[scabb]

I wouldn't say this has anything to do with the marketing powers of American publishers. It's more that 'The Da Vinci Code' is an easy to read, page-turning type book that people will recommend. Dan Brown is not dissimilar to the likes of Mr Grisham and Miss Rowling in that sense.

I've read it. I wasn't exactly blown away and don't plan to read any other Dan Brown books, but it was enjoyable enough.

Easy to read + Jesus Controversy = Profit

[omloflump]

Easy to read + Jesus Controversy = Profit

I can agree with that. Any controversy at all will double your sales.

[Catbert]

Originally Posted by omloflump

I can agree with that. Any controversy at all will double your sales.

That gives me an idea.

[Tobbe]

Just saw the documentary: "The truth behind the da vinci code"..In the documentary it became clear that Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a lot of bshit..

[Henke]

Originally Posted by scabb

I wouldn't say this has anything to do with the marketing powers of American publishers. It's more that 'The Da Vinci Code' is an easy to read, page-turning type book that people will recommend. Dan Brown is not dissimilar to the likes of Mr Grisham and Miss Rowling in that sense.

Easy to read + Jesus Controversy = Profit

Very true.

[Manhunter71]

Originally Posted by t_manelius

Just saw the documentary: "The truth behind the da vinci code"..In the documentary it became clear that Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a lot of bshit..

I watched that documentary too, and was really disappointed to discovewr the truth

"The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" was extremely well written, and appeared to be very well researched, and I was really happy that GK3 appeared to be based on some historical truth!

I watched the Da Vinci Code documentary and became more depressed as the the programme unfolded - the facts that Tony Robinson presented seemed to indicate that the source of Sauniere's treasure came not from his discovery of "the Grail", but from the fact that he was being paid by the Catholic church for some other mundane reason - dammit! I can't remember why and don't have access to the videotape of that show

[natalia]

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" isn't without its critics either. I haven't read the book, but there was a Salon.com book review of "The Da Vinci Code" that also goes into HBHG. It's pretty interesting how intertwined the two books are -- how they are both best served by the notion that the books describe events that are part of the historical record when it comes to convincing the public about the "facts" in their tales, but how this complicates HBHG's author's attempts to go after Dan Brown for cribbing their ideas.

Here's a little excerpt from Laura Miller's review (You may have to click through an advertisement before reading the full article if you aren't a member:

"Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln are the Moriartys of pseudohistory, and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is their great triumph. Their techniques include burying their readers in chin-high drifts of factoids -- some valid but irrelevant, some uncheckable (the untranslated diaries of obscure 17th century clerics, and so on), others, like the labyrinthine family trees of various medieval French noblemen, simply numbing, and if you trouble to figure them out, pretty inconclusive. A preposterous idea will first be floated as a guess (it is "not inconceivable" that the Knights Templar found documentation of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's marriage in Jerusalem), then later presented as a tentative hypothesis, then still later treated as a fact that must be accounted for (the knights had to take those documents somewhere, so it must have been the south of France!)."

http://archive.salon.com/books/featu...de/index1.html

[Manhunter71]

Originally Posted by natalia

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" isn't without its critics either. I haven't read the book, but there was a Salon.com book review of "The Da Vinci Code" that also goes into HBHG. It's pretty interesting how intertwined the two books are -- how they are both best served by the notion that the books describe events that are part of the historical record when it comes to convincing the public about the "facts" in their tales, but how this complicates HBHG's author's attempts to go after Dan Brown for cribbing their ideas.

Here's a little excerpt from Laura Miller's review (You may have to click through an advertisement before reading the full article if you aren't a member:

"Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln are the Moriartys of pseudohistory, and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is their great triumph. Their techniques include burying their readers in chin-high drifts of factoids -- some valid but irrelevant, some uncheckable (the untranslated diaries of obscure 17th century clerics, and so on), others, like the labyrinthine family trees of various medieval French noblemen, simply numbing, and if you trouble to figure them out, pretty inconclusive. A preposterous idea will first be floated as a guess (it is "not inconceivable" that the Knights Templar found documentation of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's marriage in Jerusalem), then later presented as a tentative hypothesis, then still later treated as a fact that must be accounted for (the knights had to take those documents somewhere, so it must have been the south of France!)."

http://archive.salon.com/books/featu...de/index1.html

In the recent tv documentary about the "Da Vinci Code" and how much of it is actually fact-based, a lot of time was spent discussing the authenticity of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail".
After interviews with historians, archaeologists and other experts, it appears that the facts reported in "The Holy Blood..." were not all that they appeared to be!
Especially the documents about the "Priory of Scion"
The producers of this programme actually found people who admitted to sending false documentation to the authors of "The Holy Blood...", and further research showed that the reason Sauniere received so much money from the Catholic church was that he was billing them for more Masses than he actually performed.
After his death, his personal notebooks were discovered which actually proved this point

[natalia]

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

In the recent tv documentary about the "Da Vinci Code" and how much of it is actually fact-based, a lot of time was spent discussing the authenticity of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail".
After interviews with historians, archaeologists and other experts, it appears that the facts reported in "The Holy Blood..." were not all that they appeared to be!
Especially the documents about the "Priory of Scion"
The producers of this programme actually found people who admitted to sending false documentation to the authors of "The Holy Blood...", and further research showed that the reason Sauniere received so much money from the Catholic church was that he was billing them for more Masses than he actually performed.
After his death, his personal notebooks were discovered which actually proved this point

Hi Manhunter, do you know if that documentary is still available?

[Manhunter71]

Originally Posted by natalia

Hi Manhunter, do you know if that documentary is still available?

Hi - I'm not sure if this is available to buy yet. I've done numerous internet searches and also searched the Channel 4 website but with no success
It's a shame this thread wasn't started a few months ago, as I actually taped the documentary when it was on Channel 4 - unfortunately I recently taped over it with the last episode of The OC

[Kuja]

I really enjoyed it. Alot of people dislike it shouting BLASPHEMY from the rooftops, but my advice to those people is "chill." It's a Fictional novel based on historical conjecture. That's all it is, whether you agree with its claims is entirely your prerogative. But seriously, so long as you don't take so seriously, it's great fun. Angels and Demons was also good. The ending was a little "out there." But all in all, Brown writes good stuff. I'd love to see him try his hand at an adventure game.

[tabacco]

Originally Posted by Kuja

I really enjoyed it. Alot of people dislike it shouting BLASPHEMY from the rooftops, but my advice to those people is "chill." It's a Fictional novel based on historical conjecture. That's all it is, whether you agree with its claims is entirely your prerogative. But seriously, so long as you don't take so seriously, it's great fun. Angels and Demons was also good. The ending was a little "out there." But all in all, Brown writes good stuff. I'd love to see him try his hand at an adventure game.

BLASPHEMY!

(I haven't read it.)

[Manhunter71]

Originally Posted by Kuja

I really enjoyed it. Alot of people dislike it shouting BLASPHEMY from the rooftops, but my advice to those people is "chill." It's a Fictional novel based on historical conjecture. That's all it is, whether you agree with its claims is entirely your prerogative. But seriously, so long as you don't take so seriously, it's great fun. Angels and Demons was also good. The ending was a little "out there." But all in all, Brown writes good stuff. I'd love to see him try his hand at an adventure game.

"Angels and Demons" was a very interesting read - I really enjoy anything that combines historical fact with speculative fiction , and I think Dan Brown is a very talented author

The only reason I haven't read "The DaVinci Code" is because the whole premise appeared to have been stolen from other sources - I had already read "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and played GK3

It appears as if Dan Brown is trying to take the Rennes le Chateau mystery and make it his own

[Kuja]

Actually I don't remember Brown ever mentioning RLC in his book. He certainly has his own spin on the GK3 mystery that's true, but I didn't find anything wrong with that. If there was only one correct conjecture, it wouldn't be a mystery anymore.