Changes

::: (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)

::: (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)

:::: I guess we could talk uselessly for days without reaching any agreement.  So I won’t try to convince you that Longdon is a villain but a character only, and than Don brown is nothing but a lucky novel writer, not the best, but not the worst, who does not deserve a scholar award because his book that was not a scholar work. I can’t share also the idea  that reading this novel and asking questions is a proof of stupidity, and hope you will continue monitoring this site without holding up the stick of the anathema.  [[User:GuyLeb|GuyLeb]] 19:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess we could talk uselessly for days without reaching any agreement.  So I won’t try to convince you that Longdon is a villain but a character only, and than Don brown is nothing but a lucky novel writer, not the best, but not the worst, who does not deserve a scholar award because his book that was not a scholar work. I can’t share also the idea  that reading this novel and asking questions is a proof of stupidity, and hope you will continue monitoring this site without holding up the stick of the anathema.  [[User:GuyLeb|GuyLeb]] 19:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)