58 replies to this topic

[Calliope]

I don't remember a dagger, but I think Leigh and the British guy (whose name I completely forget) are explaining to Sophie "The Last Supper" Mary Magdalene is actually seated to the right of Jesus.  Her hands and hair are situated so that they hide her bosom but you have to look to notice it's a female.
They also mention that many art books were photographed before a certain date, when the painting was still dirty  And I remember all the symbolism was discussed, but I can't remember exactly what it all was.

[Farrell Fan]

I'm in the same boat as Carbro -- ordered the Leonardo Code (heh heh) from Amazon with another book, to be sent in one shipment. So I'm waiting with bated breath -- whatever that is.

[Old Fashioned]

Dan Brown has a close-up of the hand here on his website.  It's pretty hazy so you can't tell very well, but if you look up the picture in a big reference book (I think  this is the one I looked in), a good poster, or the actual painting, you might see what I see.

The person seated to the right of Jesus is obviously a woman, but most people don't seem to know about it.

[Farrell Fan]

"I do not understand," sexy symbologist Robert Langdon whispered to curvy French cryptologist Sophie Neveau. "Why did Ballet Alert choose the numero un, number one bestseller The Da Vinci Code as its book of the month?"

"Are you familiar with the initials SAB?" Sophie cooed impatiently.

"Symbology Academy Baccalaureate? Mine is from Harvard."

"School of American Ballet. It is located in the Rose Building."

"Mon Dieu! My God! The Name of the Rose!"

"Why do you say things first in French and then in English?"

"Have you forgotten, mon cheri, dear heart, we are characters in a 454-page novel. It takes every trick in the book to pad a puzzle to such length."

Sophie produced a piece of School of American Ballet stationery from her dance bag and illuminated it with a click of the special fountain pen she always carried. The circle of light shone eerily on the school's logo.

"Sacre bleu! Holy ...! The Vetruvian Man!"

"Exactement. Now do you see? Lincoln Kirstein was my grandfather!"

[BW]

But of course!

[Old Fashioned]

I've now finished Angels & Demons.  Compared to TDVC, both have similar structures.  I though A&D had a much more suprising and complex ending, but I liked the entire scheme of TDVC better.

[Alexandra]

Just bumping this up for more comments.

[Giannina]

I just finished DVC.  My impression....well, one of my impressions; there are tons!....is that never have I seen a bunch of scholarly people so blind to the things about which they are scholars.  And that dying Jacques Sauniere sure got a heck of a lot done in his agonizing last 15/20 minutes.  

Farrell Fan, I love your bookish conversation, especially the bit about "padding the puzzle"!


Giannina

[Farrell Fan]

Thanks, Giannina. I have a feeling we agree about this book .

[Treefrog]

This is old hat to many of you, but inasmuch as I just finished this book last week, this article in the Chicago Tribune could not have been more timely.

In it, historians debunk the theories Dan Brown advances, and point out that the book is shelved as fiction.  They seem to be reputable experts without bones to pick, except of the sort that academics love to gnaw when their areas of expertise are breached and mangled.

[Mel Johnson]

Gnosticism, whether it be in theology or ballet, always sells so well - the notion that there is some sort of "inside knowledge" hidden somewhere.  It's had a great play all the way from the first century forward.

[vagansmom]

But do you think Dan Brown himself actually believed he was advancing any theories? I think that all along he intended to serve them up as great mysteries that had some fun with conspiracy theories.

And they were great. They sent lots of people, myself included, to other books and articles in search of the truth.

[Old Fashioned]

I'm with Vagansmom on this one.  I don't think the author tried to brainwash people into believing these theories; the only things he accounts for being "true" before the novel begins are descriptions of art work (although he did get a lot of things wrong), the fact that there was/is a secret society called the Priory of Sion (I take this to be true...?), and controversy surrounding Opus Dei (he does not state that these "corrupt" practices actually take place).  Yes, the novel is fiction, and that's how he intended it to be.  These theories about the Holy Grail and Christ have been around for centuries; I guess people are just getting riled up about them lately because it has entered mainstream fiction.  

I also happen to be one of those people who wanted to learn more.  It's amazing how so much of this stuff is out there that I could have never imagined before until I read The Da Vinci Code.  I wanted to learn more about the Knights Templar and Priory of Sion, but most importantly, it fueled my interest in Leonardo's, among other artists', works.  Somehow I used to think the Mona Lisa was overrated...   :shrug:

[Mel Johnson]

There was indeed an abbey named the Priory of Sion, but it ceased to exist in the early part of the seventeenth century, when the order became members of the Society of Jesus.  The original Knights Templar were Crusaders who had made it to Jerusalem, and their actual order was merged with the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Malta before the Counterreformation.  The KH continue to exist as THE smallest nation in the world, being a single building in downtown Rome.  The "Knights Templar" are a uniformed branch of Freemasonry, the current organization having only formed centuries after the assumption of the original, and has only a fanciful connection with it.

[Treefrog]

I don't think Dan Brown was sincerely trying to advance new theories.  But the way they are presented in the book --  "facts" that are explained by world-renowned academics -- might fool the less discerning reader.