The Da Vinci Code - A Comedy of Errors (Page 2)

I"ll sit right next to ya.  Hubby's K of C 50/50 isn't that much, just enough to buy us dinner at Subway. 

Don - you finished my post nicely by bringing up Luther.  As I've sort of said to you before, I enjoy rationally comparing our differing approaches (beliefs, filters, whatever) to issues but a butting of the heads over THE 800 LB. GORILLA IN THE ROOM would be pointless.

You do bring up an interesting point.  Religious history is of enormous significance to our world and I don't think we'll ever see a a thorough, unbiased presentation of the events involved.  All of the sides involved have too much at stake to allow that to happen.  Note:  that does not automatically indicate a conspiracy theory.  The conspiracy theorists themselves have a stake in the mystery being perpetuated. 

Now, if I could just remember what ecumenical means.

I think it means: some of my best friends are Lutheran.  

Whew! I should probably go swim, bike or run, but I might miss all this goodness.

BTW, that book? Entertaining, formulaic and the ending blew colorful chunks. I write, and thus I know.  

Please do. I've been getting kind of lonely here on the sidelines since hangloose decided to jump into the fray. Next time I'm going to start an over/under on how long it takes him to jump in.

--gets more popcorn and one of those new peach frescas--

LOL... yea, it's a shame that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't live long enough to get a movie deal... or be on Oprah...

Oprah: I'm here today to appologize to all of you. I'm only as good as my word. When I first read Matthew's The Gospel According to Matthew I thought that here was a great story of personal sacrifice, hope, faith, and redemption. To find out that it was all a fabrication was shocking. I take full responsibility. I should have done more fact checking. Now I've brought Matthew back to help clear up some of the confusion. Hi Matthew.

Matthew: Hi Oprah

Oprah: What do you have to say for yourself?

Matthew: Sorry.

Oprah: Sorry? That's it?

Matthew: Sorry, and I promise to give back all the money.

Oprah: In chapter 28 of The Gospel According to Matthew, you say that Mary Magdalene went to Jesus' tomb and found it empty. Was that really true?

Matthew: No.

Oprah: It's a lie.

Matthew: Yes.

Oprah: What really happened?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene moved to France and had Jesus' love child.

Oprah: OK, so why did you fabricate this story?

Matthew: I wanted to suppress the sacred feminine and establish an oppressive patriarchal political system.

Oprah: OK, but why put Mary Magdalene at the scene of the empty tomb? Why not Peter, or Andrew, or James.

Matthew: Well, because given how highly women and their opinions were regarded in my culture, especially the opinions of reformed prostitutes, I thought it would give the story credibility.

Oprah: What was in it for you?

Matthew: Are you kidding? Look, this got many, many people killed in brutal and horrible ways at the hands of the Roman authorities. You know, you really haven't lived until you've been torn to shreds by a lion... Well, that and all the money.

... yea, it woulda made for great television

Good thing Mel Gibson's got their backs... 

Dan Brown is a writer of fiction who loosely bases his novels on history, legend and hearsay.  Like all fiction writers, he claims the right to some latitude, or licence if you prefer, in his works. 

If we start questioning the reality of fictional works, we would have to start questioning a lot of good fiction, including "Lord of the Rings".   To my knowledge there are no walking trees on this planet, nor evidence of dragons, orks, fairies, elves, or even .... shudder ... Hobbits!  And I LIKES HOBBITSES!

Thing is, Dan Brown put this work of "fiction" out while at the same time claiming that the historical "facts" in the book were true and based on solid scholarship.

I still run into people who think that there are coded messages in Leonardo's work, or that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married.

Here's a list of revisions culled over time from the "Facts" page of Dan Brown's web site.  Take a look at the changes and tell me there wasn't an intent to misinform people.

8/28/03
HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS BASED ON FACT?
All of it. The paintings, locations, historical documents, and organizations described in the novel all exist. Photos of the paintings and locations can be viewed in art books or on my website.

1/17/04
HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS BASED ON FACT?
The paintings, locations, historical documents, and organizations described in the novel all exist. Photos of the paintings and locations can be viewed in art books or on my website.

5/11/04
HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book’s characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci’s paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters’ viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

Current (1/30/06)
HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book’s characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci’s paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters’ viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

Someone replied: "Thing is, Dan Brown put this work of "fiction" out while at the same time claiming that the historical "facts" in the book were true and based on solid scholarship."

That statement is one hundred percent correct.  All the historicls "facts" are true; it's the fictional facts that are made up by Dan!  As well, all the painting, locations, historical documents and organizations described in the novel do exist. 

LOL... I think I'll sit this out with Marma and Lucy... There appears to be room on the bench now that Hangloose has gotten involved!

Marma, want to swap a little power aid for some popcorn?

My bets on Don too... He is too gosh darn good at this!

Exactly! In dontracy's post above from DB's faq, the question is "How much of this novel is based on fact?" That's an entirely different question from "How much of this novel is fact." 

And his revisions are most likely a reaction to the reaction to his book. He doesn't change his stance, just clarifies it more deeply as the revisions progress.