The Da Vinci Code

[nicobam]

How much of the Da Vinci code would you say could be facts or is the whole thing bull.

[iansales]

There must be thousands of books and documentaries available which sift fact from fiction in The Da Vinci Code. They will tell you what exactly is fact, and what isn't...

In a nutshell, however... pretty much most of the book is fiction. The Priory of Sion was a scam invented by three Frenchmen in the 1960s. They also made up its fake history. There is no known link between Rosslyn and the Templars. The Holy Grail meaning Christ's bloodline is only a theory, proposed in The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail (the authors of which tried suing Brown for plagiarism recently).

Even though The Da Vinci Code is a novel, Brown has insisted in interviews that it is based on historical fact... despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Kaotic_Writer]

the da vinci code was great but i doubt that very much of it is truth

[Rosemary]

I only glimpsed through the first few pages and a few in the middle and decided that it wasn't the book for me...

I didn't even like his style of writing...

[Paradox 99]

Some of the parts about the early church, such as Constantine's role is pretty sound. Some of the titbits about the symbology is also fact.
However, none of it is new - it's all been told before, but each time it's told it gets a little more sensationalised.

[carrie221]

Originally Posted by iansales

There must be thousands of books and documentaries available which sift fact from fiction in The Da Vinci Code. They will tell you what exactly is fact, and what isn't...

In a nutshell, however... pretty much most of the book is fiction. The Priory of Sion was a scam invented by three Frenchmen in the 1960s. They also made up its fake history. There is no known link between Rosslyn and the Templars. The Holy Grail meaning Christ's bloodline is only a theory, proposed in The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail (the authors of which tried suing Brown for plagiarism recently).

Even though The Da Vinci Code is a novel, Brown has insisted in interviews that it is based on historical fact... despite all evidence to the contrary.

I think parts of the book could be fact but I am not sure. It is a fictional book though so... it is not made to be taken as true.

The priory of sion last I heard may be true again, on dateline or something right after the movie came out ran a special on it and there was more evidence that it may be true.

[jof]

I went into ASDA and i saw the DaVinci code (this was after i read it) and i also saw something like 7/8 books supporting it, such as uncracking the DaVinci Code, the DaVinci Codes Code...etc.

I think the stuff about the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei is quite true but embelished.

[Patrick Mahon]

What I liked about the Da Vinci Code was the fact that it took one of the most well-known stories in the world, took a number of conspiracy theories that surround that story, and wove them together using the basic premise that the Roman Catholic church has historically not always told the truth if it happened to contradict the religious dogma of the moment.

To some extent, it doesn't matter how many of the conspiracy theories are debunked, because those who accept this premise will always presume that any debunking is the work of the church.

As a way to encourage controversy - which sells books - he couldn't have done much better!

[orionsixwings]

Originally Posted by nicobam

How much of the Da Vinci code would you say could be facts or is the whole thing bull.

Everything about the Catholic church and Opus Dei is a known fact.

[Ptar]

It's historical fiction, period.

Are parts of it true? Sure. Bram Stoker's Dracula is also peppered with truths. Should we worry about Count Dracula and his minions? Dracul is actually Romanian meaning Devil. There's even debate that Stoker based his Dracul after Vlad the Impaler. Hmm...what better way to spark some interest than to take a footnote in history and write a book! People would eat it up! And they have...

"Even though The Da Vinci Code is a novel, Brown has insisted in interviews that it is based on historical fact... despite all evidence to the contrary." Wow, now there's a marketing ploy! Well done Mr. Brown, it seems to have worked! Take a simple book interview and turn it into a powerful marketing tool!

I actually have friends that won't read it because of the 'message it's sending out to the people. It's turning people from the church!'

Amazing. It's only a book...but then, so is the Bible...<dramatic pause>

Peter

[manephelien]

Parts of it are definitely true, such as the way the Catholic church persecuted people who believed differently, particularly any beliefs that empowered women (it's okay to worship the Virgin Mary, because most women won't stay, and don't want to remain, virgin forever, at least not if they want to have children) in the way that many pagan beliefs do.

Even if Jesus and Mary Magdalene did have children together, that would mean nothing, as 2000 years and 100 generations down the line, it's all diluted anyway. Might as well claim descendancy from Alexander the Great.

I've read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and it certainly makes you think, no matter how you feel about the issues involved. I'm all for demystifying religious dogma, as it's all a set-up to keep the unruly mobs in check. I've always found the Christian idea of Jesus as a shepherd and the believers as a flock of sheep particularly frightening. Sheep are rather stupid animals, they follow the leader, shepherd or sheepdog and do as they're told.

[ElJayDee]

The biggest flaw of the Da Vinci Code is the completely irrelevant pandering to politically correct feminism. If as Brown avows, it is as much about the Magdalen's bloodline as Jesus', then he should have noted that the maternal bloodline is significant, not the paternal. He should have followed through the daughters of the bloodline but then the rest of the book would be irrelevant.
He should have left this out.

[jackokent]

I don't think it mattered that it wasn't true (or wasn't all true). I loved the way Dan Brown orchestrated such a massive debate. I think that's genious.

What wasn't genious however was his actual writing. What a pity he didn't put the same effort into that part of his developement as he did with causing a scandal.

[ElJayDee]

Originally Posted by Ptar

It's historical fiction, period.

Are parts of it true? Sure. Bram Stoker's Dracula is also peppered with truths. Should we worry about Count Dracula and his minions? Dracul is actually Romanian meaning Devil. There's even debate that Stoker based his Dracul after Vlad the Impaler. Hmm...what better way to spark some interest than to take a footnote in history and write a book! People would eat it up! And they have...

Peter

I agree with what you say and I know I am being pedantic but I would like to elaborate on Dracula.
Dracul is Romanian for Dragon and Dracula is son of, or little Dragon. Vlad "The Impaler" Dracula was the son of Vlad II Dracul. Check it out in Wikipedia, very enlightening.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by ElJayDee

I agree with what you say and I know I am being pedantic but I would like to elaborate on Dracula.
Dracul is Romanian for Dragon and Dracula is son of, or little Dragon. Vlad "The Impaler" Dracula was the son of Vlad II Dracul. Check it out in Wikipedia, very enlightening.

And to carry it even further on this tangent: Yes, Stoker did indeed base his character on Vlad Dracula; did quite a bit of research about him, in fact. Then he blended it with folklore he'd picked up from books about the region, and such, and also added some things he took from Le Fanu's "Carmilla" and Polidori's "The Vampyre" ..... But Vlad was hardly a footnote in history, being one of the more infamous characters in histories of Stoker's time. He was also a fascinating individual; very complex....