Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Rewriting remaining First Person Writing
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
*** Uh, I forgot no such thing. Yes, everyone knows him by that ''title'', but that does not make it a 'pen name'. We always refer Alexander III of Macedon as 'Alexander the Great' but we don't call ''that'' a 'pen name'. Just because popular culture is more familiar with that version of his name does not make 'Da Vinci' a surname and so it's ''still wrong''. This is especially bad in a book that is about ''history'', however loose, and would've taken the quickest google search to figure out. (And besides, if I want to be extra nitpicky, they called him Leonardo Da Vinci even back when he was alive. It's just that we don't know/forgot what 'da' means, which still doesn't make it a 'pen name'.)
to:
*** Uh, I forgot forgotten no such thing. Yes, everyone knows him by that ''title'', but that does not make it a 'pen name'. We always refer Alexander III of Macedon as 'Alexander the Great' but we don't call ''that'' a 'pen name'. Just because popular culture is more familiar with that version of his name does not make 'Da Vinci' a surname and so it's ''still wrong''. This is especially bad in a book that is about ''history'', however loose, and would've taken the quickest google search to figure out. (And besides, if I want someone wants to be extra nitpicky, they called him Leonardo Da Vinci even back when he was alive. It's just that we don't know/forgot what 'da' means, which still doesn't make it a 'pen name'.)
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
*** ...Uh, I don't know, how about ''The Leonardo Code''?
to:
*** ...Uh, I don't know, , how about ''The Leonardo Code''?
Changed line(s) 12,14 (click to see context) from:
*** Wait, if we "don't know/forgot what 'da' means" then why'd the first guy say it means 'of' at the top? Contradiction much? More importantly, what would ''you'' have called the book? I see a nice helping of Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike but no suggestions as to make it better...
*** Probably, he meant "We ''english speaker'' don't know what "da" means". I'm italian and obviously know, as it's current language. Vinci is a city, and "da" means "from". The name is "Leonardo from Vinci", and the book, in Italy, means "The code from Vinci". Yes, confusing, but to be honest, an horrible number of italians ''don't know'' that "da Vinci" is not a surname.
*** The above poster is correct - I meant 'english speaker', sorry for my mistake. As for Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, I've never read the book nor have ever had the urge to, and pointing out an obvious error that anyone with a knowledge of the Renaissance would know is not a personal vendetta. Also, Just Bugs Me is for pointing out errors, not 'suggestions to make it better'.
*** Probably, he meant "We ''english speaker'' don't know what "da" means". I'm italian and obviously know, as it's current language. Vinci is a city, and "da" means "from". The name is "Leonardo from Vinci", and the book, in Italy, means "The code from Vinci". Yes, confusing, but to be honest, an horrible number of italians ''don't know'' that "da Vinci" is not a surname.
*** The above poster is correct - I meant 'english speaker', sorry for my mistake. As for Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, I've never read the book nor have ever had the urge to, and pointing out an obvious error that anyone with a knowledge of the Renaissance would know is not a personal vendetta. Also, Just Bugs Me is for pointing out errors, not 'suggestions to make it better'.
to:
*** Wait, if we "don't know/forgot what 'da' means" then why'd the first guy say it means 'of' at the top? Contradiction much? More importantly, what would ''you'' have called the book? I see a It seems like nice helping of Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike but no suggestions as to make it better...
*** Probably, he meant "We ''english speaker'' don't know what "da" means".I'm italian and obviously know, as it's current language. In Italian, Vinci is a city, and "da" means "from". The name is "Leonardo from Vinci", and the book, in Italy, means "The code from Vinci". Yes, confusing, but to be honest, an horrible number of italians ''don't know'' that "da Vinci" is not a surname.
*** The above poster is correct -I it would have meant 'english speaker', sorry for my the mistake. As for Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, I've to anyone who has never read the book nor have ever had the urge to, and pointing out an obvious error that anyone with a knowledge of the Renaissance would know is not a personal vendetta. Also, Just Bugs Me the Headscratching is for pointing out errors, not 'suggestions to make it better'.
*** Probably, he meant "We ''english speaker'' don't know what "da" means".
*** The above poster is correct -
Changed line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) from:
*** I could buy that, if a you could provide me with an example of someone else having 'Da Vinci' as a surname. But even if they did, the point would be moot - Leonardo ''has'' a surname and it is ''not'' 'Da Vinci'. Ergo, using his title instead of his surname is incorrect.
*** As the original poster of this Bugs Me, I'm sorry, but I just can't understand that just because Leonardo is most well-known as Leonardo Da Vinci that it's perfectly okay to make a big obvious inaccuracy ''in the very title'' of a book about ''history''. There's no rule saying that it had to be called 'The Da Vinci Code' instead of something accurate. What the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is completely irrelevent; it's still a ridiculous error, and since when does pop-culture dictate what is and isn't correct?
*** As the original poster of this Bugs Me, I'm sorry, but I just can't understand that just because Leonardo is most well-known as Leonardo Da Vinci that it's perfectly okay to make a big obvious inaccuracy ''in the very title'' of a book about ''history''. There's no rule saying that it had to be called 'The Da Vinci Code' instead of something accurate. What the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is completely irrelevent; it's still a ridiculous error, and since when does pop-culture dictate what is and isn't correct?
to:
*** I could buy that, if a you If anyone could provide me with an example of someone else having 'Da Vinci' as a surname. But even if they did, the point would be moot - Leonardo ''has'' a surname and it is ''not'' 'Da Vinci'. Ergo, using his title instead of his surname is incorrect.
*** As the original poster of thisBugs Me, I'm sorry, but I just can't understand Headscratcher, apologies for nor understanding that just because Leonardo is most well-known as Leonardo Da Vinci that it's perfectly okay to make a big obvious inaccuracy ''in the very title'' of a book about ''history''. There's no rule saying that it had to be called 'The Da Vinci Code' instead of something accurate. What the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is completely irrelevent; it's still a ridiculous error, and since when does pop-culture dictate what is and isn't correct?
*** As the original poster of this
Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:
* Why does everyone (I'm looking at you, MoralGuardians) take this seriously?! People, the Da Vinci Code is Fiction!
to:
* Why does everyone (I'm looking (looking at you, MoralGuardians) take this seriously?! People, the Da Vinci Code is Fiction!
Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:
** 2) Because the the novel takes a number of swipes at the Catholic Church (that it basically made up lies about Jesus to bolster its own position, that it slaughtered anyone who opposed it, that it killed over 6 million free-thinking women and called them witches) that are, bluntly speaking, bollocks. (God knows, there's enough real material to take the Catholic Church to task over). The fact that Dan Brown put this is in a book marked 'fiction' is largely irrelevant, if I wrote a book about your mother which accused her of being a drug-dealing terrorist rapist, would it still be alright if I marked it 'fiction'
to:
** 2) Because the the novel takes a number of swipes at the Catholic Church (that it basically made up lies about Jesus to bolster its own position, that it slaughtered anyone who opposed it, that it killed over 6 million free-thinking women and called them witches) that are, bluntly speaking, bollocks. (God knows, there's enough real material to take the Catholic Church to task over). The fact that Dan Brown put this is in a book marked 'fiction' is largely irrelevant, if I one wrote a book about your mother which accused her of being a drug-dealing terrorist rapist, would it still be alright if I it's marked it as 'fiction'
Changed line(s) 35 (click to see context) from:
** It's been a while since I read that book, but it's probably a figure of speech, as in "start begging for mercy".
to:
** It's been a while since I read that book, but it's probably a figure of speech, as in "start begging for mercy".
Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:
* Wouldn't Fache get in serious trouble for completely disregarding police procedure, altering evidence, assault, etc.? What's his justification? A priest told me to do it, but he lied. That would get him kicked off the force very quickly, if not worse.
to:
* Wouldn't Fache get in serious trouble for completely disregarding police procedure, altering evidence, assault, etc.? What's his justification? A "A priest told me to do it, but he lied. lied." That would get him kicked off the force very quickly, if not worse.
Changed line(s) 40 (click to see context) from:
* First, a quick disclaimer: I've only seen the movie, so this may be better explained in the book. Alright, so everyone on both sides of the conflict seem to assume that if you have both the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene and the Heir, you could use a DNA test to prove that Jesus Christ sired descendants. But I can see no less than four major reasons why that wouldn't work:
to:
* First, a quick disclaimer: I've disclaimer for anyone who only seen the movie, so this may be better explained in the book. Alright, so everyone on both sides of the conflict seem to assume that if you have both the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene and the Heir, you could use a DNA test to prove that Jesus Christ sired descendants. But I it can see be seen no less than four major reasons why that wouldn't work:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Proving a woman has living descendants means precisely that said woman, at one point, had, at least, one child and that her child(ren) also reproduced. There is absolutely no way to prove paternity through maternity testing. If Mary Magdalene had any children, that just makes her one of the many saints, both male and female, who have done so. It doesn't tell you whether she was married, or to whom, and without a male to test for paternity, it can't tell whether the father is Jesus or some random Tom, Dick, or Harry from down the street.
** In fact, you can't even say that the bones in the Priory's possession are those of Mary Magdalene. The most you can say is that they belonged to woman of Hebrew descent who lived approximately 2000 years ago.
*** Which would be why the Priory preserved an enormous amount of historical records corroborating her identity.
*** Still, a woman can claim any man is the father of her child(ren). Other people can claim that the man is the father of her child(ren). Unless the man's DNA is tested against that of the child(ren) and paternity is established, someone saying that the man isn't the father is just as valid. Many saints have borne or fathered children; Mary Magdalene would be no different, and in this day and age, the Catholic Church wouldn't need some giant conspiracy. Maternity testing would establish Mary Magdalene's bloodline, but with no known remains of Jesus to prove or disprove, it wouldn't matter if people believed that it was also his. They couldn't prove he was the father of the bloodline, and the Catholic Church couldn't prove he wasn't unless they were able to successfully establish paternity to a different man proven not to be Jesus.
* The Priory of Scion is a society that [[spoiler: celebrates the sexual union between man and woman, and includes rituals involving heterosexual intercourse. But the book says one of their leaders was Leonardo Da Vinci. Who was quite well known to be gay.]]
** Well, [[http://arthistory.about.com/cs/last_suppe1/f/leogay.htm maybe]]. No heterosexual or homosexual relationships have been confirmed, and the sodomy charges against him were dropped due to lack of evidence.
** And just because he was gay doesn't mean he couldn't have ''had'' heterosexual sex just for the ceremonies.
** Or in this case, Leonardo Da Vinci could have been bisexual. Admittedly, those charges should have been brought up by the book.
** In fact, you can't even say that the bones in the Priory's possession are those of Mary Magdalene. The most you can say is that they belonged to woman of Hebrew descent who lived approximately 2000 years ago.
*** Which would be why the Priory preserved an enormous amount of historical records corroborating her identity.
*** Still, a woman can claim any man is the father of her child(ren). Other people can claim that the man is the father of her child(ren). Unless the man's DNA is tested against that of the child(ren) and paternity is established, someone saying that the man isn't the father is just as valid. Many saints have borne or fathered children; Mary Magdalene would be no different, and in this day and age, the Catholic Church wouldn't need some giant conspiracy. Maternity testing would establish Mary Magdalene's bloodline, but with no known remains of Jesus to prove or disprove, it wouldn't matter if people believed that it was also his. They couldn't prove he was the father of the bloodline, and the Catholic Church couldn't prove he wasn't unless they were able to successfully establish paternity to a different man proven not to be Jesus.
* The Priory of Scion is a society that [[spoiler: celebrates the sexual union between man and woman, and includes rituals involving heterosexual intercourse. But the book says one of their leaders was Leonardo Da Vinci. Who was quite well known to be gay.]]
** Well, [[http://arthistory.about.com/cs/last_suppe1/f/leogay.htm maybe]]. No heterosexual or homosexual relationships have been confirmed, and the sodomy charges against him were dropped due to lack of evidence.
** And just because he was gay doesn't mean he couldn't have ''had'' heterosexual sex just for the ceremonies.
** Or in this case, Leonardo Da Vinci could have been bisexual. Admittedly, those charges should have been brought up by the book.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* This may also be better explained in the book but why does Saunier bother leading them to the Mona Lisa? Why not just write "Oh Draconian Devil, So dark the con of man" next to his body and lead them directly to the Madonna of the Rocks? Isn't he wasting time by using the Mona Lisa as the middle man?
* Why would the police think a dying man would bother writing some bullshit and then at the end identify his murderer as a post script? If he were trying to identify the murderer, wouldn't he have written "Robert Landon did this" and then everything else he wrote? Would the most important information not be written first?
* Why would the police think a dying man would bother writing some bullshit and then at the end identify his murderer as a post script? If he were trying to identify the murderer, wouldn't he have written "Robert Landon did this" and then everything else he wrote? Would the most important information not be written first?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* First, a quick disclaimer: I've only seen the movie, so this may be better explained in the book. Alright, so everyone on both sides of the conflict seem to assume that if you have both the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene and the Heir, you could use a DNA test to prove that Jesus Christ sired descendants. But I can see no less than four major reasons why that wouldn't work:
** First, it's been millennia since Mary's death. The chances that enough of her DNA for a test remained intact that long seems slim.
** Second, there are dozens upon dozens of generations between Mary and the current Heir, and in each generation the Heir's DNA was mixed and recombined with someone else's. After all those generations, Mary Magdalene's DNA will bear no closer match to that of the Heir than it does to anyone else's.
** Third, how would you even prove that the body in the sarcophagus ''is'' Mary Magdelene? It could just as easily be any random woman's body that some cult claimed was the body of Mary Magdelene.
** Fourth, even if you could prove that the body in the sarcophagus was that of Mary Magdelene, and even if you could prove a DNA match between that body and the Heir, all that proves is that the heir is descended from ''Mary Magdelene''. It does nothing to prove that her child was the child of ''Jesus Christ''.
** First, it's been millennia since Mary's death. The chances that enough of her DNA for a test remained intact that long seems slim.
** Second, there are dozens upon dozens of generations between Mary and the current Heir, and in each generation the Heir's DNA was mixed and recombined with someone else's. After all those generations, Mary Magdalene's DNA will bear no closer match to that of the Heir than it does to anyone else's.
** Third, how would you even prove that the body in the sarcophagus ''is'' Mary Magdelene? It could just as easily be any random woman's body that some cult claimed was the body of Mary Magdelene.
** Fourth, even if you could prove that the body in the sarcophagus was that of Mary Magdelene, and even if you could prove a DNA match between that body and the Heir, all that proves is that the heir is descended from ''Mary Magdelene''. It does nothing to prove that her child was the child of ''Jesus Christ''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 40 (click to see context) from:
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
** Another problem is that this is yet another case of the anti-Christian DoubleStandard prevalent in society today. The grievances leveled at the Catholic church (lies from members, violent persecution of people with different beliefs) can be leveled at non-Catholic Christians, the non-Christian religious and non-religious/atheistic people, institutions and ideologies. There's also the problem that it [[SelectiveObliviousness ignores the good the CatholicChurch has done throughout history]].
to:
** Another problem is that this is yet another case of the anti-Christian DoubleStandard prevalent in society today. The grievances leveled at the Catholic church (lies from members, violent persecution of people with different beliefs) can be leveled at non-Catholic Christians, the non-Christian religious and non-religious/atheistic people, institutions and ideologies. There's also the problem that it [[SelectiveObliviousness ignores the good the CatholicChurch Catholic Church has done throughout history]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Another problem is that this is yet another case of the anti-Christian DoubleStandard prevalent in society today. The grievances leveled at the Catholic church (lies from members, violent persecution of people with different beliefs) can be leveled at non-Catholic Christians, the non-Christian religious and non-religious/atheistic people, institutions and ideologies. There's also the problem that it [[SelectiveObliviousness ignores the good the CatholicChurch has done throughout history]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** That's one of the points the book emphasizes in fact.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* "Oh noes! Unless I do something, the secret will be lost!" That's Sauniere's thing at the beginning, isn't it? That's why he sets all those clues. Except... his wife knows the secret too, and She Aten't Dead.
to:
* "Oh noes! Unless I do something, the secret will be lost!" That's Sauniere's thing at the beginning, isn't it? That's why he sets all those clues. Except... his wife knows the secret too, and She Aten't Dead.she isn't dead.
Deleted line(s) 33 (click to see context) :
* TheMovie: it just seemed like they made it too easy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** As a pedantic history point, witch burning was not really a Catholic thing, it was the Protestants that really really got into it. Catholics tended to burn heretics (people who taught religion differently than what the church said).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Is there anybody *else* who hails from Vinci and is world-famous? Certainly not anyone of Leonardo's stature! If he's the only superstar "from Vinci," why shouldn't he lay claim to that appellation? Now, "from Paris," "from London," "from Brooklyn" et al. are still contested.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:
** 3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also ''SchindlersList'', ''TheLastKingOfScotland'' and ''Arthur & George'. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.
to:
** 3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also ''SchindlersList'', ''TheLastKingOfScotland'' ''Film/SchindlersList'', ''Film/TheLastKingOfScotland'' and ''Arthur & George'. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
*** Wait, if we "don't know/forgot what 'da' means" then why'd the first guy say it means 'of' at the top? Contradiction much? More importantly, what would ''you'' have called the book? I see a nice helping of ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike but no suggestions as to make it better...
to:
*** Wait, if we "don't know/forgot what 'da' means" then why'd the first guy say it means 'of' at the top? Contradiction much? More importantly, what would ''you'' have called the book? I see a nice helping of ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike but no suggestions as to make it better...
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
**** The above poster is correct - I meant 'english speaker', sorry for my mistake. As for ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, I've never read the book nor have ever had the urge to, and pointing out an obvious error that anyone with a knowledge of the Renaissance would know is not a personal vendetta. Also, Just Bugs Me is for pointing out errors, not 'suggestions to make it better'.
to:
**** The above poster is correct - I meant 'english speaker', sorry for my mistake. As for ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, I've never read the book nor have ever had the urge to, and pointing out an obvious error that anyone with a knowledge of the Renaissance would know is not a personal vendetta. Also, Just Bugs Me is for pointing out errors, not 'suggestions to make it better'.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The implication seems to be that he's a particularly ambitious officer who's especially passionate about this case, which causes poor judgement on his part. Though that doesn't gel very well with his apparently solid reputation as a lawman.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** But just because something can be judged as historically inaccurate doesn't mean it's real as opposed to fiction either; it means it is ''based'' on reality. Except the inaccurate part means they didn't base it on it very well. Calling something fiction, even if it has a historical basis, means people will know that by definition not everything in it is real, even apart from its accuracy to the real facts; but claiming it as real means people will assume everything in it is both real and accurate. So combine Dan Brown's claim with there being people who wanted to believe such things about the Catholic Church and you can see why the MoralGuardians got up in arms (not that they had anything to worry about, since anyone with any intelligence and an ability to do research can find out exactly how much and how little in the book was true, and the ones who couldn't do that would be credulous enough to believe it regardless any claims Brown made).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Goodness, indeed
Added DiffLines:
**** That sounds like a pretty cool premise actually!
Added DiffLines:
**** While ''you'' are correct that this is a case of mistaken assumptions and PopCulturalOsmosis rather than actual etymological change, you note yourself that "this happens all the time". I.e., it's always been going on, and it will always go on. It may not be right, but as the poster above you noted, it's just a fact that cannot be changed, any more than Leonardo's surname. Even if you held a press conference tomorrow announcing Leonardo's true name, people would ignore it or continue to misunderstand; if you made sure every history book or school book had his name right, kids would still learn it wrong. So instead of fighting something that is absolutely futile to fight, perhaps you could focus on something that actually can be changed. Or just keep letting it annoy and upset you, of course.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** There are plenty of people who believe in God, and that Jesus was a great religious teacher, but not that he was a God incarnate.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
removing obsolete markup
Changed line(s) 25 (click to see context) from:
** 3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also ''[=~Schindler's List~=]'', ''TheLastKingOfScotland'' and ''Arthur & George'. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.
to:
** 3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also ''[=~Schindler's List~=]'', ''SchindlersList'', ''TheLastKingOfScotland'' and ''Arthur & George'. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's been a while since I read that book, but it's probably a figure of speech, as in "start begging for mercy".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
For goodness\' sake, people.
Added DiffLines:
**** While you are correct that the meaning of words can alter over time thanks to cultural usage, this doesn't apply to this error. The term 'Da Vinci' hasn't changed over time to suddenly become Leonardo's real name; people have made the ''mistake of assuming'' that it's his name. And Tv Tropes [[TheCoconutEffect has]] [[AluminumChristmasTrees multiple]] [[RealityIsUnrealistic tropes]] all about viewers making incorrect assumptions. By what you're saying, every example on those pages must now retroactively be true because cultural assumptions have changed. But as those tropes demonstrate, people make mistakes all the time, either from ignorance or from expectations, but ''that does not make them right''. And even if most people ''assume'' that Da Vinci is Leonardo's surname, that doesn't make it right either. Unless someone figures out a way to legally change a dead man's name.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why did Leigh tell Langdon to pray when he found the tomb, if he didn't believe in Christ's divinity?
* Wouldn't Fache get in serious trouble for completely disregarding police procedure, altering evidence, assault, etc.? What's his justification? A priest told me to do it, but he lied. That would get him kicked off the force very quickly, if not worse.
* Wouldn't Fache get in serious trouble for completely disregarding police procedure, altering evidence, assault, etc.? What's his justification? A priest told me to do it, but he lied. That would get him kicked off the force very quickly, if not worse.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Not only that, but the folk who read that schlock and didn't know better ''believed'' Dan Brown saying it was all 100% fact. To the point that the historical landmarks mentioned in the book all had to put up signs saying in essence : "don't bother looking for the shit mentionned in the DVC, it's bull. Sorry for ruining your trip.". It's one thing to sell glitter for a living, and another to seriously pretend it's gold.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** Since, um, forever ? That's how language evolves. Awesome used to mean what it says literally, "something that prompts awe (reverence, fear) in onlookers". "Terrible" used to mean "something that incites terror". These days, awesome means cool (heh, another example), and terrible means crap. Both meanings have evolved through countless writers and songs (not to mention "the public) progressively twisting the meaning of the original words. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it just is. Beyond that semantical digression, what the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is absolutely relevant when you want to sell them a book about him in terms they can comprehend. When the average American hears "The Da Vinci Code", they immediately understand it's a book about a secret held by that gay Yuropian who painted the Mona Lisa. That's all that fucking matters, where publishers are concerned.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** But the fact that you can say it was historically inaccurate shows that it is possible to judge a book on this factor and not just shout 'It's just fiction.'
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
** 3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also Schindler's List, The Last King of Scotland and Arthur & George. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.
to:
** 3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also Schindler's List, The Last King of Scotland ''[=~Schindler's List~=]'', ''TheLastKingOfScotland'' and Arthur ''Arthur & George. George'. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.course.
*** Actually, ''The Last King of Scotland'' was very historically inaccurate.
* TheMovie: it just seemed like they made it too easy.
*** Actually, ''The Last King of Scotland'' was very historically inaccurate.
* TheMovie: it just seemed like they made it too easy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 21,22 (click to see context) from:
2) Because the the novel takes a number of swipes at the Catholic Church (that it basically made up lies about Jesus to bolster its own position, that it slaughtered anyone who opposed it, that it killed over 6 million free-thinking women and called them witches) that are, bluntly speaking, bollocks. (God knows, there's enough real material to take the Catholic Church to task over). The fact that Dan Brown put this is in a book marked 'fiction' is largely irrelevant, if I wrote a book about your mother which accused her of being a drug-dealing terrorist rapist, would it still be alright if I marked it 'fiction'
3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also Schindler's List, The Last King of Scotland and Arthur & George. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.
3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also Schindler's List, The Last King of Scotland and Arthur & George. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** 1) Because the author claimed it was factually based, irritating many people who actually know about this stuff and realise that Dan Brown was actually speaking out of his arse most of the time.
2) Because the the novel takes a number of swipes at the Catholic Church (that it basically made up lies about Jesus to bolster its own position, that it slaughtered anyone who opposed it, that it killed over 6 million free-thinking women and called them witches) that are, bluntly speaking, bollocks. (God knows, there's enough real material to take the Catholic Church to task over). The fact that Dan Brown put this is in a book marked 'fiction' is largely irrelevant, if I wrote a book about your mother which accused her of being a drug-dealing terrorist rapist, would it still be alright if I marked it 'fiction'
3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also Schindler's List, The Last King of Scotland and Arthur & George. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.
2) Because the the novel takes a number of swipes at the Catholic Church (that it basically made up lies about Jesus to bolster its own position, that it slaughtered anyone who opposed it, that it killed over 6 million free-thinking women and called them witches) that are, bluntly speaking, bollocks. (God knows, there's enough real material to take the Catholic Church to task over). The fact that Dan Brown put this is in a book marked 'fiction' is largely irrelevant, if I wrote a book about your mother which accused her of being a drug-dealing terrorist rapist, would it still be alright if I marked it 'fiction'
3) Just because an author writes a book that's found in the fiction section, does not mean that they intend it to be taken as all made-up. See also Schindler's List, The Last King of Scotland and Arthur & George. Unless you think that Idi Amin, Oskar Schindler and Arthur Conan Doyle are all made up characters of course.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why does everyone (I'm looking at you, MoralGuardians) take this seriously?! People, the Da Vinci Code is Fiction!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
**** I could buy that, if a you could provide me with an example of someone else having 'Da Vinci' as a surname. But even if they did, the point would be moot - Leonardo ''has'' a surname and it is ''not'' 'Da Vinci'. Ergo, using his title instead of his surname is incorrect, and I doubt you can't just change someone's actual surname to one that the public knows better.
to:
**** I could buy that, if a you could provide me with an example of someone else having 'Da Vinci' as a surname. But even if they did, the point would be moot - Leonardo ''has'' a surname and it is ''not'' 'Da Vinci'. Ergo, using his title instead of his surname is incorrect, and I doubt you can't just change someone's actual surname to one that the public knows better.incorrect.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
**** Probably, he meant "We ''english speaker'' don't know what "da" means". I'm italian and obviously know, as it's current language. Vinci is a city, and "da" means "from". The name is "Leonardo from Vinci", and the book, in Italy, means "The code from Vinci". Yes, confusing, but to be honest, an horrible number of italians ''don't know'' that "da Vinci" is not a surname.
to:
**** Probably, he meant "We ''english speaker'' don't know what "da" means". I'm italian and obviously know, as it's current language. Vinci is a city, and "da" means "from". The name is "Leonardo from Vinci", and the book, in Italy, means "The code from Vinci". Yes, confusing, but to be honest, an horrible number of italians ''don't know'' that "da Vinci" is not a surname. surname.
**** The above poster is correct - I meant 'english speaker', sorry for my mistake. As for ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, I've never read the book nor have ever had the urge to, and pointing out an obvious error that anyone with a knowledge of the Renaissance would know is not a personal vendetta. Also, Just Bugs Me is for pointing out errors, not 'suggestions to make it better'.
**** The above poster is correct - I meant 'english speaker', sorry for my mistake. As for ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, I've never read the book nor have ever had the urge to, and pointing out an obvious error that anyone with a knowledge of the Renaissance would know is not a personal vendetta. Also, Just Bugs Me is for pointing out errors, not 'suggestions to make it better'.
Added DiffLines:
**** I could buy that, if a you could provide me with an example of someone else having 'Da Vinci' as a surname. But even if they did, the point would be moot - Leonardo ''has'' a surname and it is ''not'' 'Da Vinci'. Ergo, using his title instead of his surname is incorrect, and I doubt you can't just change someone's actual surname to one that the public knows better.
*** As the original poster of this Bugs Me, I'm sorry, but I just can't understand that just because Leonardo is most well-known as Leonardo Da Vinci that it's perfectly okay to make a big obvious inaccuracy ''in the very title'' of a book about ''history''. There's no rule saying that it had to be called 'The Da Vinci Code' instead of something accurate. What the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is completely irrelevent; it's still a ridiculous error, and since when does pop-culture dictate what is and isn't correct?
*** As the original poster of this Bugs Me, I'm sorry, but I just can't understand that just because Leonardo is most well-known as Leonardo Da Vinci that it's perfectly okay to make a big obvious inaccuracy ''in the very title'' of a book about ''history''. There's no rule saying that it had to be called 'The Da Vinci Code' instead of something accurate. What the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is completely irrelevent; it's still a ridiculous error, and since when does pop-culture dictate what is and isn't correct?
