|
Da Vinci Code Criticism Research and Commentary
When I first began this website arae, it only contained one picture - of the Last Supper - and a discussion by me about the hand and knife. That was IT. The only reason this site has grown since that day has been because of user questions, which led to more questions, and so on. If you ask why this site exists and is so large, it's because people kept writing me with questions. If you ask why they had questions, then ask yourself why you found this site. Why is everyone writing with questions? Yes, The Da Vinci Code is only a book. It is clearly labelled as being FICTION, i.e. false, made up. Because of that, many people wonder what all the hubbub is about and why the book has stayed on the top of the sales charts for over a year. Especially since Holy Blood Holy Grail had the EXACT same plot, back in 1982. The Jesus/Mary M concept is hardly a new one. The answer in short is the marketing effort put into a book that is based on a religion that millions of people use to guide their day to day lives. Dan Brown made clear in interviews that this is the HIDDEN TRUTH and that he and his wife are art historians and painstakingly researched every detail. In fact the book has a statement in it that while the situations are made up, the research on the religious organizations and artwork is all fully authentic. Dan Brown is telling people that the book is based in a fully authentic "environment". This then makes art historians and historians in general furious, because there are many glaring errors in the book. It makes religious people furious, because the book makes some serious claims about what the church has done in the past and is doing in the present. Dan Brown named real peoples' names, and gave backgrounds on real, actual organizations. In his text, some issues are simple errors that any real art historian should have figured out as a basic background check. Others are far more serious errors of genealogy and history. You can say that people should read this book and KNOW it is fiction, completely made up. But when you read a story written by an "expert" about something important - like the Titanic or the Native Americans or the Alamo - don't you want it based in truth? And don't you want to learn something about that world while you read? You know the "people in the stories" are false but you want to learn something about what it was really like to live during those times. So you want a "truthful environment". Say you read an Alamo story by the world expert on the Alamo, and he gets to the critical battle. Suddenly "a plane flies by overhead", distracting the Alamo troops, and this is why they died. Wouldn't it bother you? In The Da Vinci Code, we're not just talking about a ship or a fort. We're talking about a church that millions of people trust with their eternal soul. Therefore, most readers of the Da Vinci Code - especially because Dan Brown is going around claiming it's all true - are intensely interested in where the line between truth and lies is. For example, people read the book and learn about Mary M. They want to know if they have in fact learned cool new things about Mary M or if the entire Mary M information was false. Was there even a Mary M? Did she hang out with Jesus? What was her background? Where did she go after Jesus died? These curious readers come to the web to find "what the truth is". So people who are coming to this site are trying to figure out which parts of the Da Vinci Code are true, and which are false. With Dan Brown saying "the basic premise is all true", the readers therefore get upset if some things that are really important and seem believable end up being blatant falsehoods. The readers wonder what they should believe and what they should not believe. If anything we should praise these people for stirring up curiosities based on a book, instead of just tossing the book back into a pile and saying "that was interesting, OK on to the next book". To me, a person who learns nothing from a book pretty much just wasted their time reading it. So again, for example, people read that "millions of women were burned" by the church and are horrified. It begins to shape their way of thinking about the church. Then they come here and hear it was not true. It makes them wonder, "Well jeez, what ELSE in this book that I felt was based on truth is not true?" And they research, and the truth becomes more clear. Think of it in this way. What if you were a Jewish person and this book said "no Jews were actually harmed in Nazi concentration camps. The images seen in the papers were made up on Hollywood sets in order to help Jews take over Israel". Wouldn't it upset you to learn Dan Brown just tossed this myth in to his book that he is claiming is "thoroughly researched and authentic" in its background? Not only is the information incorrect, but it spreads false assumptions against an entire group of REAL people. Now book readers might be angry at Jewish WW2 survivors they meet. This book says it's about revealing truths - but it actually perpetuates many stereotypes. In any case, much of what this book has done is stirred up a number of conspiracy theories and wonderings that have caught the popular imagination. Certainly, women were not treated well by the church. Certainly, the church has done horrific things over the years. While most of us know about this, a large segment of the population apparently did not, and is now fascinated. Which is a GOOD thing, that people who did not know real, historical facts are now learning them. I'm really happy the book has gotten people to think - but it concerns me that people then come to me and say "OK tell me the truth!" These people are now sure that the church has been lying to them and they want to blindly believe another person? I have a LARGE list of source reference books. Go read them! Exercise your brain! Figure out for YOURSELF what is true and what is not. If all you do is sit back and say "OK I will believe someone else now", then you've missed a main point of my website. The point is that people are free when they learn for themselves what to believe. One final note - this is from the introduction to The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. This book was written in 1982. "In the course of our book, however, we did discuss some of Schonfield's arguments [he wrote The Passover Plot in 1963]. This provoked an entirely new rumpus. 'Authors claim Jesus did not die on the cross!' the media shrieked - as if Schonfield had not said as much a mere twenty years before, as if The Passover Plot had never been published. We were baffled and bemused by such naivete, or by such shortness of memory. In 1993, A.N. Wilson produced his own speculative biography of Jesus. In this work, he put forward a perfectly plausible argument to the effect that Jesus was, in all probability, married. A fresh furore erupted, as if The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail had not made the same suggestion a mere decade previously. In another few years the suggestion will undoubtedly be made again by another author; and the media will undoubtedly prove as forgetful of Wilson's book as they were of ours. Thus does amnesia prevail in the sphere of biblical commentary."
From a Visitor:
My Response:
From a Visitor:
My Response:
From a Visitor:
My Response:
From a Visitor:
My Response: The issue is that Dan Brown does NOT present his work as fiction. If he did, it wouldn't have stayed on the top of the charts for over a year now. He goes around to interviews describing himself as an art historian, his wife as an art historian, his work is perfectly accurate and that he is revealing secrets that all other people are hiding from the world. Given the errors in the book, this has the real art historians up in arms ...
From a Visitor -
My Response - There's a difference between making up characters and setting them in a real world vs deliberately introducing falsehoods into the world purely to trash the reputation of a real organization. The 666 panes is saying "the mark of the antiChrist was deliberately put into a famous Parisian landmark". It is trashing the reputation of a real architect and a real project he labored on. Don't you think the architect cares that his great glass sculpture is erroneously being equated with The Beast and being vilified? Don't you think the people of Paris might get upset - most of them being Christian and all - with the idea that a large building in their midst is the symbol of evil? Why in the world would a writer aiming to talk about "truths" deliberately perpetuate falsehoods like that? And if a "researcher" is capable of doing that - then how can you appreciate anything else he reports as being "fully true"?
From a Visitor -
My Response -
From a Visitor -
My Response - Reading a book critically is about questioning its merit and researching its background. That doesn't mean necessarily that we are taking a baseball bat and whapping the author on the head. You are going to be in high school soon (assuming you are not already) and one of THE most important things you are going to learn is how to critically analyze a piece of written work. You will be critically analyzing political speeches, newspaper articles, novels, and much more. This isn't about "personal" issues, and you need to learn to be impartial about this. Analyzing a work critically is about investigating the merit or lack thereof in a written piece and then sharing that information with others. Remember, I don't tell people to believe me. I tell people to go out and find the truth for themselves. But in order for people to do that, they need to know which issues are in question. Unless they want to start at the beginning and research "does France exist" ...
From a Visitor - What is frustrating and patronising about Dan Brown's book is how it reflects on the times we live - that we need read these truths in sugar coated fictions - perhaps to make them more acceptable? The very mediocre 'Celestine Prophecy' was one such example of spirituality made palpable for the masses. I'm disappointed to see your criticism of this book is also very patronsing - in the light of information contained who cares if Leonardo's painting is a fresco or not because the point being made is fathoms deeper than the trite, snippy comments of frustrated art historians. I wish you continued success with your website.
My Response - As far as the fresco issue, that actually is fascinating to many people. That's the whole reason it's listed. This website didn't spring out of the ether fully formed. I started with one page on the painting itself. People wrote in with questions. I researched them and put up the answers. More people wrote in with their questions or observations. So every single page here was developed in direct response to people who wanted to know the answers to those issues. If anything we should praise all of these people who actively want to learn and know more about the world around them. To complain that they shouldn't care about the work of art is sort of silly - isn't the point of learning and growing that we DO care to find out how things are really made and what they're really all about? Part of the whole reason the Last Supper is so famous is that it IS done in a "new and amazingly different way" and not in the traditional old-fashioned fresco way. If Leonardo *had* done just a normal Fresco, the colors would have been dull and he would have only had one chance to do it, meaning it would have been finished in a few months. He wouldn't have developed the fantastic work of art that he did, and it wouldn't have immediately begun to fall apart leading to all of the contemplation about what it originally looked like. In a way, the entire basis for the brilliance of that painting is that it is not a fresco. I think that's a topic worth exploring.
From a Visitor -
My Response -
From a Visitor -
My Response -
From a Visitor - I don't practice any religion though I am interested to learn more. I had no intention of reading The Da Vinci Code and only bought it out of depseration as I needed something to distract me from what was a bumpy flight. It is the most predictable book that I have read in a long time. Not only that, I suspected that even though it was being advertised as thoroughly researched, that there was artistic licence involved. This is the first and last time I buy a book to find out what the fuss is about without reading Chapter One first. Priory of Sion indeed.
My Response -
Lisa Shea Homepage | Advertising Info | Low Carb Recipes | Sangria Recipes | Travelogues | Game Walkthroughs All content copyright © 2009 Minerva WebWorks LLC. All rights reserved. You MUST GET WRITTEN PERMISSION to reprint or republish any of this material.
|
|