Liar, Liar, Pants on fire... Review on The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown

When you read a novel, just read and enjoy it. You are free to think about it and the limitless possibilities. But at the end , forget it. Rate the novel based on its content. Especially when a fiction writer phrases his novel on a version of Bible not accepted by the church anyways. By a writer who bases most of his writing on semi truths to suit his purpose.

Added after reading the comments

Fiction writers often tend to use partial facts for basing a story. It has always been the norm to do so. But then they sometimes include a footnote too. Such is the case with Dan Brown too. He bases his novels on half truths.

Tomorrow if I write my own version of the Ramayan and state Rama was a bachelor and Sita was the wife of Ravana whom Rama kidnapped, would you believe it? I would give you some research based on my thesis and proof too that Sita belonged to Srilanka and in fact it was Lord Rama who kidnapped her. Would you consider it true? You would be a fool to do so.

The same here. Religion cannot be shaken by one or two novels. It is much stronger than that coming from centuries of trust and faith. Religion is the torch of any society. Without it, there would be no culture, no art, just the cavemen. But fools who believe in it should at least be careful enough to verify the facts on what the writer states before intending to propagate their beliefs. I am expressing my opinion very strongly here, since I have been seeing too many emails in the office circuit and reviews at MS to negate them independently.

However, below is my personal research, thanks to the internet.

The Last Supper is a painting which was ordered by some royalty. At that time it was very fashionable to have the paintings of the last dinner with friends painted as a memento. Leonardo Da Vinci was commissioned by the royalty to draw the Last Supper of Christ on the walls. Check the original pictures attached. Next, note that there were around 11 restorations carried out to restore the painting. Because of moisture, walls tend to get wet and the painting cracks more easily or just droops. The original restored image is as shown along with the place where it lies. It doesn't look like a woman to me. The place was a place for the congregation of monks to have lunch, dinner and breakfast for centuries. How come the monks eating here for centuries never thought it to be a woman?

There were umpteen versions of the bible re written by -oh-so-many people. But the church accepted around 27 versions in all based on discrepancies and classicality. For the church it is more important to differentiate between divinity and humans. (Else you know what happens in India) Dan Brown seems to have forgotten one thing when basing his novel. The original research carried out in the 80's seems to have been based on one such rejected view of the bible. (If so, it was written well after Leonardo's painting to suppose so)

More on the painting and Leonardo Da Vinci.

At that time each painter had his own "rules" on how to paint people. If for example, the man was more experienced in life, he had a weather beaten face. As simple as that. If he was a young guy who accepted whatever told to him by anybody, he came across as depicted clean shaven, and young radiant features without any lines. And the supposed traitor has been deliberately held back in the painting. As Jesus seems to inform the others that one of them would betray him, all the others ask him, "Is it I, Lord?" Only the traitor seems to be deliberately depicted struggling backwards. That logic of depiction is very simple and works. The technique has been used by lots of painters before and after Leonardo. A woman? Look at the original and let me know if you think it's a woman...

Other facts which come to fore. Holy Blood, Holy Grail was a thesis topic, not an extensive piece of authentic research. Tomorrow, when I do my my phd, I will definitely put in a word for my version of the Ramayan...

The one that lets me eat my cake and have it too is the Priory of Sion. The actual "Priory of Sion" was founded in 1956 by Pierre Plantard, Andre Bonhomme and others, not in 1099 as claimed in the book, and it was named after a mountain in France, not the biblical Mount Zion. There were a few forgers then who for making money twisted the truth. They rewrote a lot of documents and sold it to their caretakers - the various churches. One such guy was Philippe De Cheirsey. How he hoodwinked the church makes an interesting read. Dan Brown's novels were primarily based on his forged documents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_de_Cherisey

I seek to end this now with one piece of fact. Often liars make the best fiction writers. Because that's what it is all about. How well told a lie is. Does anyone remember Jeffrey Archer? The amount of lies he stated in court even when confronted with evidence?

I thank the soul who posted the links yesterday as he deserves a commendation. You now have valid proof based on accepted sites. If you are interested in a religious perspective and looking at the original paintings do take a look at the below site.

https://jesusdecoded.com/truthbetold8.php

https://wga.hu/ (Check for Leonardo Da Vinci)