I would like to begin a discussion about the Da Vinci Code.  I am sure that the book has been discussed in length ever since it came off the shelves in 2003.  It might bave been discussed in the old forum.  But I would like to listen to what amateur historians and interesting individuals such as yourselves have to say about the boook, if you read it.

Warning: If you have not read the Da Vinci Code, do not read further because spoilers are ahead.

First, I would like to point out that the Da Vinci Code is, despite its interesting ideas, a work of fiction.  The various "facts" that were incorporated in the book about the Priority of Sion were mostly fabricated.  Examples:

The documents, Dossier des Secrets, was made up by a Frenchman who also turned out to be an Anti-Semite.

There were two Priorities of Sion, one medieval and one modern, and none had to do with perserving the Holy Grail.

There is very little textual evidence of a marital bond between Jesus and Mary Madgalene.

If you were to dig up the Louvre, you probably will not find the Holy Grail.

etc etc etc

For more information, you can borrow the televised documentary about the Da Vinci code aired on ABC.

Having understood that the Da Vinci Code is purely a work of fiction, why does it interest so many Americans,  why does it stir up so much debate about religion, and why do so many religious organizations disapprove of the book?

I think that the Da Vinci Code has more appeal in the United States than in Europe because the U.S. is a primarily a Protestant country.  Most Americans have diverging religious ideas from that of the Pope, and even American Catholics often complain about the conservative nature of Vatican Catholicism.

Despite its fictional details, the Da Vinci Code conjures up and reflects a more modern approach on religion and sexual politics.  Did Emperor Constantine really change Christianity by erasing Mary Magadelene's role?  Probably not.  Most Americans are not even certain whether Mary Magadelene existed.  Did earlier religious leaders significantly diminish the role of females in the Church, albeit in a smaller scale than described in the novel?  Probably yes. 

Most of the world's major religions or philosophical doctrines - Christianity, Islam, Judaism - are paternal and biased against the female.  In the Bible, God is defined as He, a benevolent patriarch.  We are constantly reminded of the sins that Eve committed by eating the wicked apple.  As most of the world's historical societies evolved to become paternal and male oriented, so did their religions.  Religions doctrine such as that of Adam and Eve helped to reinforce masculine dominance over its feminine counterpart for centuries.

During his visit to America, Pope John Paul II was approached by a female American Catholic who pleaded him to consider allow more women into the clergy.  The good pope blessed her, but turned away from the topic.  There is very little evidence that the new pope, Benedict XVI, will ever allow major female participation in the clergy.

I will end my comments and turn to you, my friends, and listen to what you have to offer in this discussion.

Here are some of the paintings relavent to the book, just to refresh your memories!

The Last Supper:

The Madonna of the Rocks:

The Mona Lisa

Originally posted by Cywr Having understood that the Da Vinci Code is purely a work of fiction, why does it interest so many Americans,  why does it stir up so much debate about religion, and why do so many religious organizations disapprove of the book? Because its much easier to read than Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco

Foucault's Pendulum hard to read,  Dr. Zhivago  in russian would be easier

I am a sort-of Catholic meaning I grew up as a catholic, but no longer care for religion.

the da vinci had little religious signifigance to me(see Angels and Demons, it's much more interesting in that regard), but it is an awesome action book.

I second the notion that the book is a fine thriller. I ate up every page with enthusiasm.

It also rocks the establishment and turns it all about. I like that too.

[quote]interesting individuals such as yourselves[quote]  I'm all ablush with such expressions of kindness.  Flattery will get you anything...  Just give me a moment to regain my composure... now...regarding Brown and his book.   Warning - no spoilers ahead, but I'm a grumpy old guy who doesn't much like either of Brown's novels.

It is as you say, fiction.  An Ok potboiler if you don't mind a predictable, transparent plot with characters introduced in the last chapters to clean up otherwise loose plot ends.  I felt that the lead lines about historical fact were misleading as very few of his facts, historical or otherwise, were correct.  The same is true of his use of art history.  Theologically, the book is in no way challenging as it offers nothing but nonsense dredged from the "Holy Blood... " crowd.  If people want to read fiction and believe that it is fact, they could make better choices, something like "Alice in Wonderland" perhaps.

As the comparison to Eco has already been made, I'll reiterate part of a conversation I had elsewhere on the net:

Umberto Eco is a master in comparison to Dan Brown - they are not even in the same universe. I have read two of his - "The Da Vinci Code" and it's prequal "The Da Vinci told all over again with no changes at all I love being able to foist off another book on the public without actually having to write a new story I wonder if anyone will notice Code ." Eco delves deeply into his wellspring of historical knowledge and that reflects in all his work. Eco's prose is eminently readable. Brown barely scratches the surface of pseudo-history and popular myth, aims to the lowest common denominator, and dumbs everything down from there. His history was bad; based on poor research and erroneous conclusions, his plot predictable, his characters one dimensional, his resolution (with characters that were introduced only at the end of the book) trite and his prose is outright bad... Have I missed anything?