Talk:The Da Vinci Code

Remove Criticism Section

The criticism section should be removed since a wiki page[1] all ready addresses the criticisms of the book. 68.230.75.227 (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Many other pages have criticism sections. To remove this one would be improper. 142.33.122.30 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with removal. De facto style is to break out praise and criticism to a seperate page to keep the main page from bogging down. 71.82.107.47 (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Novel

I can not imagine why any one is taking a stupid novel seriously. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The same people who think Independance Day and Men in Black are real. It's human nature really. AlexFili (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

redirect from "oh lame saint"

Since that article did not exist, I turned Oh lame saint into a redirect to The Da Vinci Code. I felt it would be uncontroversial. -- Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs @99, i.e. 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Book's premise in relation to the Vatican

This line in the top section bothers me:

According to the premise of the novel, the Vatican knows it is perpetuating a lie about Jesus' bloodline and the role of women in church, but continues to do so to keep itself in power.

My problem is with the word "knows". The book not only fails to state in any explicit way that the Vatican is aware of the "lie", but Langdon's character specifically says that they propagate their doctrine out of genuine belief, but nevertheless are intent on covering up the Sangreal documents in order that laypeople are less likely to question it.

Also, on a more pedantic note, it should really be "the role of women in the early church". Robin S (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The book is FICTION. What FICTIONAL people know or don't know has no bearing on reality. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Author is not copyright holder of blade and chalice

These copyrights are owned by www.apperlate.com [2] and this artistic expression was copyrighted early 2002 in a file that is available at www.connect.to/pyramids [3] (a word play for connect two pyramids) In this file it also clearly states to merge images together to create a star of David to show hidden pictures or codes. The real author of these copyrights is speculating that the Da Vinci code's author or his researcher(s) had mistaken him for priory of sion's Pierre (Plantard) as his name is also Pierre, while he applied for the one million dollars which was/is offered by the famous skeptic James Randi at www.randi.org while using this code as e.s.p, as the claim must also include a supernatural ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neights (talk • contribs) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of crack are you smoking, man? (85.145.139.80 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Characters and their involvement in The Da Vinci Code

What's the deal with this section? Why is it a bunch of bulleted factoids? Laziest writing I've seen in some time. Much as I hate excessive plot synopses, it seems like that's what they're going for here, and it would be preferable. Anyone keen to fix it? -R. fiend (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it's been almost a years since you brought this up ans till no one has done it. I agree, there are two small paragraphs for the plot summary, and then about 25 "bullet points" underneath the Character section that walks through the plot of the book. These two sections need HUGE rewrites. 75.72.98.95 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why only criticisms?

Was there no praise for the book? Shouldn't a reception section be added? -000 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to read up on a book using an encyclopaedia, they're probably going to want to hear more about criticism than praise. Granted the book was a worldwide success but that is pretty much it in the praise department. —— Ryan ^(t)

^•(c) 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any prase for it ...Nearly famous writer (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Be one of the best selling books in the hisotry says enough about it. The only criticisms came from Christians, not from book reviewers. Speaker1978 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The book was highly criticized outside the Christian community for cardboard characters, bad grammar, and a nearly identical plot to Brown's three previous books. BoosterBronze (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But none of those literary reviews are included. Only arguments against Brown's fictional plot are included. --RossF18 (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

your right more criticism find some more and add it. just add good sources, published reviews. 98.206.155.132 (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Revelation" (2001 film)

What really surprised me about the reception of this book is that a large number of seemingly respectable news outlets acted as if this were the first major public portrayal of the whole Mary Magdalene Holy Grail thing. But besides more obscure mentions, there was even a 2001 film with extremely similar ideas.[4] In the film "Revelation", what you might call an alchemical couple are presented who are tasked with delivering the true bloodline of Jesus, after following a long series of silly clues with a look and feel very reminiscent of Dan Brown's novel. It has Isaac Newton, it has a creepy organization in the Vatican and so on. (I wonder if this constellation is a genre by now, like primitive men hiding from dinosaurs in caves near a volcano) I'm not sure if this film is derived from one of the other books listed in the article - it doesn't seem to be mentioned right now. The way the media sources were acting, maybe there isn't a source for it! In art, music, literature, ethics - good is whatever the PR people say good is. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Literary Section.

Please note Literary criticism. Criticism doesn't mean what many people seem to think it means. It means a balanced analysis, not a gathering of quotes bashing the author. See Harry Potter's criticism section. It has both positive and negative comments. Furthemore, it is a bit odd to have such a long article about mistakes in a piece of literary fiction. Has anyone ever read the Dumas' Three Muskeeters. Dumas also took historical figures and basically made up his own story, yet we don't see such a long and antigonistic article about his books. Balance the article, especially the literary criticism section and tone down religious sections. Right now the tone of these sections is very much "How dare he write such lies!!" Instead the tone should be, "Let's look at the things Dan Brown took literary license with" with rederects to articles that talk about more accurate accounts of history and religion. Bashing is not proper in a Wikipedia article. That's for blogs. --RossF18 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

you compare Dumas to Brown? Dumas wrote classics, Brown writes cheap formulaic fiction, which he claims is fact. How much of the book is Langdon explaining things? These pseudo facts are the foundation, the meat, the very soul of the book. if there is a positive review please include it, but perhaps there is a reason everyone focuses on the accuracy of the books. He starts the book with the words facts, and much of its value comes from these wild claims. That's what makes it interesting. 98.206.155.132 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't compairing Dumas's writing to that of Brown. My comment was compairing the premise of using historical facts and molding them sometimes beyond recognition. Dumas, I would put forth, did it successfully, but most of the literary criticism section seems to focus on Brown using facts for his own purposes and changing them beyond recognition as if he committed some sort of crime. This was always a fiction book and the "FACT" disclaimer in the front of the book wouldn't have held up to even elementary research so to bash him purely because he played free and loose with the facts makes no sense becuase it has frequently been done before. Literary criticism, in my opinion, is more akin to critique of Brown's writing style, his use of the language, his themes, etc. That's were literary critique comes in, not whether or not Brown had a "fact" disclaimer in front of his book. Like you said "Brown writes cheap formulaic fiction." So, find comments to that effect from other authors or figures in the literary world and add that to the criticism section, but whether or not he claims his cheap formulaic fiction as fact is irrelevant since authors have been doing that for a long time. Talking about the accuracy of a fiction book that uses the "FACT" disclaimer as part of the fiction is kind of funny. Of course he makes wild claims. It's fiction and his "FACT" claim is fiction as well. If a science fiction writer placed a "FACT" disclaimer in front of his book, there would not be this uproar even if that author presented things in a similar way to Brown. Here, just because Brown is dealing with real time, his "FACT" claim causes an uproar regardless of the fact that his books are not even historical fiction, but just fiction. If the readers, and it looks like a vast majority of them judging by your comments, read the "FACT" statement in front of Brown's book and thought, "wow, I'm about to read some history," then I don't know what to tell you but it reflects more on them than on Brown. --RossF18 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A book that in any respect claims to be FACT needs to be examined and criticised based on that claim. The claim of factual accuracy was intrinsic to the book's success, impact and controversy. A fiction book that said "Fact: The Holocaust was an Allied invention," and proceded to unveil a vast legitimate-seeming conspiracy based on that "fact", would be notorious for that aspect alone, and that aspect would be highlighted in any coverage of it and its impact. The distinction between fiction and fact is that each honestly proclaims itself to be what it is, and is judged on those standards. Da Vinci Code breaks this convention, confusing the two genres in what many believe to be a dishonest manner. This is a valid subject for comment. Xandar 23:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the criticisms of the book's historical accuracy are legitimate because, unlike The Three Mustakeeters, the book and its author makes claims of its historical accuracy. Furthermore, criticisms or commentary on the book's historical accuracy make up a large portion of the reviews and other media that have been published about the book. That being said, that particular subject should not take up the entire section, as it currently does. The section as written is definitely not neutral. Discussion of the controversies should surrounding the historical accuracy should be summarized and shortened, moving detail to the main article, if necessary. Literary criticism on other aspects of the book, including positive criticism, should be added.Nimrand (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the summary?

Where is the summary of this book? It seems that most of the article is about only the research and controversy. Shouldn't we dedicate more page space to the summary? Angeljon121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

a thrilling but very controvercial book

I have to agree, ususally a summary contains at least what happens in this book. This one only has one line, why is that?Wild ste (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Paris

In spite of its errors and all the nonsensical controversies about "hoaxes" like the Priory of Sion, "The Da Vinci Code" is a lovely book to have a good time, but I'll point out that Paris wasn't founded in the Middle Ages as Brown says. The city is named after the Gaulish tribe of the Parisii and its Roman name was Lutetia Parisiorum (Lutetia of the Parisii). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

da vinci code

aah ewan ko sa inyo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.121.242 (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)