The question I'm asking is HOW THE HELL DID DAN BROWN WIN A BOOK AWARD?!

Sounds like an interesting movie, but a boring book. Simply because it is far too much content for me to digest, I don't really much enjoy riddles, I like things being clear and to the point.

I wouldn't worry. Dan Brown is not what I would call a subtle and devious writer.

Well, even though it's kinda based on bullshit, there is still SOMETHING to the 'legend' of the Priory of Sion and the Merovingians. Though there are about 25 other organizations of equal importance to consider in the bigger picture.

It definitely seems, one way or the other, that the Vatican wants the attention right now.. And, i hope this doesn't come off wrong in any way, but Israel needs to be equally considered into the whole equation..

In all seriousness i say that people really need to see the truth behind the works of fiction and do so in compassion and understanding.. There is definitely a plan under way, and more people need to really care about the future. Not just for themselves but the whole of humanity, and the whole of history.

Yes, there is some history to the Priory of Sion. It was founded 1956. 40+ years counts as history, right?

Does kind of make it tough for Da Vinci to be involved, though...

but Da Vinci actually invented an apparatus that grants him eternal life if he just steps in it for an hour every month!

and (this is significant!) he had a beard...

quote:

Yes, there is some history to the Priory of Sion. It was founded 1956. 40+ years counts as history, right?

Well, there might be a little more to the history than that. Though not necessarily called the 'Priory of Sion'.

Sion/Zion means SUN. It is of course the holy Biblical city of Sion and undoubtedly related to the root of political/spiritual Zionism and the 'Protocols of Zion', whatever you believe about the documents. That's a whole other story.

Whether we call it 'Priory of Sion' or not, there is still a fairly visible means of control dating back not just 2000 years, but 6000 years or so.. All relating to the ideals of Sion, the Rosicrucians, Great White Brotherhood, and various other societies and mythologies.....

The Priory of Sion, as the specific organization mentioned in the book, was crafted as a hoax in 1956. No doubt there have been organizations with similar ideas, but the group that is presented as fact in Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail was very deliberately concocted.

I read The Da Vinci Code, and I liked it, but the revelation-everytime-three-minutes stuff began to annoy me, because it was cheating you in to having to read more, assuming you felt the need to finish. Of course, it's an old trick. The cliffhanger, as most'll know.
Anyone heard rumors about The Solomon Key, a third in the "Robert Langdon saga"? It'll basically be Langdon under another 24 hour adventure.
If there's one thing that really annoys me about his work, it's the fact that he'll take a concept which is sure to at least interest most of the general public, and then add the whole "24 hours" thing. It adds a sense of predictability, and kills most of the plausibility. And to use the same character? That is the weakness of putting Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code side by side. Two 24 hour situations? Not likely. Three? Even worse. When you use a format like that, you can't make sequels, unless you want to risk making it seem like an adult version of The Hardy Boys, where our protagonists always win. And I'm really wondering if Langdon'll have a new girl to hang with in The Solomon Key. It seems likely when you consider how Vittoria was forgotten in The Da Vinci Code.

And in any case, the movie was worse, no question. Not only did it share the annoying habit of cutting the scene when a revelation was made, it used rediculous effects to demonstrate certain concepts. Like when the object would glow when a character was focusing on something that people might not recognize off the bat. It would feel more appropriate in a documentary. And it played it safer by cutting everything which, even slightly, villainized the Roman Catholic Church. Hell, most of the stuff in the book wasn't even that offensive, except to people who were takin an average thriller far too seriously.
I'll also add a recommendation for (as far as I know) more plausible and interesting stuff. The Rule of Four. It doesn't use a predictable OMG what happens next thing, so it runs as a more believable, and less outrageously falsified story. On a board for the upcoming film adaptation, somebody said that The Da Vinci Code was better because its revelation was more shocking (Jesus: !!!not divine!!!) and realistic. What bull. The major flaw has to do with how (as many people here have pointed out) the Priory de Sion doesn't exist. Boo hoo.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mw/NNrules,

And this sums up why I dislike the book.

I know very few people who, viewing the book in the fullness of time, actually enjoy the book as much as they remember it. They enjoyed the suspense elements, certainly, but the book itself? Not so much.

*koffkoffhackkoffkoff*

(actually, I think his writing is so bad he doesn't even merit being called a hack)

As pointed out, the major flaw with brown isn't that a bunch of jellyheads got to froth over a new (to them) conspiracy theory, but that Brown is a terrible terrible writer with the research skills of a genital fungus that only ever attached itself to dinosaurs.

A good writer could have taken all the false information and played with it, and come up with an average thriller or better. Brown's too dull to do that. Bad dull smarmy author that he is.

I ranted my way through that book, just to see what all the fuss was about. It was bloody awful.

quote:

Originally posted by Cavenagh:
As pointed out, the major flaw with brown isn't that a bunch of jellyheads got to froth over a new (to them) conspiracy theory, but that Brown is a terrible terrible writer with the research skills of a genital fungus that only ever attached itself to dinosaurs.

A good writer could have taken all the false information and played with it, and come up with an average thriller or better. Brown's too dull to do that. Bad dull smarmy author that he is.

I agree completely.