do you believe in Davinci code??
August 2, 2008 2:51am CST
the best seller novel by Dan Brown, the DaVinci code is a sensation in every aspect. It had such a contoversial subject that almost brought the house down. Do you think whatever he wrote in the book is true? Do you believe in the book?
• United States
2 Aug 08
The DaVinci Code was based on another book called Holy Blood Holy Grail published back in 1982, which itself was based on a theory in a 1967 French book which proposed the theory that Mary of Magdalene and Jesus were married. The writers of Holy Blood Holy Grail, Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, expounded on the original theory, threw in a couple of real historical settings, then found documents which were later proved to be forgeries, and a few more proved to be fact, mixed them all together and came up with their story. Dan Brown picked up the ball and ran with it.. so to speak... and wrote the story around their theory, added a few new theories of his own and tried to pull it off as a work of fiction based on historical facts. It was even kind of a slap in the face to Leigh and Baigent since Dan Brown used both of their names in creating the character of Leigh Teabing, Teabing being an anagram of Baigent. Leigh and Lincoln actually tried to sue Dan Brown for plagerism because he had used so much of their book as reference. They lost so Dan Brown got to publish the DaVinci Code. It's pseudo-history based on unverifiable theory at best. But with all the people in the world who love a good conspiracy and a great deal of journalistic sensationalism people keep blowing it up into something that resembles fact. Do I believe in the book? No. It's fiction, and frankly not very well written. The movie was ok though. Do I believe in the theory behind the book? No. No proof. Do I believe that DaVinci painted codes into his works of art? No. Again, no facts, just theory. You can take any theory and twist it to make it believeable. Here's a good wikipedia page on the book Holy Blood Holy Grail that helps explain where the idea originated and just how flawed it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_blood_holy_grail There was also a good series of shows on the Discovery Channel about the book and the theory. Writer Austin Cline wrote, "Even devout evangelicals think that some of Browns positive statements concerning Jesus are absurd. So why do people believe it? There are a couple of factors at work here, I think. For one thing many Americans are conditioned to believe just about anything they hear from what they think are authorities in religion. Second, conspiracy theories are very popular. Taken together, almost anything dealing with religious conspiracy theories tend to be taken almost at face value. It's not all that surprising, really." I have to agree with him on that.
2 Aug 08
The book is an hoax, just like any writers, Dan Brown use his imaginations to come up with a great story that he would think would truly be sold and he is a success on that. I have read the book and seen the movie at the same time, there is no difference when it come to concept with movies like National Treasure and others. Plus the fact that many reliable individual and organizations has denied the events, character, location and many other things that involved in The DaVinci code. Have a good day !
2 Aug 08
Dan Brown just took some ideas that have already been written about and made them into a novel. I have studied art history and I know what he claims about Leonardo Da Vinci's painting in not true. Leonardo often painted young men in a way that makes them appear to us more like women, just as some people think the Mona Lisa looks like a man. There are true facts in the book, the places are real and there is a lot of history about the Rosslyn chapel which he adapts for the purpose of his story. The religious ideas are not original ones. It's true that the early Christian church played down the role of Mary Magdelen because they wanted a male dominated religion and didn't want people to know that the followers of Christ included a woman who was quite influential at the start. The rest is not based not on fact but on legend, of which there is no evidence, and a lot of conjecture.