The Da Vinci Code, is it fact or fiction?
Are there any strong factual proof of the so called clues that are pointed out through out the book? The clues hidden in The Last Supper, were they found by the author, Dan Brown, or by someone else? I saw a documentary on the Priory of Zion, and it said that it could be real. Are they? Thank you.
Mythology & Folklore - 7 Answers - 2008-05-27 13:00:53
Best Answer
Dan Brown plagiarized some ideas from other books, notably "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". There are no clues in Leonardo's paintings. "The Last Supper' was painted in an experimental medium that faded quickly. What is left is a restoration, so no one can say for certain how Leonardo's painting really looked. The Priory of Sion was invented by Pierre Plantard in the 1950's, so it is all nonsense. I have a Discovery show on DVD about it, and I have read other sources years ago that refute Brown's predecessors. Nicholas Poussin's paintings as well as Leonardo da Vinci's were mentioned earlier, but Brown missed that part of the hoax. I saw this nonsense long before Brown did.
All Answers
Answer 1
no! it was done by a man who wanted a few bucks! its fiction, fiction i tell you, FICTION!!!! the guy was brilliant, but he didnt uncover anything.
2008-05-27 13:06:55
Answer 2
It was a work of fiction, albeit a well researched and well written work of fiction. Any piece of art (painting, sculpture, etc.) is subject to interpretation.
2008-05-27 13:16:53
Answer 3
Dan Brown plagiarized some ideas from other books, notably "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". There are no clues in Leonardo's paintings. "The Last Supper' was painted in an experimental medium that faded quickly. What is left is a restoration, so no one can say for certain how Leonardo's painting really looked. The Priory of Sion was invented by Pierre Plantard in the 1950's, so it is all nonsense. I have a Discovery show on DVD about it, and I have read other sources years ago that refute Brown's predecessors. Nicholas Poussin's paintings as well as Leonardo da Vinci's were mentioned earlier, but Brown missed that part of the hoax. I saw this nonsense long before Brown did.
2008-05-27 13:18:59
Answer 4
I frankly don't understand the controversy. Nobody thought the Wizard of Oz was misleading the people. It was written as fiction and no one thought that it would be otherwise. Religious nuts are oversensative people. They tend to have egos and every little thing is an attack on their groupthink and the ultimate END OF THE WORLD. Thorazine might be helpful.
2008-05-27 13:29:48
Answer 5
The biggest question surrounding the whole controversy is could Mary Magdalene have been the wife of Jesus and is there a blood line from Jesus. Was Mary to carry on the church. Google the Gospel of Mary and Gospel Of Phillip...presumed to have been thrown out by thy powers that were at the time
2008-05-27 13:54:26
Answer 6
Money driven fiction. Be sensational and retire early.
2008-05-27 14:35:11
Answer 7
fiction outa the head of a story teller ,who, encountered things in his life and decided to philosophize them but sometimes even fiction can have its roots in reality and so ther will always be 1 or 2 hints of truths in any story, tht wha ti think
2008-05-27 15:05:50
