about "accidentally" putting money into the pockets of some authors whom they will eventually discover to be assholes, but at the same time wish to read their material so as not to be left behind in the world of what's what and who's who, I would suggest picking up a free copy of said "questionable" author's material at their local library.![]()
It is listed as a novel.AmorRoark said:You were the one to point out the difference between a novel and scholarly non-fiction work. Yes, there is a difference, but Brown specifically notated that it was non-fiction work.
Yes, I see the difference. But, as I pointed out, if I pick up a novel, I will enjoy it as simply that - a novel.Oh, and I think your 'never read a damn thing' statement is a little blanked as well. There's a big difference between a writer who I disagree with and one that writes appalling, dishonet literature and markets it as truthful. Surely you see the difference?
Nice. I borrowed my illustrated copy from a friend. We're even Angels and Demons I did have to pay for. Okay, you win.btw, I read my mother's copy of the book so, it was free for me![]()
SillyAlien said:Nothing new, miss starry. You have no doubt at least heard of Jack London (1876-1916). I drooled over every single one of his novels when I was 13-16, as have many millions of people before me and after, yet many of those books had essentially exactly the same plot and characters. Not to mention a huge portion of the whodunit genre in general.
AmorRoark said:And yes, I'm sure many people questioned the very basics of their religious teachings/beliefs because of this. Which appauls me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people questioning/re-evaluating their faith in modern religion. I think it's great that a novel can still move masses of non-thinking people to actually think again. BUT when this is done it should be on factual (not sensationalized) evidence. The 'theories' that Brown puts forth are based on completely unsound proofs, and is therefore unethical IMO.
miss starry said:I guess if he's found a formula that works, he's going to stick with it! However, since I don't think Angels and Demons was that big of a hit until after The DaVinci Code became huge, it seems to me like Dan Brown only knows how to write one story. Yeah, it's an entertaining one, but I didn't want to read it twiceNo doubt other authors have done it too, but this was so blatant!
SillyAlien said:Hey, this guy is still milking his success too. If I found a winning ticket, I'd bite into it and milk it for all it was worth too. Damn straight! And if the paying people wanted to hear that my winning ticket's numbers were picked straight out of the Bible, I'd swear on the Bible that it were so! This cheap whore gots to eat too.![]()
atlas said:I find it amusing and distasteful that the people here who are so cockthirsty for this movie/book are completely gung ho about overlooking facts, dissention, and the outright absence of evidence when they read TDC.
I don't waste my time on Pulp like this, but I'm pretty familiar with the historical Jesus, Christian Heresies, Gnosticism, and books like Holy Blood. YES: there are differences of opinion. YES: this subject is open to speculation and reinterpretation. However, you people appear hellbent on a popular interpretation (which claims to be as infallible as the Bible's proponents claim, btw). I'm left wondering why.
Could it be that you're very interested in taking Fundies down a peg and undermining the orthodoxy of a world religion. And forcing people to question their acceptance of established doctrine. I would like to do all those things too. I'm not, however, about to stoop to conspiracy theories masquerading as the incontrivertable evidence in order to kick start it.