1,066
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: +
→This article is unfair and unbalanced: reply
::Joshua, stupidity is often a very subjective and dangerous notion. Many Christian have enjoyed this book. Are they then less clever than you? This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed. It’s good to remember that, once, woman was equal to man in the church, and that was a revolution. But this book is not a statement, nothing but a different kind of Indiana Jones. And I agree, definitely not a piece of literature. [[User:GuyLeb|GuyLeb]] 07:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::Joshua, stupidity is often a very subjective and dangerous notion. Many Christian have enjoyed this book. Are they then less clever than you? This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed. It’s good to remember that, once, woman was equal to man in the church, and that was a revolution. But this book is not a statement, nothing but a different kind of Indiana Jones. And I agree, definitely not a piece of literature. [[User:GuyLeb|GuyLeb]] 07:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: (I should first say that don't agree with all the criticism in this article, but some is accurate). Stupidty is a subjective notion yes, to the question of whether they are less clever than I am, for a fraction of them the answer is likely yes. And as to your comment that "This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed" actually is is pretty badly informed about even its own matters. The book confuses some of the actual scholarly arguments with conspiracy paranoia (that is, there are things which Langdon is surprised to learn which in real life are taken for granted by the vast majority of Biblical scholards regarding canonization of texts and related issues, Langdon takes for granted certain material that would be dismissed by any real scholar in the area). Brown fails to get basic dates and what happened at them correct. Now, whether or not the book is a "statement" is not relevant in that people treat it as one and it has confused a large number of uninformed or stupid people. To be blunt, if someone wants to read a well-written, well-researched conspiracy novel about much of the same material they should pick up Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:04, 7 March 2007 (EST)