NationStates Jolt Archive

There is at this moment, Eastern/Central, some bullshit show on Sci-Fi debunking the Da Vinci Code. A novel, a fictional book is being debunked as though it need be. I hope the following show debunks Green Eggs & Ham about how foxes don't talk and eggs and ham arn't naturally green.

One of the most ridiculous part of this show, I have seen exactly 1:30 of it, is that they are saying the book asserts itself as non-fiction and then debunking it based on their own assertions. Basically, they are debunking themselves. It is a sad state of affair when a bunch of pompous windbags get a one hour show so they can convince themselves that the Da Vinci Code isn't real under the guise of "debunking" the book.

There is at this moment, Eastern/Central, some bullshit show on Sci-Fi debunking the Da Vinci Code. A novel, a fictional book is being debunked as though it need be. I hope the following show debunks Green Eggs & Ham about how foxes don't talk and eggs and ham arn't naturally green.

One of the most ridiculous part of this show, I have seen exactly 1:30 of it, is that they are saying the book asserts itself as non-fiction and then debunking it based on their own assertions. Basically, they are debunking themselves. It is a sad state of affair when a bunch of pompous windbags get a one hour show so they can convince themselves that the Da Vinci Code isn't real under the guise of "debunking" the book.there are some who are convinced that the Da Vinci Code is infact real. one station, PBS I believe, went through and tried to show the facts and the proofs outlined in the book.

so yeah. I can see people Debunking it to prove that it is fiction.

/me worked for a media corporation.

Of course, it's got NOTHING to do with the fact that ANYTHING DaVinci Code (at least before it opens) is pure gold in terms of advertising revenue.

;)

Well, maybe they're just "debunking" the anti-Catholic "conspiracy" that the book is really about discovering? I mean, its not like they're going after the gosh-darned characters for being unrealistic or anything - they're just going and pointing out that the bigoted, hateful anti-Catholic message it sends (Your religion is based on a lie!) happens to be a lie - i.e., Christianity isn't based on lies, the book is!

They arn't really debunking the book or story though. They are making the assertion themselves that Brown is covertly passing the book off as truth then debunking the book based on that. They are sitting around convincing themselves that it isn't true. I rather listen to conspiracy theorists who don't sit around looking down their noses at people convincing themselves they are right. This conspiracy theory has been around since long before the Da Vinci Code, the only reason people are going around trying to debunk it is because it is presented interestingly and thus believably. We should thus give Dan Brown credit for being a good writer instead of trying to attack him for writing factual fiction, or fictitious fact, whichever you like.

/me worked for a media corporation.

Of course, it's got NOTHING to do with the fact that ANYTHING DaVinci Code (at least before it opens) is pure gold in terms of advertising revenue.

;)
anyone seen that "Documentary" the Sci-Fi channell had on the Blair Witch? that was scarier than the movie.

anyone seen that "Documentary" the Sci-Fi channell had on the Blair Witch? that was scarier than the movie.
Hell yeah, that shit was freaky.

Well, maybe they're just "debunking" the anti-Catholic "conspiracy" that the book is really about discovering? I mean, its not like they're going after the gosh-darned characters for being unrealistic or anything - they're just going and pointing out that the bigoted, hateful anti-Catholic message it sends (Your religion is based on a lie!) happens to be a lie - i.e., Christianity isn't based on lies, the book is!
Of course it's based upon a lie.

It's fiction.





"gosh-darned" hehe...

it's amazing how many people believe that it is based on fact. one of my flatmates, who's a bit of an idiot, insists that she believes everything in the book despite never having read it. one of my other flatmates is a religious studies MA and assures me that a lot of what is stated as fact in the book is based on theories from the fringe of the discipline and have rarely been given any credence by any respected academics in the field. the rest is pure fabrication.

Now some fucking asshat is insulting Dan Brown's person and character because of an assumption the asshat is making about "The Da Vinci Code" - that it is covertly fact instead of fiction.

Wasn't there some dude or two who said Brown plagerized the book from thier non-fiction book about Jesus having gotten it on with Mary M and having kids? I believe it was thrown out because one was 'non' fiction and one was fiction (in essense it would have meant that anyone doing a novel about WWII would be plagerizing WWII historians...)

Probably would have been more productive to go after the book that is supposed to be non-fiction, but as Kat pointed out-WHOLE lot more viewers going to watch the one named after the best-selling-book-turned-blockbuster-movie.

On dan brown's literary merit, I think A O Scott recently put it best in the Times:

"[...]Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence,[...] "

Now if Dan Brown had written a book about a conspiracy to keep Islam from being exposed as bunk (Muslims pay attention, this is just a hypothetical situation here) the majority of the world and General would wholeheartedly support Brown while dismissing the protesters as "More Barbaric Homicidal Terrorists."

Now if Dan Brown had written a book about a conspiracy to keep Islam from being exposed as bunk (Muslims pay attention, this is just a hypothetical situation here) the majority of the world and General would wholeheartedly support Brown while dismissing the protesters as "More Barbaric Homicidal Terrorists."


When american barbarians start being homicidal and put a fatwa on Mr. Brown, I'm sure we will.

When american barbarians start being homicidal and put a fatwa on Mr. Brown, I'm sure we will.

Don't worry, just mention that Dan Brown runs an abortion clinic and it'll happen soon enough :D

On dan brown's literary merit, I think A O Scott recently put it best in the Times:

"[...]Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence,[...] "
Ah, literary critics. Those who can't write to appeal to the masses critique.

Ah, literary critics. Those who can't write to appeal to the masses critique.

A O Scott isnt a literary critic.

A O Scott isnt a literary critic.
OK, so book critic turning video reviewer.

Ah, literary critics. Those who can't write to appeal to the masses critique.

I never understood the universal reverence for critics really. Mr. Blackwell highlights this point especially. An old fart who doesn't even wear dresses so why the fuck does anyone listen to his words on who's dressed good and dressed lousy?

I don't know where I heard it exactly, but it was once mentioned that book critics are nothing more than failed authors.

The only important thing is that AO Scott, regardless of his critical bona fides, made an extremely good point about the book.

Many people are debunking the Da Vinci Code because the author himself believes that the majority of what he wrote is true (with the exception of the characters/murder mystery, obviously).

There is at this moment, Eastern/Central, some bullshit show on Sci-Fi debunking the Da Vinci Code. A novel, a fictional book is being debunked as though it need be. I hope the following show debunks Green Eggs & Ham about how foxes don't talk and eggs and ham arn't naturally green.

One of the most ridiculous part of this show, I have seen exactly 1:30 of it, is that they are saying the book asserts itself as non-fiction and then debunking it based on their own assertions. Basically, they are debunking themselves. It is a sad state of affair when a bunch of pompous windbags get a one hour show so they can convince themselves that the Da Vinci Code isn't real under the guise of "debunking" the book.

I haven't read the book myself, but the author apparantly claims much of it is based on fact:
The Da Vinci Code is just a novel: why criticize it as if it were a history book?

People who ask this question usually have not read the page of The Da Vinci Code titled Fact, where the author, Dan Brown, asserts that «all descriptions of [..]documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate» and are based specifically on the fact that «in 1975 Paris’ Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments, known as Les Dossiers Secrets» which reveal the story of the Priory of Sion.

http://www.cesnur.org/2005/mi_02_03d.htm

And does it need to be said that the Priory of Sion is a well documented hoax?

Wasn't there some dude or two who said Brown plagerized the book from thier non-fiction book about Jesus having gotten it on with Mary M and having kids? I believe it was thrown out because one was 'non' fiction and one was fiction (in essense it would have meant that anyone doing a novel about WWII would be plagerizing WWII historians...)

Probably would have been more productive to go after the book that is supposed to be non-fiction, but as Kat pointed out-WHOLE lot more viewers going to watch the one named after the best-selling-book-turned-blockbuster-movie.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, is the book.
And in fact the case went to court and Brown won. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/04/07/uk.davinci.court/index.html

The best thing that has come from the entire brouhaha of the Da Vinci Code is the magnificent

"s m i t h y c o d e J a e i e x t o s t g p s a c g r e a m q w f k a d p m q z v"

On dan brown's literary merit, I think A O Scott recently put it best in the Times:

"[...]Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence,[...] "

Sounds like somebody is jelous.

I haven't read the book myself, but the author apparantly claims much of it is based on fact:


So?

The Blair Witch Project said it was true?

The fact the cover says NOVEL says you can pretty well dismiss the claims.

Many people are debunking the Da Vinci Code because the author himself believes that the majority of what he wrote is true (with the exception of the characters/murder mystery, obviously).

The world'll be better off if Dan Brown continues to be a best-selling author. Otherwise he'll be driven mad by failure and conviction in his own beliefs and ends up starting a new religion.

:D

Sounds like somebody is jelous.


No it doesn't...?

Sounds like AO Scott's taste in writing is in line with his taste in film, and that he's witty.

No it doesn't...?

Sounds like AO Scott's taste in writing is in line with his taste in film, and that he's witty.
I don't know how witty or even useful it is, though really. It's a very superficial observation that actually just says that he doesn't like a stylistic point. The last chapter of Ulysses doesn't have any punctuation-blasting Joyce for that wouldn't say as much about the book as it would about the reviewer. It's not a substantive criticism, really. It's just a forum-style snipe with about as much weight.

I'm not defending Brown, I've never read the book and don't really intend to-just not my thing-but that one quip is really nothing more than the grammar nazing that happens here on a daily basis when someone has nothing of substance to say.

I don't know how witty or even useful it is, though really. It's a very superficial observation that actually just says that he doesn't like a stylistic point. The last chapter of Ulysses doesn't have any punctuation-blasting Joyce for that wouldn't say as much about the book as it would about the reviewer. It's not a substantive criticism, really. It's just a forum-style snipe with about as much weight.

I'm not defending Brown, I've never read the book and don't really intend to-just not my thing-but that one quip is really nothing more than the grammar nazing that happens here on a daily basis when someone has nothing of substance to say.
The thing is that Scott and Brown inhabit two different literary worlds. Brown is a thriller writer, and a good one by all accounts. I haven't read it either, but my father-in-law, who never reads fiction, loved it and is reading another of Brown's books right now. (He doesn't believe it's factual, by the way.)

Scott is a more literary voice, and the literary types tend to sneer at the popular crowd. You can call it arrogance or jealousy of the popular crowd's sales or snobbery if you wish, but in the end it's really just a different set of values at play.

Personally, I'm generally a fan of the thrilling page-turner. I don't go into them looking for philosophical depth--just for a light read, much like I get from the Harry Potter books. If I want philosophical depth, I'll read Coetzee or someone like that.

I don't know how witty or even useful it is, though really. It's a very superficial observation that actually just says that he doesn't like a stylistic point. The last chapter of Ulysses doesn't have any punctuation-blasting Joyce for that wouldn't say as much about the book as it would about the reviewer. It's not a substantive criticism, really. It's just a forum-style snipe with about as much weight.

I'm not defending Brown, I've never read the book and don't really intend to-just not my thing-but that one quip is really nothing more than the grammar nazing that happens here on a daily basis when someone has nothing of substance to say.

Comparing Joyce to The Da Vinci Code is quite a stretch.

The latter is super-hyped pop fiction made into a lousy super-hyped movie.

I must admit, AO Scott must live in constant shame at the failure of his career and life and his worthless, dead-end job.

In all honesty though, its his job to be a sophisticated, honest critic, and he's very good at what he does.

I don't know how witty or even useful it is, though really. It's a very superficial observation that actually just says that he doesn't like a stylistic point. The last chapter of Ulysses doesn't have any punctuation-blasting Joyce for that wouldn't say as much about the book as it would about the reviewer. It's not a substantive criticism, really. It's just a forum-style snipe with about as much weight.

I'm not defending Brown, I've never read the book and don't really intend to-just not my thing-but that one quip is really nothing more than the grammar nazing that happens here on a daily basis when someone has nothing of substance to say.


You might want to read the book, or even some of his examples later in the film review.

Then you'd see that it was quite a fitting description, especially in context of all the nonsense hype surrounding the book.

Comparing Joyce to The Da Vinci Code is quite a stretch.

The latter is super-hyped pop fiction made into a lousy super-hyped movie.

I must admit, AO Scott must live in constant shame at the failure of his career and life and his worthless, dead-end job.

In all honesty though, its his job to be a sophisticated, honest critic, and he's very good at what he does.
I wasn't comparing Da Vinci Code to Joyce, I was saying that what was given was superficial and gave another example of how that would be applied. I in no way attempted to compare them qualitatively.

You might want to read the book, or even some of his examples later in the film review.

Then you'd see that it was quite a fitting description, especially in context of all the nonsense hype surrounding the book.
It tells me nothing other than a dislike for something stylistic. Tell me something about the actual storytelling, something other than a slam on his grammar and you might begin to tell me something about the book. Again-doesn't tell me anymore than the grammar nazi posts here tell me. Sorry man-it's a playground taunt more than it is a substantial comment on a book.

I wasn't comparing Da Vinci Code to Joyce, I was saying that what was given was superficial and gave another example of how that would be applied. I in no way attempted to compare them qualitatively.


I dont think that poking fun at the awkward sentences of the da vinci code is quite the same as pedantry regarding joyce's deliberate punctuation.

I dont think that poking fun at the awkward sentences of the da vinci code is quite the same as pedantry regarding joyce's deliberate punctuation.
Alright. Get back to me when you find something substantial to say about it.

It tells me nothing other than a dislike for something stylistic. Tell me something about the actual storytelling, something other than a slam on his grammar and you might begin to tell me something about the book. Again-doesn't tell me anymore than the grammar nazi posts here tell me. Sorry man-it's a playground taunt more than it is a substantial comment on a book.


You should consult the primary source:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/movies/18code.html

Well, maybe they're just "debunking" the anti-Catholic "conspiracy" that the book is really about discovering? I mean, its not like they're going after the gosh-darned characters for being unrealistic or anything - they're just going and pointing out that the bigoted, hateful anti-Catholic message it sends (Your religion is based on a lie!) happens to be a lie - i.e., Christianity isn't based on lies, the book is!

You know...the Davinci Code is fiction, but...

Well, the Bible went through a screening process. The church decided what writings to include and what writings to exclude. Then every single translation of the bible before the printing press was interpreted through the values of the person doing the translating. It's simple fact that the current accepted 'King James' version of the bible is not perfectly representative of the original writings hundreds of years ago.

And if you can't accept that without your belief in your religion being threatened, then I have to question how strong your faith really is anyway.

Maybe you should read the book 'Misquoting Jesus'.

Do these catholic protestors really think Jesus would want them to spend their time trying to force a work of fiction to be shut down and thrown out of theatres? No, he'd want them out doing charity work and helping their communities!! These protestors need to really think long and hard about their real motives and maybe put their actions in an iota of perspective.

There's been a constant barrage of these things on A&E and the Discovery Channel all the time ever since it was leaked it would become a movie.

All of them say the same shit.

Not just that, but there's also been a hell of a lot more Jesus stuff on those channels as well - where he grew up, if he could have a family, his relationship to his friends, yadda yadda yadda.