|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Da Vinci Blunders. (Errors in the Plot)
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 08:28
Just a space for those who have read TDVC to point out the errors in the plot.
This is what I said on another thread: quote:
If you check out Brown's geographical facts, such as riding on the London Underground from Temple Bar to King's College, when Temple is the nearest Underground station to King's College, you see the accuracy of Brown's research.
Both near the beginning and end of the book, people enter the Louvre and after going through the entrance see an inverted glass pyramid, matching theone at the entrance. The inverted pyramid exists, but it is in the centre of a shopping mall built underground in the Louvre courtyard, but before you get to the museum entrance.
And the bug... The French police are sure that the person bugged is still in the toilets, because the signal keeps moving. I don't know about you, but when I go to the toilet for that length of time I stay in one place, possibly with my jacket hung up if there is a hook.
[ 17. May 2006, 21:07: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 09:04
Well I could start with some worthwhile info involving the knights templar etc but I won't. Biggin Hill, Maidstone is not on the outskirts of London, it's in a completely different County. Also, thinking about the quote in the OP, just because Dan Brown went on the tube through London,it doesn't mean he did good research. That's basic stuff that any author should expect to get right.
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 10:35
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
That's basic stuff that any author should expect to get right.
Not if it is inconsequential to the plot, and given the audience* it is inconsequential. It is called artistic license, most authors do it, the only thing that you can call Brown out on is that he has that stupid foreward that claims these details are correct.
* Mostly americans who probably couldn't tell you if London was in the North or South of Britain.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 11:00
quote:
the only thing that you can call Brown out on is that he has that stupid foreward that claims these details are correct.
Agreed, but isn't that the point. I have no problem with fictional names places or artistic licence with past events but good old Mr Brown has tried to claim more than this. If someone tries to suggest that because he gets the geography of London right, then somehow this makes the historical claims of the book more plausable, I'd have to disagree.
As for the Maidstone/London thing, I was just being silly.
[ 03. April 2006, 10:03: Message edited by: Gextvedde ]
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 11:57
I don't really blame him for not knowing the geography of a foreign city, but one of the things that most annoys me is his use of Opus Dei. If he'd managed to spend even half an hour reading up a few basic facts about the organisation, he'd have discovered, for example, that it was founded to help lay and ordained people live a dedicated life in secular society, so It Just Doesn't Have Monks. Not even giant albino killer ones ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 11:59
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
I don't really blame him for not knowing the geography of a foreign city
Are streetmap.co.uk and the TfL website a bit much for Mr Brown's research budget, do you think? It's not like he needs to tell us accurately where to find post offices in Novosibirsk.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 17:28
His comments of the facilities at the library of King's College London are wildly incorrect (according to a friend of mine who did a PhD there).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 18:04
Another basic hole in the logic is that the story depends on the image of a Catholic church that defines and controls a monolithic Christianity.
It ignores the fact that most of the early councils, including Nicaea and Chalcedon, were dominated by Greeks rather than Latins. Therefore the Orthodox must be in on the plot as well unless they have let Rome lead them meekly by the nose for the last 1700 years, which seems rather unlikely.
And then there are all those squabbling protestants. Surely they would have jumped at the chance of having a go at Rome if they believed it was living such a fundamental lie? And a number of the so-called Grand Masters of the so-called Priory of Sion were from northern Europe where they would have been out of Rome's reach so why would they need to keep their secret secret?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 18:15
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
It's not like he needs to tell us accurately where to find post offices in Novosibirsk.
T.
It took me less than thirty seconds to find that out .
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
xfundy
Apprentice
# 5012
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 18:23
Hi all. Just finished the book. Looking forward to reading others thoughts.
--------------------
Xfundy.
Posts: 2 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 20:16
Just to be an absolute pedant, the claim at the front is that 'all details of art, architecture, documents and secret rituals are accurate'.
That suggests to me that all the buildings are accurately described, not that they're described as being in the right place.
Nonetheless, I'm 99% sure that the building which is described as the London HQ of Opus Dei on Omre Square doesn't have a back entrance. There's no indication that it's got any connection with Opus Dei either.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
03 April, 2006 23:10
pathetic tangent / Biggin Hill clearly is on the outskirts of London - from the perspective of somebody who grew up in mid-Kent at least.
If he'd described it as a Kentish town then some other would-be pedant would have jumped up and down describing it as a London suburb.
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shiny_Halo
Shipmate
# 10085
|
Posted
05 April, 2006 14:27
quote:
Originally posted by A Lurker:
Just to be an absolute pedant, the claim at the front is that 'all details of art, architecture, documents and secret rituals are accurate'.
That suggests to me that all the buildings are accurately described, not that they're described as being in the right place.
Fair enough (I suppose), but they are not all described accuartely. For example, he says at one point that the glass pyramid is made up of 666 panes of glass which it is not. Many of his descriptions of the Louvre are inaccurate.
If you want to be really pedantic (and I only noticed this because I used to work with police forces) he keeps referring to "the London police", who do not in fact exist. You can have the City of London police or the Metropolitan Police, but they are very distinct from one another
These things may be inconsequential to the plot, but if he can't be bothered to get little things right how and why should we trust him on anything material?
--------------------
You see, in the final analysis it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.
- Mother Theresa "Anyway"
Posts: 87 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rosamundi
Ship's lacemaker
# 2495
|
Posted
05 April, 2006 21:26
quote:
Originally posted by A Lurker:
Just to be an absolute pedant, the claim at the front is that 'all details of art, architecture, documents and secret rituals are accurate'.
Sadly, he's not even right on the art & architecture. The only windows near the toilets in the Louvre (where they did that business with the tracker and the bar of soap), are skylights in the ceiling of the hall. You couldn't throw anything out of them.
Sophie takes one of the paintings off the wall and puts her knee to the back of it so the canvas "moves," changing the perspective. Nice trick, except the painting is on wood.
The painting that Sophie's grandfather took off the wall just before he died is absolutely enormous, I'm not sure how big it is, but it certainly can't be lifted by one person.
Deborah
[Missing words. Quite a lot of them. Oh dear].
[ 05. April 2006, 20:27: Message edited by: rosamundi ]
--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group
Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
05 April, 2006 22:11
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
That's basic stuff that any author should expect to get right.
Not if it is inconsequential to the plot, and given the audience* it is inconsequential. It is called artistic license, most authors do it, the only thing that you can call Brown out on is that he has that stupid foreward that claims these details are correct.
* Mostly americans who probably couldn't tell you if London was in the North or South of Britain.
Tangentially, in the American film 'No Way Out', the "hero" played by Kevin Costner comes running out of the "Georgetown" stop on the Washington DC metro. There is no such stop. However, the scene is filmed in The Old Post Office building downtown. Which is near the Federal Triangle stop, if I recall.
So possibly to do with the audience, but nothing to do with the locale.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
universalist
Shipmate
# 10318
|
Posted
05 April, 2006 22:12
Those who look for authentic history in Dan Brown's book miss his point entirely. He is not attempting to prove anything. Story is story, and Brown uses fun fiction to make a very profound point: Thanks to the Imperial Church and it's influence on many peoples, we have lost the Sacred Feminine within our religions and cultures, resulting in obnoxious patriarchy and a one-down position for women most everywhere. THAT is the travesty, and Brown makes the point well. All the debate about historical accuracy is a smoke screen, obscuring the point of the book.
Posts: 66 | From: portland oregon | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
06 April, 2006 09:47
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Those who look for authentic history in Dan Brown's book miss his point entirely. He is not attempting to prove anything. Story is story, and Brown uses fun fiction to make a very profound point: Thanks to the Imperial Church and it's influence on many peoples, we have lost the Sacred Feminine within our religions and cultures, resulting in obnoxious patriarchy and a one-down position for women most everywhere.
But that profound point is itself a historical question, isn't it?
What you are claiming is (a) that there was once a sacred feminine element in early Christianity and the religious traditions it drew from; and (b) that at some point it disappeared.
And that's a claim about historical fact. If Brown is presenting it as truth, then he is, ipso facto, presenting it as "authentic history".
And if the historical evidence he presents for this claim is fantastical or fraudulent, then the profound point rather wilts, doesn't it?
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shiny_Halo
Shipmate
# 10085
|
Posted
06 April, 2006 10:32
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Those who look for authentic history in Dan Brown's book miss his point entirely. He is not attempting to prove anything. Story is story, and Brown uses fun fiction to make a very profound point: Thanks to the Imperial Church and it's influence on many peoples, we have lost the Sacred Feminine within our religions and cultures, resulting in obnoxious patriarchy and a one-down position for women most everywhere. THAT is the travesty, and Brown makes the point well. All the debate about historical accuracy is a smoke screen, obscuring the point of the book.
Ok, but the point I and others are making is that Brown claims that all details of art and architecture etc are accurate - which they are not. Why make a claim like that unless you are trying to give your book a degree of authenticity? But more importantly, why make a claim like that if you're not going to bother actually making those details accurate? They're not accurate, why claim that they are? Just makes him look ignortant (at best), which his style of writing would have been evidence enough of on it's own.
--------------------
You see, in the final analysis it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.
- Mother Theresa "Anyway"
Posts: 87 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
06 April, 2006 10:47
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Those who look for authentic history in Dan Brown's book miss his point entirely. He is not attempting to prove anything. Story is story, and Brown uses fun fiction to make a very profound point: Thanks to the Imperial Church and it's influence on many peoples, we have lost the Sacred Feminine within our religions and cultures, resulting in obnoxious patriarchy and a one-down position for women most everywhere. THAT is the travesty, and Brown makes the point well. All the debate about historical accuracy is a smoke screen, obscuring the point of the book.
If that is so - why demote the not so hidden disciple and apostle to the apostles, Mary of Magdala to the role of hidden wife and mother of a secret bloodline? Isn't that also losing the Sacred Feminine or rather reducing it to its biological essentials?
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
06 April, 2006 20:03
Universalist
Have you read Fiorenza and Hampson? (I just wondered what your basis was for the claim that the sacred feminine was lost as a result of the actions of the Imperial church).
If you like, this part of the discussion could go to the new thread on the subject.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Exiled Youth
Shipmate
# 8744
|
Posted
06 April, 2006 22:52
Aaah what a fantastic idea for a board and thread. I could spend hours doing this! For starters, his geography of Paris is pretty poor -- trains leaving from the wrong stations, roads arriving at the wrong places, very short journeys taking a significant amount time (Louvre - US Embassy). The art stuff has already been covered, as has the London geography stuff.
The Mona Lisa coming off the wall? Any painting coming off the wall??
--------------------
Gold from Egypt is still gold -- St. Augustine of Hippo
Posts: 411 | From: Home Sweet Home | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
07 April, 2006 21:38
Aah, poor Danny boy. Does anyone else have suspicions that the book may not have been quite as successful if the claims for such rigorous geographical and historical research hadn’t been made?
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
musician
Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873
|
Posted
08 April, 2006 10:52
Margaret,
quote:
I don't really blame him for not knowing the geography of a foreign city, but one of the things that most annoys me is his use of Opus Dei. If he'd managed to spend even half an hour reading up a few basic facts about the organisation, he'd have discovered, for example, that it was founded to help lay and ordained people live a dedicated life in secular society, so It Just Doesn't Have Monks. Not even giant albino killer ones
yes, but Ruth Kelly wouldn't be half as effective as a Scary Picture! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
08 April, 2006 17:36
Speaking as a journalist, it's well known within the profession that doing too much research kills a story.
Had to do it to one of my colleagues last week, who'd got something from usually reliable sources - it was impeccable in every respect, except it smelled funny (was about two Oriental researchers working at the junction of two highly technical fields, and the reportage from the other sources seemed to reach some peculiar conclusions). Took a bit of digging, but no, whatever the story was it wasn't as reported - and it wasn't important enough to spend the considerable amount of time needed to go to the original sources, sort out the language problems, find experts in both fields prepared to be quoted, and so on.
So I spiked it. This does not make a chap popular, does not fill a space on the page and makes it look as if we'd just missed the story (most of our competitors were running the original, dodgy story, which has by now silently drifted away in any case).
In the case of DVC, as reported, I've no doubt that if Brown had increased his level of research to the point where he did get gross details right he'd have had a hard time making the story hang together. Far better to forge ahead and just not bother with stuff that takes time and can only bite you on the backside - it is, after all, fiction with no particular plausible accuraacy (despite the author's claims).
It's interesting to compare this with Patrick O'Brian, whose meticulous attention to detail is famous, yet practically unremarked by the author himself. I know which style of fiction I enjoy more.
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
08 April, 2006 20:55
It must help to have just a little idea about the area you're researching, though. I was rather charmed to notice, as I scrolled through the DVC judgement, that there was a page in the Browns' copy of "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" quote:
where a corner has been turned down and Blythe Brown has written “what is Grail?”
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
andrewschmidt
Shipmate
# 10822
|
Posted
09 April, 2006 08:21
I read TDVC some time ago, and as an Ex-South African living in Australia who is totally uncouth, I assure you he could have had the lourve in Londin and I would have kept reading. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I was a little surprised at the fact that some-how Jesus and the Magdalene had somehow only managed to produce a bloodline that 1900 years later meant they only had 2 descendants. My parents are not yet 60, and have caught up. My grandparents have seriously overtaken that mark, and as we go back the numbers get even bigger.
Does he account for this in the book (and I just don't remember/didn't notice) or did the priory carfully insist that Jesus' descendants only ever had one child. If the latter this seems rather stupid of them.
Andrew
Posts: 73 | From: SEQ Australia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
09 April, 2006 08:58
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
All the debate about historical accuracy is a smoke screen, obscuring the point of the book.
Which is to make money.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
10 April, 2006 06:20
I always assumed that his claim at the beginning of the book as the reality of the two groups, the paintings and the buildings, was his way of saying that everything else was made up.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
10 April, 2006 10:00
I think that the significant point here is that Brown presents his book as being fiction, based on certain "facts". Now most readers of the book won't have the nous to appreciate that the things he presents as "facts" are actually hugely questionable conjecture.
If the book was clearly fantasy fiction, I wouldn't be bothered about it. But it tries to claim a veneer of authenticity. So it is only proper that he should be slapped down over all the ridiculous errors within it.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
10 April, 2006 10:24
Noone has yet mentioned the enormous logical inconsistency at the heart of the book.
He spends a lot of time building up this picture of Mary Magdalene as the Holy Grail personified. The main justification for this is that 'she must have been a really special person, she was married to Jesus.'
Hang on a minute, Mr Brown. Setting aside the question of how you can claim to be a champion of the Sacred Feminine when her sacredness depends on her relationship with a man, you have also said that Jesus was not the Son of God. If he wasn't, then why should the woman he married be deserving of any special respect? You can't have it both ways.
Or maybe you can; he seems to have got away with it so far. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Jane R
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
10 April, 2006 11:18
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Hang on a minute, Mr Brown. Setting aside the question of how you can claim to be a champion of the Sacred Feminine when her sacredness depends on her relationship with a man, you have also said that Jesus was not the Son of God. If he wasn't, then why should the woman he married be deserving of any special respect? You can't have it both ways.
Or maybe you can; he seems to have got away with it so far.
Yes that's what I thought too. The whole thing seemed to fall down there - why bother hiding and protecting the bloodline of two - possibly charismatic and clever but basically pretty ordinary - people who were not the son of God and didn't get resurrected and were really not very holy at all?
There must have been loads of people with similar descent from the Old Testament royal houses, what made the bloodline of Jesus and MM so important if they were just another couple of great teachers?
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
koffshun
Shipmate
# 11227
|
Posted
10 April, 2006 11:35
I've been confused from the beginning of the media hype as to the actual blasphemy ! (Emphasis on 'media hype')
The way I see it, the blasphemy is in claiming Jesus was "just an ordinary man". And yet in all the newspaper reports and paraphrasing of Vatican statements, his blasphemy has reportedly been that "Jesus married and had a child with Mary Magdalene".
Call me a raging liberal, but I think the idea of his having a child with Mary Magdalene, while improbable (and again flying in the face of Weberan ideas of Charismatic authority) doesn't impact too harshly on my faith. Certainly not in comparison to the idea that he was not the Son of God.
Has anyone else noticed this odd trend in the declaration of Dan Brown's 'blasphemy'?
Posts: 127 | From: south of england | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shiny_Halo
Shipmate
# 10085
|
Posted
10 April, 2006 12:42
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
Speaking as a journalist, it's well known within the profession that doing too much research kills a story.
....
In the case of DVC, as reported, I've no doubt that if Brown had increased his level of research to the point where he did get gross details right he'd have had a hard time making the story hang together. Far better to forge ahead and just not bother with stuff that takes time and can only bite you on the backside - it is, after all, fiction with no particular plausible accuraacy (despite the author's claims).
R
Fine - but why claim there is accuracy in what you're writing when there isn't? If he hadn't said all those bits were accurate I doubt there would be half as many people making a fuss about that fact that they are inaccurate. If you're going to make a point of saying xyz is accurate it's just plain stupid (or lazy, or ignorant) not to ensure that at least those bits are in fact accurate.
--------------------
You see, in the final analysis it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.
- Mother Theresa "Anyway"
Posts: 87 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
10 April, 2006 15:15
koffshun, I'd think it was weird, except the church has been harping on about sexual sins (to the near dismissal of the sinfulness of anything else) so loudly for the past 50 years or so, that it's only natural for somebody to latch on to this aspect.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
10 April, 2006 16:55
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
It must help to have just a little idea about the area you're researching, though. I was rather charmed to notice, as I scrolled through the DVC judgement, that there was a page in the Browns' copy of "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" quote:
where a corner has been turned down and Blythe Brown has written “what is Grail?”
Grail and Grail! What is Grail?
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
10 April, 2006 16:57
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
It must help to have just a little idea about the area you're researching, though. I was rather charmed to notice, as I scrolled through the DVC judgement, that there was a page in the Browns' copy of "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" quote:
where a corner has been turned down and Blythe Brown has written “what is Grail?”
Grail and Grail! What is Grail?
...and thus it was that the Lady Trudy asked the Question, and the Quest for the Holy Grail was achieved.
T. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ClaryQ
Apprentice
# 3737
|
Posted
12 April, 2006 10:22
hmmm, let me see (author thinks in study)
I'd like this book to really catch on, since my pension needs consolidating...
cult books seem to guarrantee quite a long term return. I need something that is going to get the obsessives going
Let's write something that gets the blood boiling, with some red herrings in that get people really involved in trying to extract the fiction from the fact.
In any case a global audience (may as well think big) aren't going to be too bovvered where biggin hill is anyway.
Wahay, Bingo! thanyou and roll on the Bahamas.
--------------------
don't eat the yellow snow
Posts: 40 | From: The wardrobe of my mind | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrrt01
Shipmate
# 11264
|
Posted
12 April, 2006 12:02
A few church history 'facts' that perhaps deserve some attention, from chapter 55.
He claims that Constantine in the fourth century chose the four gospels out of 80 possibilities, implying that any of the others could have been chosen. Which ignores Irenaeus in the second century pointing out that there are only four authentic gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
He claims that Constantine was a pagan, only baptised on his deathbed because he was too weak to protest. Almost certainly wrong - many Christians delayed baptism until their deathbed to avoid post-baptismal sin.
He claims Constantine shifted observance of the Sabbath on Saturday to Sunday to honour the sun god. But this shift happened in the first century, and was (of course) to honour the resurrection.
He claims that until 325 and the Nicene council, Jesus had always been regarded as just a mortal prophet. Jesus' divinity was only established by a vote. But the opposite is more true: the main heresy of the second century was docetism, where people claimed that Jesus, divine, only appeared to be human. And no-one at Nicea would have thought that Jesus was just a mortal man - the question was whether he was equal or not (from the same being) to God the Father. But everyone agreed that he existed before all creation, that through him creation was made, etc etc. Brown also had Teabing claim that the vote was close - it wasn't. Only a handful of bishops didn't sign up, compared to about 300 who did. As someone else has pointed out, Brown has Teabing explaining that this established the Roman Catholic church as the only sacred channel - whereas it was mainly the eastern churches who were represented at Nicea, and who didn't and still don't recognise Rome as being over them in authority.
He also claims that those who chose the 'original' history of Christianity were the first heretics. This ignores the docetists, the adoptionists, the gnostics, who were all deemed heretics long before. Indeed, Irenaeus' book (second century) is called 'Against heresies'.
But the book is still a very good read.
Posts: 62 | From: Manchester | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
12 April, 2006 20:30
jrrt01
Welcome to SofF. And thanks for your very clear and accurate post. (I've been batting on a very similar wicket on the "Gospel of Judas" thread.)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
musician
Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873
|
Posted
22 April, 2006 21:09
Bart Ehrman(this is he)'s book "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" here is good for Real Information which may - or may not - come across as distorted in the fictional book.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
22 April, 2006 22:43
quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
He claims Constantine shifted observance of the Sabbath on Saturday to Sunday to honour the sun god. But this shift happened in the first century, and was (of course) to honour the resurrection.
...
But the book is still a very good read.
jrrt, great post overall and I agree with all your points except the two quoted above ...
For the first, I have to come on like the tiresome Seventh-day Adventist that I am and point out that while Dan Brown is of course vastly oversimplifying, the Christian observance of the first day of the week can be more accurately traced to the second century than to the first, that it was by no means universal until mandated by Constantine, and that while it was of course intended to honour the resurrection, the fact that it was the day of sun-worship did make the spread of first-day worship more attractive and easier for newly converted pagans.
As to your point about it being "a good read," I just included it for a laugh ... that is, of course, purely subjective. I personally found it a page-turner, but not "a good read" by the standards of what I enjoy in a book, but its literary merit is not the subject of this particularly thread.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
24 April, 2006 11:45
Here is another Dan Brown claim you may all wish to take with a pinch of salt:
quote:
Brown said he often uses a pair of gravity boots during writing, finding it easier to work out difficult plot points while dangling upside down.
Surely the guy is just pulling our collective legs, upside down or in any other position?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
25 April, 2006 23:08
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
He claims Constantine shifted observance of the Sabbath on Saturday to Sunday to honour the sun god. But this shift happened in the first century, and was (of course) to honour the resurrection.
...
But the book is still a very good read.
jrrt, great post overall and I agree with all your points except the two quoted above ...
For the first, I have to come on like the tiresome Seventh-day Adventist that I am and point out that while Dan Brown is of course vastly oversimplifying, the Christian observance of the first day of the week can be more accurately traced to the second century than to the first, that it was by no means universal until mandated by Constantine, and that while it was of course intended to honour the resurrection, the fact that it was the day of sun-worship did make the spread of first-day worship more attractive and easier for newly converted pagans.
As to your point about it being "a good read," I just included it for a laugh ... that is, of course, purely subjective. I personally found it a page-turner, but not "a good read" by the standards of what I enjoy in a book, but its literary merit is not the subject of this particularly thread.
FWIW. In the fundamentalist church in which I grew up, we were told that the reason we met on Sunday was that in the story of Eutychus in 20 Acts it says they were meeting on the first day of the week. There is no indication that they were using the Jewish method of having a day begin at sundown the previous night, especially since this was in Macedonia which was a mostly Greek city.
YMMV, of course, because it doesn't say explicitly that this was one of their regular worship meetings, so you could argue that this was probably a special meeting and could have been held anytime.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Little Miss Methodist
Ship's Diplomat
# 1000
|
Posted
16 May, 2006 18:32
The obvious inaccuracy that bothered me was that at the very beginning he describes Langdon taking a ride in his taxi "south past the Opera through the Place Vendome". Now thats perfectly possible, but it's not if you are staying in the Paris Ritz, like Langdon was supposed to be, because the Paris Ritz is in the Place Vendome.
I wouldn't mind, except that at the end he clearly knows exactly where the Ritz really is because he describes Langdon stepping out of the door of the Ritz into the Place Vendome. I think his editor could have pointed that little inaccuracy out to him.
It's probably not something you'd notice unless you knew Paris really well though.
quote:
Originally Posted by BalaamBoth near the beginning and end of the book, people enter the Louvre and after going through the entrance see an inverted glass pyramid, matching theone at the entrance. The inverted pyramid exists, but it is in the centre of a shopping mall built underground in the Louvre courtyard, but before you get to the museum entrance.
You can walk from one to the other, though not without walking through some subterreanean (sp?) passages first. It would be much easier to just enter the shopping arcade off the Rue Rivoli.
Also, like someone else said, the American embassy is within easy walking distance of the Louvre, at the top of the Champs Elysees. It would have taken all of two minutes to drive there at that time of night.
Having said all of that, it didn't detract from my enjoyment of the book, and I really liked it.
LMM
ps: Does anyone else think you can drive through the Tuileries? Because i'd have sworn you can't and there is a big set of steps where the Arc Du Carousel is at the end...
--------------------
Tell me where you learned the magic,
The spell you used the day you made me fall....
Posts: 1628 | From: Caretaker of the Overlook Hotel | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
19 May, 2006 11:46
I've only read the beginning (on his website) but his version of Paris baffles me completely... Sheer morbid curiosity forced me to look at the map to try and work out WHATEVER route he'd managed to take from the Ritz to the Louvre - and I'm more confused than before ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
To get there should be about a two-minute drive down the rue St Honoré (without the need to speed - it's practically next door). Somehow they manage to take in the Musée d'Orsay and the Eiffel Tower, which are in the opposite direction altogether, followed by the rue de Rivoli. Which is a one-way street. COnsequently the only way I can work it out is that they're driving up it the wrong way in the face of a LOT of oncoming traffic ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I was also entertained by the image of an on-duty police officer wearing a religious symbol followed by a little reflection on how religion is practically a birth-right in France. Not in the France I live in, it isn't. In the France I live in, girls get sent home from school for wearing headscarves...
Red x
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
22 May, 2006 12:54
When they arrive at the train station,they arrive at Gare St Lazare, and then the next chapter flips to someone else's view point. Next time we're back with Langdon & Niveau, they're in the Gare du Nord (which is the right location for a train to Lille).
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chris Brann
Apprentice
# 11439
|
Posted
23 May, 2006 11:58
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
IN the end all of this discusion is pointless. No one can have there world view / faith changed by argument only reniforced.
If they are weak in faith/ worldview then they will shift around anyway.
Only an encounter with the real Christ will ever bring people to a life changing unswerving faith, which no amount of strange books and odd ideas will ever shake.
This is what happened to me.
All faiths organisations have been infulenved by
power and money we just have to acept that we are fallen people and will never get it all right.
Posts: 2 | From: Bath England | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
23 May, 2006 13:25
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Brann:
IN the end all of this discusion is pointless. No one can have there world view / faith changed by argument only reniforced.
If they are weak in faith/ worldview then they will shift around anyway.
In fairness, this thread is about factual errors in the setting and content of the novel. to describe it as 'all...pointless' is to assume that there's some kind of evangelistic intent behind the thread that it's not living up to.
And here's a question for those who have some familiarity with the content of the book:
What the hell kind of secret message is 'so dark the con of man'? I keep seeing it on adverts for the computer game, and I don't get it.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
koffshun
Shipmate
# 11227
|
Posted
23 May, 2006 13:41
"so dark the con of man" is an anagram for "Madonna of the rocks".
After Langdon and Nevou (think i spelt that wrong, it's been a long time since i read it!) have found various of her grandfather's clues, Sophie is directed to another Da Vinci painting, the Madonna of the Rocks, where something else is hidden. all very 'miffic'!
On a Hollywood note, "So dark the con of man" is a FASCINATING phrase, dahling. So unusual and archaic, dontcha think?
Perhaps a better tag line could be: "Merovigian, so much more than a Matrix cameo". It amuses me that "So dark the con of man" appears under a picture of the Mona lisa. Seems it's not just Dan Brown who's prone to poster-size blunders!
Posts: 127 | From: south of england | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
23 May, 2006 18:34
quote:
I was a little surprised at the fact that some-how Jesus and the Magdalene had somehow only managed to produce a bloodline that 1900 years later meant they only had 2 descendants. My parents are not yet 60, and have caught up. My grandparents have seriously overtaken that mark, and as we go back the numbers get even bigger.
Does he account for this in the book (and I just don't remember/didn't notice) or did the priory carfully insist that Jesus' descendants only ever had one child. If the latter this seems rather stupid of them. Posted by andrewschmidt
What with the Plague wiping out a third of Europeans, so many people dying young, the general fragility of pre 20th century life one child is indeed a risk. My great grandmother had a small family at the beginning of the last century she only had 6 but 5 survived to adulthood, she thought this a great achievement. It was only with the improvements in medicine that meant people had enough confidence to have smaller families
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
