Sorry i didnt read all the comments here so what I'll say has probably been said already so forgive me

I think if you were not interested in the first place why force yourself? Because everyone is pressuring you to know about the Da Vinci Code? Bah I read it and it was an ok book. But it hasnt changed my beliefs in any way. It was written ok, nothing exceptional. I havent watched the movie and i dont intend to coz i already know the story. And I dont like Audrey Tautou, heh.

I think if you want people to stop nagging you about this, just watch the movie and then tell them in a snob tone while attending a cocktail 'oh yeah the book is much better I was disappointed with the movie, caviar anyone?'

"Mediocre people do exceptional things all the time..."

Haha....that gives me hope!

My local newspaper said that the movie was almost unamimously panned at the Cannes Festival and viewers greeted it with "laughter" and sat in "stony silence" when it ended.

Yer I've heard that it's not that great, but you never know. People were excpecting alot from this film, and whilst it might not be up to the standard people were expecting, that doesn't mean it is terrible......maybe....hehe

Because everyone is pressuring you to know about the Da Vinci Code? Bah I read it and it was an ok book. But it hasnt changed my beliefs in any way. It was written ok, nothing exceptional.

People have said I would like it, but you are right. If I didin't want to in the first place, why be pressured?

just watch the movie and then tell them in a snob tone while attending a cocktail 'oh yeah the book is much better I was disappointed with the movie, caviar anyone?'

Hehe! Oh yes darling I shall do that! *walks off with nose in the air*

Thanks for the comments x

I've heard an art historian refer to the scholarship in the book as rubbish. He said that if the book had been a sports novel about American football, it would have the characters in the story referring to "three-pointers", "free-throws", "penalty-kicks", etc., which are all sports terminology from other sports besides football. The art historian said that if you know anything at all about Da Vinci and the rennaisance painters, you just can't enjoy the book. One example is that ALL painters in Da Vinci's day painted John (the youngest apostle) as a young, feminine person, i.e., a young man with long hair and no beard, and since the bible refers to John 'leaning on' Jesus' breast, the painters of that time almost always painted John leaning on Jesus. To then take Da Vinci's painting and make this figure out to be a 'Magdalene' figure that is 'secretly' intended to be seen as leaning on Jesus is ridiculous, at least to art historians. Also, it was common for painters in that day to place 'inside jokes' into their paintings, such as painting themselves or their friends faces as the faces of their famous subjects. With regards to Da Vinci's fondness of 'code', he was having men dig up bodies so that he could study them inside and out for his anatomy drawings. It's a serious crime today to dig up bodies and disect them in your home. In Da Vinci's day, it was nothing less than 'satanic', in the view of the church and the general population. He had a very good reason to encode many of his notes and documents.

I will say that if you want the full effect, you need to read the book, since I've heard that the movie tends to 'dumb' down Brown's attacks on the veracity of the New Testament and Christianity, and Tom Hank's performance has been described as being so bad. Of course, Brown's attacks on the New Testament are equally as ham-handed as his handling of the historical Da Vinci. The use of the 'Gnostic Gospels' to try to discredit some aspect or doctrine of the New Testament is getting to be very old (and tired, if you follow the arguments), and the only 'novel' thing in Brown's book is wrapping the whole thing up with Da Vinci and a grand conspiracy/murder mystery.

Thanks Jay for that comment! I've heard the arguments about this book go back and fourth, and I can't really comment as I haven't read or seen the film, and this is the kind of think I would like to have an opinion on. Your comment was very thoughtful, and informative, and made me want to read the book even more, so thank you.

Jay is correct and a little off-point at the same time. There is no "scholarship" in The Da Vinci Code, only the pretense of it, used as a pretext for the fictional story line. So little is historically accurate - most of the places and most of the people which are a part of the story all exist or existed, but that's about it. Everything else is pure fantasy, and in many cases, largely jumbled up chronologically.

The genius of Brown, such as it is, is to have led people into believing he's claiming any element of truth to it at all, leveraging the notariety of the book (hence, his profits) quite nicely indeed. I think it is incorrect to accuse Brown of "attacks" on the New Testament or Christianity or of attempts to "discredit" them - all he did was knit existing ideas into a work of fiction, burnishing it's patina with hints of plausibility (requiring some serious stretching of credulity to do even that). Characterizing the book as some sort of attack only plays into Brown's game. The only thing he's "attacked" is his bank, I'm afraid - with massive deposits.

I think it is incorrect to accuse Brown of "attacks" on the New Testament or Christianity or of attempts to "discredit" them - all he did was knit existing ideas into a work of fiction, burnishing it's patina with hints of plausibility (requiring some serious stretching of credulity to do even that). Characterizing the book as some sort of attack only plays into Brown's game. The only thing he's "attacked" is his bank, I'm afraid - with massive deposits.

From my knowledge (which is limited) the clever thing he has done is made people think, and question what they already thought before. He has written a book that has just enough grasp on the truth to make people scratch their heads and think, and to me that is a wonderful gift to have. Books should make you think, and question things, and luckily for Brown he has made a profit from this. Just my opinion....

I don't begrudge him his lucre, either, Sally, although I guess it does sound that way when I re-read my post. I agree with you on the "makes you scratch your head & think about things" aspect, too. Some of Brown's critics claim we're too incurious or too lazy to take it any further, though, with which I disagree.

I agree with you on the "makes you scratch your head & think about things" aspect, too. Some of Brown's critics claim we're too incurious or too lazy to take it any further, though, with which I disagree.

I disagree with that too, surely the response he's recieved should prove that isn't the case? People should be encouraged to think, we are turning into the lazy generation, where everything is done for us, and we are just looking to make life easy for ourseleves. I think that will come back and bite us in the bum at some point!

Interesting that noone who has seen the movie has come back to this thread yet.

I hope to see it this weekend. If I do, I'll let you know what I think of it.

Interesting that noone who has seen the movie has come back to this thread yet.

Back. Boring!