Da Vinci Code - the film

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: Well I didn't personally notice that it was particularly poorly written. But then I'm not one to exclusively read classics or literary masterpieces

That sounds almost like you think there's something slightly elitist or high-brow or boring about "classics" and "literary masterpieces", or not? [img]smile.gif[/img]
I can never see why people compare the two anyway (literature and popular fiction - although those terms are not mutually exclusive obviously!), it's not a very fruitful comparison. Especially since it's usually done when trying to defend the merit of a non-literary book.

I greatly enjoyed reading the Da Vinci code, but of course its characters were flat and of course it's a one-dimensional book. There's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't need defending on those grounds. If someone were to say it wasn't very exciting or the plot wasn't very well constructed, THEN I'd have to disagree, and you could definitely defend it in that respect. But of course it's not as deep and rich and - in my eyes - valuable as a work of literature, so why even try to compare it to one, let alone expect it to stand up to the comparison? The reason is actually quite simple. The Da Vinci Code has one layer. It's a story about [blah-blah-blah - you know what it's about], you can just summarise the plot, summarise the different character's motives and personalities and summarise the pseudo-scientific elements in it. That's it. There's no chance you're gonna read it again and suddenly discover a whole new side to it (unless you were particularly thick reading it the first time [img]tongue.gif[/img] )
A work of literature on the other hand you can read, and love, even if you might not totally understand it. Then you can read it again, and again, and keep making new discoveries, of things you hadn't even realised were in it the first time. You might find that something in itb - a word, a character, an event - can be interpreted in two or more completely different ways, and what's more, that there's something to be said for either interpretation, even if they seem linear opposites. Even if you took just a short poem, maybe one of John Donne or T.S. Eliot or whoever you want to pick (I'm currently writing about Scots poet William Dunbar's The Goldyn Targe and it keeps surprising me how much is in those not even 300 lines) you'd find there's more layers to it than to a book like the Da Vinci Code. It's possible to study a poem for *decades* and suddenly realise there's something in it you have been completely oblivious to. So that's why I don't think it's necessary or helpful to treat non-literary and literary texts as comparable in any way. One is amusement and a good read, plain and simple. It can be thrilling, moving, exciting, heart-breaking, but it probably will not change your life in any major way. The other can be something for which the process of discovering and understanding and interpreting never ends, which can appear in different forms at different points and always leave something to guess.

Aaah, that was a nice rant to start the morning..
Sorry for the off-topic folks, carry on...

[ 02-02-2005, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Melusine: That sounds almost like you think there's something slightly elitist or high-brow or boring about "classics" and "literary masterpieces", or not? [img]smile.gif[/img]

No it doesn't . Classics and masterpieces are such because they are better written or have more layers or whatever and that's why they have survived while all the other dross written at the same time has not, or at least is not as celebrated now. I can't see anything in my comment that implies I think that makes them boring or elitist. My point was fairly banal, really - The Da Vinci Code seems to come under more criticism for its writing style than most similar books because of its extreme popularity, and I was simply saying that I didn't notice that it was any worse than any other similar book, or indeed THAT much worse (though of course all your points re plot linearity etc are true) than some of the more celebrated works of literature, but that might be because I tend to read popular fiction the majority of the time so my basis for comparison might not be that well-founded

I don't necessarily agree that the two categories are not comparable - I suppose it depends what one means as literary masterpieces and popular fiction. I imagine a lot of the books we hold up today as classics were the popular fiction of whenever they were written, and some books written today could be classified as popular fiction but could also qualify as literary masterpieces. As I'm sure you would agree, being popular and having literary merit are not mutually exclusive, or vice versa.

I do think SOME people (not you LOL ) view 'classics' as elitist and high-brow and that makes them better and people who read popular fiction are boorish nobs - the "how can you read Tom Clancy/Robert Ludlum/etc - they're so.... formulaic *distasteful lip curl*" crowd, just as much as some OTHER people (not me [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] ) view classics and elitist and high-brown and that makes people who read them snobs, but that's another topic, and not relevant since neither of us fall in either category [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]

[Dajjer]

Originally posted by Melusine: It can be thrilling, moving, exciting, heart-breaking, but it probably will not change your life in any major way. The other can be something for which the process of discovering and understanding and interpreting never ends, which can appear in different forms at different points and always leave something to guess.

I disagree

To paraphars Lex Luther from Superman. "One man could read the back of a cereal box and gleam the nature of the univere where another man could read the Bible every day and not have a clue".

Your source for illumination and life change could come from any number of events. Otherwise, I agree with all your other stuff.

[krunchyfrogg]

Just finished reading this novel (sorry for the long bump), and I have to say that I found it quite interesting and a very fun read. I also don't believe it to be true.

I look forward to the movie, and think Tom Hanks is a perfect fit for Robert Langdon. I don't know the other two actors mentioned.

[Mack_Attack]

Just finished reading this book as well. I was worth it to the last page. I wounder who will play the monk?

[krunchyfrogg]

LINK


Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks)


Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou)


Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian McKellen)


Bishop Aringarosa (Alfred Molina)


Bezu Fache (Jean Reno)


Silas (Paul Bettany)

[ 09-17-2005, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: krunchyfrogg ]

[canadianvixen]

I was very disappointed Tom Hanks will be playing the roll. I was hoping for Viggo Mortenson.

[Azred]

<font color = lightgreen>Tom Hanks is a bigger name than Viggo. I might see it, I might not. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>