The Da Vinci Code

[j$]

sig

Hey, I take it you liked American Gods? I'm a huge Sandman fan, but Neverwhere came off like a cheap Crighton novel, so I haven't been too crazy about checking out his other books.

I liked the concept of Neverwhere - tube stations anthropomorphised - I guess you could argue that American Gods takes that situation and transfers it to an American setting. There was a real sense of Clive Barker (in scale and ambition) about it. Flawed, in my opinion.

Neil Gaiman is however a fantastic short story writer. Really damn good. Check out his collection (oh damn what's it called? 'Smoke and Mirrors' something like that)

J$

[j$]

Da Vinci Code

I had difficulty distinguishing this from the Bible Code, frankly.

j$

[Freudian Slip]

I'm refusing to read Da Vinci Code on principle: namely, the principle that I have every faith it's terrible and the sort of trite filth that people read because they like clever things and they like to feel clever. I'd rather snuggle up to a dystopia novel than this, dumbed-down conspiracy nut shit written for the masses disguised as something worthy of my dollars.
Then, I haven't read it, and if I did read it I'd probably jizz all over it and become much like those I hate for jizzing all over it.

I don't really understand what you meant by the first statement(s). How does the mere act of reading someone else's ideas "make" YOU feel "clever"? The only "central truth" I've ever found in reading the words and opinions of others is that there's a bunch of stuff I haven't read yet.

Are you saying that the only way to measure the abyss is to fall into it?

"Cultish Devotion" indicates mindlessness, the investing of "self" into another persons beliefs to the exclusion of your own. Whether we're talking about government, religion or any other topic you might care to insert in the sentence.

Terrorism, on ANY level, is, to me, an example of mindlessness. The acceptance of a single belief to the exclusion of the value of the life of the "believer" and removal of value of any person, faith, government or people who do not share that belief. (Which is what makes it so dangerous) Worse, that "religion" and "faith" is often used to support the concept. "Rationalizing" it-- making it "justafiable"and, most frightening of all, "honorable". It allows people to kill and destroy based on the assertion that their beliefs are inherently more valuable than those (beliefs or lives) held by anyone who opposes them.

Sidenote-- I enjoy novels of dsytopian societies and alternate views, too.

Fahrenheit 451 was always a favorite-- I also enjoy the implicit irony in the number of times that book has been "edited" (Which Bradbury himself comments on in one of the later editions.)

To "Caravan Ray", congratulations on the birth of your first child. I know a boy who is named "Hercules" ( doesn't look a thing like him.*winks*) Name your child anything you care to, allow then to become whoever they *are* regardless of title or moniker. Does a person become a name or does a name become a person? (Guess it all depends on who you ask.)

[erik]

I'm refusing to read Da Vinci Code on principle: namely, the principle that I have every faith it's terrible and the sort of trite filth that people read because they like clever things and they like to feel clever. I'd rather snuggle up to a dystopia novel than this, dumbed-down conspiracy nut shit written for the masses disguised as something worthy of my dollars.
Then, I haven't read it, and if I did read it I'd probably jizz all over it and become much like those I hate for jizzing all over it.

Hey Marcus, I know what you mean.

[c hack]

I liked the concept of Neverwhere - tube stations anthropomorphised -

Me too -- it really made me want to go to London. And it was well-written and everything. But after I finished it, I felt the same as when I finish a Harry Potter book -- kinda empty.

Neil Gaiman is however a fantastic short story writer. Really damn good. Check out his collection (oh damn what's it called? 'Smoke and Mirrors' something like that)

Read 'em. I agree. Troll Bridge and Murder Mysteries are some of the best short stories ever (well, in fantasy at least -- he's no Hemingway or Carver).

[Freudian Slip]

Hey Marcus, I know what you mean.

Good-- Explain it to me.

BTW-- I have no interest in what Marcus chooses to read (or ignore).

I AM curious, however, about the conclusions he presented. What *I* saw amongst the comments he made was a statement which suggested that if he (in this instance) "read" something he despised, that purported beliefs that were different from his own, he could easily "become" that which he "hated".

[Eric Y.]

He will go far in Hollywood.

I've heard it posited that he wrote the book only to sell the movie rights, that is to say, he really didn't really care about making it well written as much as he wanted to make it popular.

sadly, this is true about way too many people these days. and the world in which we live seems to encourage it. stuff that actually means something is ignored, and crap that has no point other than to try to gain popularity and make money (whether it's music, movies, books, whatever) is what actually DOES become popular. it's like a self-fulfilling prophesy of doom for us as a society.

[Rabid Garfunkel]

Holy crap, I drop out for a couple of days and boom, I'm actually engaged in conversations Too funny!

j$: first read thought it was a direct address, yeah, second read saw it wasn't. Replied in the same all-encompassing generic "we". No worries.

tviyh: man, that's some weird quoting structure you used (the irc-ish "<>"s). Still, it did send me through the forums in search of a topic titled... ahem, yeah

Read 'em. I agree. Troll Bridge and Murder Mysteries are some of the best short stories ever (well, in fantasy at least -- he's no Hemingway or Carver).

Get thee to *any* Richard Matheson collection, at your earliest leisure.

And on American Gods, they're worlds apart in almost every way. Neverwhere reads like something he dug out of his "old unpublished works drawer" to fulfill the final obligations on a publishing contract, in my uninformed opinion.

AG, well, damn. Track down a mass-market paperback edition in a used book store. Pick it up. Has the same sort of flavor as King's/Straub's The Talisman from a 13 year-old's reading perspective. Only denser, more... researched. More... crap, it's hard to recommend a book and describe it without letting on anything about it. Instead of completely made up things (the wolfs, the tie-in with King's gunslinger/dark tower storyline) you've got a whole mess of existing (in man's ever-growing pantheon, I mean) gods walking and talking in and out of the narrative.

Damned hard-ons. I'm the goof swinging from the rafters this time, only I'm shouting "Buy it! No, I won't tell you about it! Truuuuuuussssssst meeeeeeee!" Like with all real spoilers, if I tell you anything, I give you the key to everything. There is beauty, there is horror, joy and grief in it. It's one of those books where you stop seeing the words. Or, to be more honest, I stopped seeing the words.

[Eric Y.]

sorry if i confused ya man. but the point i was trying to make was, in the #songfight! IRC channel, comments like that get stuck in the channel topic. so when i read that snippet of what you'd written here, i was so tempted to /topic it here... if such a thing were possible 8)

[Rabid Garfunkel]

...in the #songfight! IRC channel, comments like that get stuck in the channel topic...

Thanks, thusly educated I am. Cool, heh.

[erik]

What *I* saw amongst the comments he made was a statement which suggested that if he (in this instance) "read" something he despised, that purported beliefs that were different from his own, he could easily "become" that which he "hated".

That's so not what he said. Marcus may very well already believe all of the general or specific things outlined in the book, but that's really beside the point. I don't get the unnecessary quotes, but it seems to me that Marcus doesn't want to read the book because the two most commonly held opinions of the book are: 1) the book is fun, and 2) the book is poorly written and stupid, and he's afraid that he'll end up holding both opinions at the same time, and in the end, he'll have wasted time on the book.

[Jim of Seattle]

"Question everything."

Why?

[Jim of Seattle]

I'm refusing to read Da Vinci Code on principle: namely, the principle that I have every faith it's terrible and the sort of trite filth that people read because they like clever things and they like to feel clever. I'd rather snuggle up to a dystopia novel than this, dumbed-down conspiracy nut shit written for the masses disguised as something worthy of my dollars.

Then, I haven't read it, and if I did read it I'd probably jizz all over it and become much like those I hate for jizzing all over it. So. I'll just continue to abstain from it. I dunno, generally I don't like things that have cultish devotion, or I like them much less than I find the cultish devotion warrants (Tori Amos comes to mind).

A good recent bestseller: Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. Actually all of Sedaris's stuff is great. Maybe somebody should make a thread for that. Hm?

Ah, OK, you're really young after all. Just when I was starting to think you were mature beyond your years (sigh).....

I think David Sedaris is a terrific example of a mediocre writer people have gone all apoplectic over. I read one of his books. I didn't laugh much if at all.

People such as prayformojo complain about Dan Brown for his crappy writing style. And it is crappy. Or, well, average, let's say. I think his publishers have secretly managed to insert a super microscopic magnet into each of his books that forces the reader to continue to turn every page until the book is completed. I've read 2 1/2 of his books, and 2 of those were unputdownable.

Russell Crowe is cast to play the lead in DVC, fwiw.

[Eric Y.]

I think David Sedaris is a terrific example of a mediocre writer people have gone all apoplectic over. I read one of his books. I didn't laugh much if at all.

i really hope that's the guy i'm thinking of because i'm too lazy to check, but i would feel stupid if i was wrong. anyway i read a book of short stories a while ago called "NAKED" which i'm pretty sure was by that guy, i just found it at the public library sitting there and the title intrigued me. and there were some pretty overwhelmingly positive reviews about the humour and whatnot, so i borrowed it. and i kind of chuckled sometimes i guess, but mostly it was like "ok ok ok so you're gay, and you found out at some point in your life that you were, and now you are using this as a gag in pretty much all of the stories you are telling me and really it's getting old, and it wasn't so funny in the first place anyway."

[c hack]

Hey Marcus, I know what you mean.

Good-- Explain it to me.

Well, I feel pretty clever when I'm reading Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell," but I feel kinda dumb when reading Harry Potter.

I haven't read TDC, but I get the impression that it's full of pseudo-history, or that the facts are skewed for the sake of the fiction. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think what Marcus is talking about is it's like the difference between learning about quantum mechanics by watching The Matrix and learning about it by reading Hawking.

Like I said, I haven't read it, but if it's full of finger-pointing blame (like Sober's review implies), I'll skip it in favor of American Gods. Which, Rabid, is now next on my list, after I finish the 2nd Gunslinger book (and it looks like I'll have to check out The Talisman too).

[erik]

I like David Sedaris. "Motherfucker, I ain't seen pussy in so long, I throw stoooones at it." hahhahhha One of his books has alot more "gay memoirs" than the other books, from what I remember. But if you don't like his writing style, that won't change from book to book.

wait, I mean

DAVINCI DAVINCI
OH WHAT A WONDERFUL TOY
DAVINCI DAVINCI
ITS FUN FOR GIRLS AND BOYS

[Jim of Seattle]

I get the impression that it's full of pseudo-history, or that the facts are skewed for the sake of the fiction. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think what Marcus is talking about is it's like the difference between learning about quantum mechanics by watching The Matrix and learning about it by reading Hawking.

That comparison doesn't work, since virtually everything historical in DVC is based on some research and *some* people throughout history have believed it to be true. Basically there are a whole bunch of conspiracy theory-like rumors brought up in the book that are the fruits of Brown's research. For the sake of the novel, the main character discovers all these rumors to be true. That's about as dangerous as it gets. Though he does throw a bunch of irrefutable things in to give the theories credence (like the "golden mean", for example), and he introduces stable, reliable, not-kooky characters who are completely convinced of the theories' truths, which further validates them falsely. But I came away from the book not convinced of much of it at all. At the same time, I *wanted* to believe all of it since it was so cool to think about. Lastly, none of it matters a lot since it's all currently unprovable interpretations of ancient history, so it's not like the main character is uncovering a conspiracy behind 9/11 or anything.

[c hack]

Ah, I see. Have you guys read the graphic novel "From Hell?" (No, the movie doesn't count -- they murdered it). In the GN, Alan Moore presents Jack the Ripper as a freemason who realises that these killings have to take place in order to advance the flow of time past the 18th century. The best part is that he did a crapload of research into the real Jack the Ripper and made it so everything in the book theoretically could've happened.

[Heather. Redmon.]

Well, I really didn't want to get involved in this Da Vinci argument, but I did read the book and it was a page turner.

I thought I'd suggest some non-fiction reading that expounds upon some of the ideas mentioned in the Da Vinci Code and it delves deeply into many others. the Biggest Secret by David Icke is a very interesting read, covering, in depth, topics such as the Babylonian Brotherhood, the Merovingian Bloodline, The British Monarchy, Isis, Diana and goddess worship, the Knights Templar, Freemasons, the Skull and Bones Society and other secret societies, symbolism, religions, secret knowledge and whatnot. It is not, as the front cover would lead you to belive, only about the death of Diana Princess of Wales and don't let the first few chapters turn you off. I am not by any means saying it is the end all and be all TRUTH, as it is one man's opinion, but it has changed the way I look at things.

Okay, you are free to berate me in any way you see fit.

[c hack]

What *I* saw amongst the comments he made was a statement which suggested that if he (in this instance) "read" something he despised, that purported beliefs that were different from his own, he could easily "become" that which he "hated".

I don't get the unnecessary quotes,

Freudian is the Queen of Quotes, just like Poor June is the Earl of Ellipsis.

covering, in depth, topics such as the Babylonian Brotherhood,

Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash has some interesting stuff about the Babylonians in it. But it's like TDC -- fiction -- so I couldn't say how much is real and how much he made up.

Really, I wish writers would name their sources on things. Like I read a Stephen King (I think) book where he talked about how airplanes never crash when they're full, suggesting that people unconsciuosly know the near future and sometimes make themselves sick or late to avoid the crash. I'd like to see the numbers on that one, it's pretty unbelievable. But interesting if true.

[Poor June]

What *I* saw amongst the comments he made was a statement which suggested that if he (in this instance) "read" something he despised, that purported beliefs that were different from his own, he could easily "become" that which he "hated".

I don't get the unnecessary quotes,

Freudian is the Queen of Quotes, just like Poor June is the Earl of Ellipsis.

i'm just wonderin' how you figured out my real name O_o

haha... and yea i really need to read this book... i don't think it'll change many of my views... but it could be an interesting read... i'm not real big on people sayin' this is false... or this is false... or true... without there actually bein' real sources... and real research that people can acknowledge... instead of simply havin' to take there word for it...
because most peoples words aren't worth taking :::nods:::

[Heather. Redmon.]

c hack wrote:

Really, I wish writers would name their sources on things.

the Biggest Secret has quite the citations page at the end of each chapter.

yup.