What is the fuss?
Critics say its poorly written, and inaccurate. For instance Kate complained about his "interpretation" of the Last Supper that one of the apostles was a woman.
Its a work of fiction, its a novel or have I missed something. He's taken a few bits and pieces stretched stuff and produced an entertaining read. Angels and Demons is equally entertaining. Now I suspect its the subject matter that entertains because his other two novels Deception Point and Digital Fortress are fairly dull.
I have no way of knowing whether Jesus was married and frankly nor does anyone else. I really can't see why the Roman Catholic church is getting so hot and bothered about it. Its a novel..... if your faith can be hurt by a novel.......
Equally its a novel so how can anyone say ooh I know about Da Vinci, The Templars, religion, opus dei from reading it. Beats me.
Perhaps more interesting was the prog on Channel 4 called The Da Vinci Detective. It was about Dr Merachio Serachini's search for Leonardo's Masterpiece The Battle of Anghiari and the work Serachini did on The Adoration of the Magi. It was an engrossing couple of hours. I'd love to know if the Anghiari was actually hidden by Vasari in the Palazzo Vecchio. Lets hope Serachini can prove it.
5 comments:
Well we agree for once!!! I couldn't figure why the fuss over a work of fiction. But I did think that all Dans books were rather good (gonna go and check what the dull two were about now)
This is the only Dan Brown I've read so far - it was entertaining, fast-paced but I could already picture the film as I was reading it.
I'm going to see the film asap and I read one of the factual spin-offs examining the claims in the book which was really interesting. I wish I'd seen that TV documentary though
I haven't read the book, although Keith has, but I am intrigued enough to go and see the film.
I did see the channel 4 prog the other night, though, and also thought it was very interesting.
Pete echoes many when he tells us the Da Vinci Code is fiction. This is not an accurate description of the book, however. More accurately, the book falls into the category of historical fiction. Historical fiction interlaces the real world of history with an imaginative fictional world. Authors working in this genre often use it to fill in the gaps of history. Our understanding of history is often sketchy and skeletal. Historical fiction enables us to put flesh on the bones of history, to bring historical characters to life. The critics of the Da Vinci Code are simply pointing out that the historical aspects of this piece of historical fiction are woefully inaccurate--there is no Priory of Sion, Leonardo is misrepresented, Constantine and the Council of Nicea are misrepresented, the Gnostic Gospels are interpreted wrongly, etc. Why is it that so many people respond to the critics with this claim that the book is fiction when it is so obviously historical fiction? Shall we simply consign Leonardo himself to the mists of our imagination ... ?
Hi Anonymous
I wouldn't read the Da Vinci code as historical fiction whereas I would Ellis Peter's Brother Cadfael novels and the Stephen - Matilda conflict.
Brown has taken some historical facts, lots of innuendo and made lots of distortions to make a rollicking good read.
Whether Jesus had children we don't know the bible never says.
I once read that something could be good fiction but bad Science Fiction if the science is inaccurate
The same is, i suppose, true of historical fiction.
Leonardo? frankly the attention has brought him much more into public awareness. making us realise what a great man he was.
Post a Comment