Another blogger talks Da Vinci
The Book Bitches blog is the address for opinionated literary criticism shrinkwrapped in estrogen and anger. Here is an excerpt from their take on the Da Vinci Code movie; "I went into this movie with little expectations, having not found the book to be the orgasmic work of art everyone else on earth did (my theory on this is: most of these people had never read as much as a comic book and so were easily impressed by TDC) but seeing it was pleasurable enough..."
(Click here for the rest)
Personally, I have neither read the book or seen the movie. I do not have much interest in either. By taking the most reproduced (and thus most popular) image in the world, and placing it on the cover, and then filling the text with historical inaccuracies, elements of plagiarism, and sensationalistic potboiler twists, Dan Brown created a work of mindless entertainment.
As a man of letters, I see nothing wrong in using the printed page to diverse effect. I value a good cookbook nearly as much as my cherished Graham Greene novels. Books may be for entertainment and pleasure just as much as they can exist for education and involving experiences. The fact is, Brown's Da Vinci Code is a harmless mystery novel that has been blessed with an undue amount of press. Just like Tom Cruise and Brangelina, it is an overexposed creation that is filling space in newspapers and magazines.
If you like the book, good for you. Enjoy it, and have fun. Want to see the movie? Go right ahead. I hear it's a mediocre piece of cinema, but it might be a good popcorn flick - a redeeming quality if ever there was one.
Now if you will excuse me, I've got some Harry Potter books to dig through.
What's your opinion on the whole Da Vinci Code phenomenon? Leave it in the comment box!
posted by Avi at 8:35 pm
14 Comments:
Dude the da vinci code suks. it says jesus didnt die on th cross and thats not true. there probably gonna make some false religion but its a bunch of crap. From your little buddy thats catholic
I'm sorry to hear that if offends you.
I find it comical that you capitalized 'dude' but not 'Jesus'.
A quick question: What makes a religion false?
It was an ok book...but those were a lot of comments for someone who's never read the book...no offence. I'm sure there are pieces of information that you've read. I thought the book was mindless entertainment and not all that people made it out to be. But how can you say its a fact, when you have not even picked up the book?
Its opinions..not facts. Just a thought.
sorry i didn't put my name before. my bad...I didn't mean to sound harsh...its just that its tough to say a book is all those things when you haven't read it yet. I know a lot of people who learned things from the book and who really enjoyed it. Everyone's opinions are different and you can't really make a general statement about something....its just that instead of quoting people, maybe you should pick up the book, and read it, and form your own opinion....
Alright well,
Not having read the book or seen the movie, I can have no opinion on either. I can, however, point out some rather interesting things like:
It's possible that the cross was not actually a cross, but a different shape (like an X), due the problems of the weight that would have had to be held on that singular post. Still was held on something, just not necessarily a cross.
As far as false religions go, the idea of religion is a little skewed itself. The the other two of the three major religions, I'm speaking about Christianity and Islam, are based on Judaism. This has been well known for quite some time.
All three follow the same G-d, but in their own way. One of which has recently fallen into the ways of complete extremism and is trying to wipe out one, or both, of the others.
The question of which one is right, even with proofs is rather pointless to discuss with those unwilling to listen, but in the right crowd can make for a great Q&A. In many cases Q&A isn't even necessary.
Judaism has too many proofs to be wrong. And if you don't believe me, I cite a book which mentioned in a comment earlier this year "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt". Check it out, it's a good read, minus the writer's style of trying to make the reader feel stupid at the beginning.
If you don't believe in G-d that's a discussion unto itself which I can easily end when discussed, so I'm not bringing it up right now. Same thing about "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" applies here too.
Oh, Avi. If you didn't want this turning into a theological debate and it does, I'm sorry.
Alright,
First off, before Snoopy hijacks this and transforms it into a theological debate, I would like to address Sophia’s comments;
You say that I “can’t really make a general statement about something”. But I have, and I will continue to do so. What else are blogs for if not to make general statements, post pics, and tantalize all your friends with your wacky dream descriptions?
As for the book, it is not the text itself I am attacking – it is the hype surrounding it. Re-read my post. I’ll be here waiting….
Done? Ok, so as you saw, I wrote “The fact is, Brown's Da Vinci Code is a harmless mystery novel that has been blessed with an undue amount of press. Just like Tom Cruise and Brangelina, it is an overexposed creation that is filling space in newspapers and magazines.”
That is the only time I try to state a fact.
Alright, that PLUS I called it a work of mindless entertainment. But if ‘historically accurate textbook’ and ‘entertainment’ were on a scale, the entertainment portion would outweigh the rest.
I did not dispute that you “know a lot of people who learned things from the book and who really enjoyed it”. I believe you wholeheartedly (as I always do).
We can all agree that the book is fun, and full of ‘cool stuff’. I assume we can also concur that the novel’s importance has been blown out of proportion, and has been given a lot of media coverage.
Oh, I don’t even know where I’m going with this. I just thought your response to my post deserved a response. Everything you said WAS valid. I just wanted to show you that what I said was quite valid as well.
Mr. Snoopy, there are some things you wrote that I would have put differently, but all in all, I don’t see anything worth debating. I’m sure others would though, and they may pour into this site (and you) with vehemence. Get your typing fingers ready!
Hmm,
I'm not entirely sure about that second to last sentence. What do you mean by (and you)?
Anyway. My fingers are always ready for typing my friend. As long as I use my words wisely, you will find a nice debate running through this forum.
I mean that some faceless online meatwads might show up and attack you for what you wrote. It's just a friendly 'heads up'.
Having not seen the movie, but having read the book and being able to understand "the biz" I came to the conclusion when I began seeing television previews nearly a month in advance, that the movie would be at best mediocre. (a view that many well known film critics agreed with)
It is the same thing with the book. It is a piece of fiction and is billed as such. Reading the book, one has to realize that it was written NOT as an academic expose on cover ups by the Catholic Church, but rather as a piece of Popular Culture (and what a piece it has become!)
People need to be able to reach their own conclusions and what many fail to realize is that a majority of human beings are incable of independant desicion making. They are capable of PERCIEVED independant desicion making. Reading one book and deciding that it is (excuse the pun) the "gospel" truth tells you not so much about the book and much about the reader.
All in all, I can say that it was an ejoyable read, a nice action piece which was akin to viewing a movie in my mind (which makes me wonder why they had to go and make a movie in the first place)
And thanks, by the way, I DO find dreams tanalizing. They are another good piece of fiction played out in my head
:)
I didn't criticize your dream posts! They are fun to read, if not a little trippy.
(btw, I had a weird dream last night where I constantly had wet sand pouring out of my mouth, and I was wandering everywhere looking for a pen to write down a phone number. Can anyone figure that one out?)
I was a little thrown off by your opening statement: "being able to understand "the biz" I came to the conclusion when I began seeing television previews nearly a month in advance, that the movie would be at best mediocre."
How did your knowledge of the Hollywood film industry make you so confident in the movie's stink-factor? It was hyped as having an Oscar laden cast and crew (Ron Howard, Akiva Goldsman, Tom Hanks), and a workable piece of source material. Quite a few reviewers saw the film as a potential smash hit.
Nice points Tam.
I don't get the thing about the dream stuff. Guess I'll find out when I get home.
Less than a month now.
Nah, I didn't think you trashed the dream stuff. I thought you liked it (which appearently, you do) as to your dream, I don't know what to say other than possibly look up the fairy tale where the girl goes to the well, meets an old lady (who is really a fairy) and because she is nice to the old lady, the lady grants her the power of when she opens her mouth to speak, jewels and flowers come a tumblin' out. That, or you might have an odd case of dry mouth....
Anyway, back to your point, it is exactly for THAT reason why I am skeptical about DVC's quality. The fact that they had to hype the cast that much tells you something is lacking. I mean, they hyped "Cat in the Hat" having Mike Myers and you saw how that one turned out (or rather, didn't turn out)
Just because you have an amazing ensemble don't mean you have an amazing product.
And Snoopy doesn't need to wait until he comes back. He can just check out my blog and get as confused as everybody else :)
Ah,
I thought it was one of those things where I'd have to meet you first to get it.
Nope, 'fraid not, sorry. Though I may seem a little more whacky in person than in my writing, so while you don't have to meet me to UNDERSATND it, you'd probiably have to meet me to GET it. got it?
Post a Comment
<< Home