Da Vinci Code - Page 2

I have no idea what is going on here, but I will clear up what I was ACTUALLY saying in my first posting.

NO I was not asking if the romantic part of the novel was true.....I knew it was "entertainment"--what I asked around (friends, family etc) was if the two main characters get together in the end...people I asked said "yes, kinda"--so I stopped reading the book-- as I said in my first posting I can't handle the whole romantic stuff in books. NO I did not want to know about the "historical" facts--I am sure I can study/research myself.....I wasn't asking--but Thank you Fireflies for taking the time to explain. But really it does seem you mis-read what I was trying to say (or I mis-communicated?).

As for the last posting--elenorajane, I wasn't asking about a supplement of "accumulated facts"-- I was simply saying I think there is one available (but I am not sure hence the question mark)--as people were discussing if the 'facts" were true.........

I will again state my opinion: I stopped reading the book, I can't handle the romantic twist where the two main characters get together--whether it is true to life or fiction--I can't handle it-- that is/was my opinion right there!

I do not know, if the book is "factual" or "historical"--( I am not asking if it is) and really if I wanted to know I would look it up myself--or post a question if I wasn't sure.

decius says its all factual... so i believe him... hes my hero!

I couldn't get past the second chapter. The writing was kind of flat and stagnant to me. Didn't peak my interest. I tried to pick it up again a few months after that and give it another try and didn't even bother reading the first chapter completely again.

Personally I think the hype on the book ramped it up beyond what it probably should be as far as the skill in the writing goes, but after reading this thread I'll dig it out of the box its in now and give it one more try and then report back.

I loved the book too. Very well-written so many people think it\s a fact, not a fiction book.

i agree with wyote. there are so many historical "facts" that are exaggerated to the point of almost being comical. i didn't completely hate it, though. it was very entertaining, and there were some interesting things in it.

have any of you heard anything about the movie?

quote:

---

have any of you heard anything about the movie?

---

Saw a pre-view with King Kong. Looks like its taking itself very seriously.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/

I read this book now, even read angels and demons first, which was good but much more simple.

One thing I really liked in the Da Vinci Code was the number Pi or whatever, I'd never heard of that.

awful ending.

thank u for bringing up the davinci code book.
i was rerally interested by reading that book. neglecting the amount of critics that the book have faced from plagiarising and inaccurate presentation of facts but i wouldd still say my poinit of view. first of all the book is merely presenting someone's point of view considering the life of jesus christ. the only thing i have to say if the facts were true that the author would have presented or attached some documents or sources from which he came up with the idea that jesus was married to mary. (that if he was right). second thing speaking about the priory of sion and niccea i am quite sure that the stated dates are totally incorrect. i just wanted to see some based facts .

The Da Vinci Code is gr8

I read the book and thought it was a very good murder mystery type book, very enjoyable. The film was a bit of a let down because it didn't fit my imaginings of the book.

Another good story that is on this sort of theme is a movie called "The body" I can't remember who's in it but really clever. Anybody else seen it?

***SPOILER***

I've skim read this book. Dan Brown seems to have the ability of keeping you in suspense. And I sensed this. I was more keen to try and get behind the story to the fecats though.

It seems the real basis of the book is of another book, not explicitly cited, 'holy blood, holy grail'. The book is based on documents found or deposited in the 1960s/70s in a library. This sets out the order of dynasties, of sects going back to the knights of Templars, and a order called the Priory of Sion. This relates Leonardo Da Vinci to the master of the sect during the latter years of his life.

What the authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail do is to extend their research to found an hypothesis; that is that the holy grail is in fact the blood line of Mary Magdelene who fled to France with Jesus' baby.

This is doubted by almost all historians; and even the author of the original texts, who claimed to be the master of the Priory of Sion at the time disputes. Dan Brown seemingly has missed this claim.

To blame Dan Brown of lying is wrong; it is a work of fiction. But we must remember that he claims at the start that all facts, ;places, orders, etc are true and accurate. As is normally the case; this is false and most probably the statements are wrong also.

As we lead into decoding the secrets; the real essence of the book; we detract to Da Vinci and his lifestyle. To me, Da Vinci was smart, and really believed in an orderly universe, which had fundamental forms but most of all processes, that could be seen and understood specifically and generally so that we could understand "her'" doings. At times serious, at times a joker, his works have undergone much debate. Th eLast supper is a wreck; the painting was actually described as a blur only 20 years after being painted; since then it has undergone major reworkings and damage.

However, I see some things; I reckon the painting to the right of Jesus is clearly a woman; and there are other clues; although the supposed 'v' between Jesus and the Magdalene that marks a womb I think is a product of wishful thinking.

On the whole, a good work of fiction; but the revelation is more of a joke than to be taken seriously. People are potty about conspiracies.