Books' Corner

Originally Posted by Kui

Yes it is an overhyped book. The question is to ask why? Part of it is marketing. The other part of it is that we as people are still looking out there for certain truths that perhaps was not found in places we hoped it would be. Perhaps this can be a wake up call for not only the Catholic Church but for all churches out there. What must we as a faith organization do to improve the empty void that so many people have in their lives? If we fail to improve on that, many will seek the truth out there somewhere else and accept Dan Brown's or any others' assertions as truth and we will have failed.

Frankly, I think there has been alot of OVER-reaction to what The DaVinci Code, work of FICTION, actually proposes. And frankly that ends up making me wonder what people are afraid of and how much of the truth has actually been hinted at or scratched by the book. You know the old "me thinkst the man doth protesteth too much...", or at least that's what pops into my head when I see "The Church" protesting and carrying on about a work of FICTION. Just tell me what people are afraid of!

And can we possibly explain what fiction is, at least in this case? Yes, Brown did some research, found out certain things and then wrote a novel loosely based on the stuff he researched. Alot of people do that, so to this point no one has been able to explain to me why this particular title has drawn such ire. I'm not Catholic, I don't have to trust what "The Church" tells its followers or forces its followers to believe, so maybe that's why I so enjoyed (and am currently re-enjoying) this title. Then there's Opus Dei demanding some sort of disclaimer...and a report I saw on TV showing us what Opus Dei members do. Over-reaction, I'm sorry.

And may I ask, why is it an absurd theory that Jesus was in fact a real man, and a jewish man, and was married? BTW, anyother question I've long held, where in the Bible does it say priests have to be celibate? that's something about "The Church" that I've always wondered about.

It is because Dan Brown has insisted that what he researched was an actual fact.

Originally Posted by Debs

And frankly that ends up making me wonder what people are afraid of and how much of the truth has actually been hinted at or scratched by the book.

Wondering if what you said IS FICTION might be truth huh??? Well what is it than? Fiction or truth??

It's obviously a work of fiction that has enough element of truth to it that it's bothering people who either fear what the truth may be or....??? I don't know, you tell me why people fear and despise this novel, that's what I've been trying to figure out since the first time friends of mine spoke of it and I started to read about it on the Web. If it's just a novel with all made up "stuff" in it, why the uproar? Why do I go to the bookstore to The DaVinci Code display--which I've been doing b/c I'm reading up on it as much as I can before the movie comes out--and find as many books trying to debunk it as there are books supporting it. What are people so afraid of? So now you tell me...simply a work of fiction loosely based on some research, or it there too much of the truth being revealed in a simple novel and people are disturbed by that?

Originally Posted by Kui

It is because Dan Brown has insisted that what he researched was an actual fact.

And why can't it be? Where is the real history of this man and this time period? The Bible is a piece of literature with its chapters coming from many sources, which, if I may go so far as to say, all had a vested interest in being heard.

Originally Posted by Debs

And may I ask, why is it an absurd theory that Jesus was in fact a real man, and a jewish man, and was married? BTW, anyother question I've long held, where in the Bible does it say priests have to be celibate? that's something about "The Church" that I've always wondered about.

There is nothing in the bible that says priests must be celibate. That too is something that I have come to question myself. From what I gather there have been many reasons for this. The Catholic Church has taken a position that celibacy are both thelogical and practical. I'm Protestant so I'm am critical about a few factors of clerical celibacy. There was at one time when priests could get married. Such unions came into direct conflict with the Church until Pope Gregory VI put an end to this. Apparently men of the cloth had ignored the interests of the parrishes and dioceses because of their second loyalty to a spouse. There were occasions dealing with property in which spouse inherited land titles of the parrish which the priest had served.
With biblical references, perhaps you might want to look in the Gospels (Luke 18:28-30, Matthew 19:27-30; Mark 10:20-21). It has implied that clergy should be married to the church. It can be interpreted in many ways. You may find the writings of Paul interesting I Corinthians 7:7-8;32-35.
Now you can come to your own conclusions at what these passages might be saying. All I'm saying is that this is the position of the Catholic Church for whatever reasons why.
I've also already mentioned that books including the bible and koran should be scrutinized as I think these two books have had their heyday of hype and do so til this day. That doesnt mean we dismiss these works as absolute truth or absolute lies. We humans are pretty good at lying and even better at believing lies. If the bible is a lie why would I be equally foolish to then believe that the Da Vince code as truth? I think we believe only what we want to and everything else is considered a lie. Gee I guess we're all friggin liars than!

Originally Posted by Debs

It's obviously a work of fiction that has enough element of truth to it that it's bothering people who either fear what the truth may be or....??? I don't know, you tell me why people fear and despise this novel, that's what I've been trying to figure out since the first time friends of mine spoke of it and I started to read about it on the Web. If it's just a novel with all made up "stuff" in it, why the uproar? Why do I go to the bookstore to The DaVinci Code display--which I've been doing b/c I'm reading up on it as much as I can before the movie comes out--and find as many books trying to debunk it as there are books supporting it. What are people so afraid of? So now you tell me...simply a work of fiction loosely based on some research, or it there too much of the truth being revealed in a simple novel and people are disturbed by that?

Let me try to put this in context. I think we agree and share some points and perhaps disagree on others.
Say my mother who I grew up with is IMO a virtuos person from my personal point of view. I would have the belief that she was a good person who could do no wrong. Then someone with questionable research practices like Dan Brown comes bringing all that I believed in my mother crashing down on my head with "elements of the truth" that she was licentious and what not. Better yet write a book and make a movie about it. Gee how would I feel? Even if it was actually true I think any person wouldn't appreciate this. It would be hard for me to believe Dan Brown's assertion over that of my own view of my mother. If it was false... yes I could perhaps ignore the work. In most cases people react instead. You see org like Opus Dei may view such an accusation from Dan Brown's book in the same context as I have made with this example. True or not Opus Dei didnt appreciate this. Of course more attention and interest has been brought forward because of Opus Dei's challenge to Dan Brown's book. Can you balme them in light of this context that I've brought forward??

Perhaps it is in my own Lutheran upbringing that I distrust and/or disagree with alot of what "The Church" tells its congregants they must do...and believe. Little or no free thought in alot of it.

Remember I teach in a Catholic school, so while I am Lutheran, the Church teachings, writings, decrees come my way, even to the point where the preseident of the school, a Sister of Mercy, sent us an email with an attachment that was their stance in the immigration controversy. The tone I got from it was "this is how you should think as well." The local diocese, of which this school is and yet is not affiliated (we are NOT a Diocesan school) has what I consider to be some outlandish disqualifications in a health insurance plan we're now taking part in. One thing that has been cut is...well, considerign it's "The Church" that's involved why was I surprised...birth control pills. And yet there are Sisters who take them and have been taking them for years b/c of medical problems.

I'm probably just babbling now, Kui-ster, b/c I feel we do agree on points and disagree on others as we always do, but I'm also trying to get across some of the roots of my questioning of "The Church" and its wealth, power and teachings. Uneducated heretic that I am, yet the Theology classes come to me for information and guidance.

Did The DaVinci Code shake any of my beliefs or teachings that had been passed on to me? Actually...no. Do I take any of it as truth? No, I take it as a premise to be considered, and I take that stance b/c there is so much in "the Church's" past that I as the uneducated heretic find oddly veiled. I don't judge, I just absorb--ask my roomie b/c I drive her crazy with my insistance about watching various documentaries on the Discover Channel and elsewhere, anything that digs into the curiosities and dilemmas in history, I'll watch it.

Originally Posted by Kui

You see org nice Opus Dei may view such an accusation from Dan Brown's book in the same context as I have made with this example. True or not Opus Dei didnt appreciate this. Of course more attention and interest has been brought forward because of Opus Dei's challenge to Dan Brown's book. Can you balme them in light of this context that I've brought forward??

Well, again, considering Opus Dei's strange history and secrecy, I can't blame them.

But just like the authors...or 2 of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (which oddly enough is on my library shelf in NON-fiction, in fact in the French history section) who suddenly 3 months before the DVC movie was to open decided that now was the time to say their work had been plagiarised, my actual view of Opus Dei's demand for a disclaimer is that they are riding on the coattails of the movie. Why didn't Baigent and Leigh come forward as soon as DVC hit the book racks? That's what would have made sense to me. And I am going to try to read Holy Blood, Holy Grail this summer, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Originally Posted by Debs

Perhaps it is in my own Lutheran upbringing that I distrust and/or disagree with alot of what "The Church" tells its congregants they must do...and believe. Little or no free thought in alot of it.
Uneducated heretic that I am, yet the Theology classes come to me for information and guidance.

You the heretic? I'm the Latter Day Saint and us mormons are the heretics Dont be stealing any of our titles now now. LOL! You can be my second wife sometime. If not maybe your daughter at 12! LOL!

Originally Posted by Debs

Did The DaVinci Code shake any of my beliefs or teachings that had been passed on to me? Actually...no. Do I take any of it as truth? No, I take it as a premise to be considered, and I take that stance b/c there is so much in "the Church's" past that I as the uneducated heretic find oddly veiled. I don't judge, I just absorb--ask my roomie b/c I drive her crazy with my insistance about watching various documentaries on the Discover Channel and elsewhere, anything that digs into the curiosities and dilemmas in history, I'll watch it.

At which I totally agree what I had highlighted in this quote. "Considered" yes but for all of us to think of it as truth, we all should do a little more research as well. Is Dan Brown telling the truth? I dont know. It is poor for any of us to read Dan Brown and yet fail to read and/or understand the other side (bible or koran or other) and vice-versa. I'll agree with that. Like I said, it should be a wakeup call to the churches and for they to do a better job at being consistent in their preaching and to actually explain what the heck it is they're supposed to do a bit better. No wonder Dan Brown's book is a blockbuster and a hit.

Originally Posted by Kui

You the heretic? I'm the Latter Day Saint and us mormons are the heretics Dont be stealing any of our titles now now. LOL! You can be my second wife sometime.

You're "one of them"???? You gonna come knocking on my door?? My standard answer is "i'm a Lutheran who teahces in a Catholic school, do you really want to discuss religion with me?"

Originally Posted by Debs

And why can't it be? Where is the real history of this man and this time period? The Bible is a piece of literature with its chapters coming from many sources, which, if I may go so far as to say, all had a vested interest in being heard.

there are many historical documents and studies of a man called Joshua as the man who lived under Pontius Pilatus dominion of Palestine, under the emperor Tiberius.

If the Christian religion was a certainty, where would be the difference between believers and non believers?

Plus, it's not that people has a particular interest in Dan Brown, please, let's not give up to the conspiracy scenario, to the secret masonry everywhere. it's just that issues about religion , and christian religion among the others, cause enormous debate. it happened for several movies, it will always happen.

But Dan Brown's work is not accurate. One of the living persons mentioned inside the novel, an italian engeneer who worked at some da Vinci's paintings with x ray, said that the use of his study by Dan Brown has been totally manipulated and it's full of inaccuracies. He said in a tv show few weeks ago that Dan Brown didn't even bother to contact him directly, just took an article and used it for the novel. The real aim of DB was to show that Da Vinci painted something totally different under the final painting, somthing related to the mistery in the novel, while the italian engeneer showed with some others art hystorians that the iconography hidden under the final painting was not different from any other Da Vinci's work.. Just a glimpse of the few accuracy used to write this novel

Originally Posted by Debs

You're "one of them"???? You gonna come knocking on my door?? My standard answer is "i'm a Lutheran who teahces in a Catholic school, do you really want to discuss religion with me?"

No we're just after your youngins to marry! Dont you know Jesus after dead and buried went to the Americas to teach the injuns bout god? Em Injuns be known as Lamanites and us Jaredites went and smote them cause they lost their christian tradition. This all happen in like the 1840's when the descendants of Jared came across the blue atlantic and through the purple mountin majesty to claim the blessed land of zion we call YOUTAAHH! LOL!

Originally Posted by Giovanni

. The real aim of DB was to show that Da Vinci painted something totally different under the final painting, somthing related to the mistery in the novel, while the italian engeneer showed with some others art hystorians that the iconography hidden under the final painting was not different from any other Da Vinci's work.. Just a glimpse of the few accuracy used to write this novel [/b]

Which seems to me to be the difference between those who write fiction and those who write nonfiction. Novelists, unless I'm misunderstanding their purpose for existing, are at liberty to twist facts, if they even pretend to base their work on facts. They don't have to, they write fiction. Brown took an actual report and said "Hmmm, someone has actually tried this technique, now what if we take it one step further? What if....?" and off you go writing a novel. If we're going to start pointing fingers at every novelist who makes up a street name as a location in an actual city, we're going to take the joy out of reading a book for pleasure.

I guess the point we're coming to here is that some people enjoy Brown's style and his books--I do--and some don't. Berate him for sloppy research or for taking his research and then doing a "what if" with it, the book we're talking about has sold 40 million copies, so it has been successful for some reason. Someone decided it was good enough to make a movie out of it. If "The Church" decides to boycott it, oh goodie, another close minded act as far as I, a heretic, am concerned!!!

Debs, i was the first to award DB of his credits.

But we must understand that religion isn't a subject like all the others, and there must be a little more respect, even though everyone is entitled to write fictions.

For ex. if you write the Pope is a burglar, you are free to do it, even though there are some borders over which you can be charged of libel. But guarantee you'll offend many people.

You speak about the Church as the symbol of intolerance, but watch how the Muslims coped with the cartoons on Mohammed. The evil Church tolerates things that many others won't tolerate. Nobody wants to burn books, far from it. I'll always be a defendant of the freedom in all ways. But we have the right to criticise, which is the other side of the same freedom.

Plus, i think it's very cheap to blame the Evil Chruch with the usual arguments. The Church, with his flaws, has managed to preserve some principles through 2000 years. I don't agree with all of them, but they are some basic values, that our modern society ignores.It has nonetheless evolved through the years, slower than civil society, but it has. Other religions still hold the same principles of 1000 years ago.


Coming back to Da vinci Code, you write a controversial book, about one of the most important characters of human history. It's natural that it will attract criticism. I don't think DB is unhappy with this. The more they talk and talk about his book, the more he sells copies.

I don't think the " he sold 40 mill copies, he must be good for some reason" logic is really strong and argumentative..How many did Mein Kampf sell? How much tv share do some crappy tv shows? How many albums do some plastic pop artists sell, compared to masters from the past? Quality must be estimated individually, even though this book's success can't be ignored.

To end my post, i don't hold a grudge with Dan Brown, i think he's a good writer. But i also think he's a very sharp person, him and his agents, and for some reasons i think he tries to fool the audience, playing an unfair game. He goes along the edge between a fictitious story and a serious study. In the second hypotesis, i think he deserves all the criticism possible, because his studies are very close to fantasy.