The Da Vinci Code -- Why is this book so popular?

[Jack]

Not anymore. But they were for a while prior to the advent of better produced and far more irreverent shows like South Park. They hit and peaked quickly as a fad. You must have been looped elsewhere at the time.

[tman_ndsu08]

The television show was probably never that big of a hit. It was on MTV in the early 90's during late night.

The movie, on the other hand, was hilarious though I don't know how well it did.

It had Bruce Willis, Demi Moore, and a cameo from David Letterman.

[shunyadragon]

Good point.
The Harry Potter phenomenon boggles me as well. Is it some sort of bandwagon effect?

I will agree that the Da Vinci Code is shallow with cardboard charactors and in reality nothing new in plot or revealing information, and not much entertainment value.

Actually I am Harry Potter fan for the entertainment value, but not a serious piece of literature.

[Technosoul]

For one thing I will rent the movie because I like the actor in it.

The thing is that he wrote a fictional mystery book, but he did some research that involved some real paintings by a famous artist, and so people can read the book, and then they could look up the paintings and find the "secret codes". So fiction is mixed in with sort of "real life" clues that you can find your self in those paintings and whatnot. The movie version will do the visual part for you.

That is what made the book an interesting "twist" from your normal types of fictional mystery novels, later some other books were published that were not designed to be fictional, and those books or documentive movies are not as cleaver, in fact a little dull.

Also the book raised a few eyeblows from real religions that never "saw" such clues and so they had to get out comments about the book which in turn raised more interest in it.

I think that was Mary sitting at the right hand of Jesus in the painting of the last supper. And hey, no wine glass - why would our famous artist leave that out when it is such an important part of religious rituals?

When I was a kid I wondered why all those saints and angels were naked, was that another way the artist thumbed his nose at religious morality right under their noses? Hmm?

I think the writer of that mystery book (listed as fictional) was one smart cookie, hats off to him and his book - two thumbs up (but not to my nose).

[m5lange1]

To the literature critics. Don't be a snob. Its not poorly written and it is fast paced entertainment. Is it worthy of a true classic??? who cares.... we are talking about what sells as entertainment here. The classic art and comercial successes are seldom in tandem.

To the content critics. Its a fiction novel. Sheesh. So Dan Brown tries to tie it in to some historic stuff. It adds to the story. Sort of like a joke being just a bit funnier if it actually happened than if you know its a joke.Lots of people have tried to boast some truth to their fiction to boost sales.

If it offends your gormet taste in literature... ignore it but get over it. Commercial successes will be something that you must grumble into your coffee about for the rest of your life if you are that kind of person.

If it threatens your faith, I suggest you never pick up a copy of the National enquirer or you may start having to wear those little tin foil hats to prevent alien posession.

[Morgan_Freeman]

I think that was Mary sitting at the right hand of Jesus in the painting of the last supper. And hey, no wine glass - why would our famous artist leave that out when it is such an important part of religious rituals?

Both false. You are obviously one of the people who have been taken in by this book's lies.

[Morgan_Freeman]

To the literature critics. Don't be a snob. Its not poorly written and it is fast paced entertainment. Is it worthy of a true classic??? who cares.... we are talking about what sells as entertainment here. The classic art and comercial successes are seldom in tandem.

I am hardly a "snob" when it comes to literature. If you ask me, most of the "classics" and other books worshiped by the literati are pure crap.

To the content critics. Its a fiction novel. Sheesh. So Dan Brown tries to tie it in to some historic stuff.

Dan Brown explicitly states in the intro that everything in the book is factual. That makes him a liar.

If it offends your gormet taste in literature... ignore it but get over it. Commercial successes will be something that you must grumble into your coffee about for the rest of your life if you are that kind of person.

The only reason this book is such a huge success is because it breeds lies. People worship it like it's some kind of antithesis to christianity.

If it threatens your faith, I suggest you never pick up a copy of the National enquirer or you may start having to wear those little tin foil hats to prevent alien posession.

I'm an atheist, so that's hardly possible.

[tman_ndsu08]

Dan Brown explicitly states in the intro that everything in the book is factual. That makes him a liar.

Oh please.

The writers/directors of the movie Fargo stated that the movie was based on actual events when that was not true.


It's a motif.

[underbear1]

I enjoyed reading it on the way to Hartford last weekend.Not so much about the Mary Magdalene theory, but the sublimnation of a patriarchal Church, deleting, debasing, and forbiding any reference to the Sacred Female. That is much more factual, and the Christian church co-opting other beliefs, that they couldn't completely destroy.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Not so much about the Mary Magdalene theory, but the sublimnation of a patriarchal Church, deleting, debasing, and forbiding any reference to the Sacred Female. That is much more factual, and the Christian church co-opting other beliefs, that they couldn't completely destroy.

Actually, it's completely made up. I see you were taken in as well.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Oh please.

The writers/directors of the movie Fargo stated that the movie was based on actual events when that was not true.

It's a motif.

There's a BIG difference between the two. Fargo does not have a historical context. The Da Vinci code does. It was not a motif.

Here is what Dan Brown wrote in the intro:
"all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"

[tman_ndsu08]

Come on.

Accurate... according to him.


That says nothing about anything objectively.