در کتاب راز داوینچی، رابرت لنگدان که برای یک کنفرانس به پاریس سفر کرده، درگیر ماجرای یک قتل در موزه‌ی لوور پاریس میشه. مقتول، رئیس موزه، پس از اصابت تیر مدتی وقت داشته تا پایان زندگیش و این مدت رو به نوشتن رمز و کدهایی اختصاص داده و این آغاز ماجرای هیجان‌انگیز این کتابه. کتاب تشکیل شده از کمی واقعیت، اندکی نظریه‌ی اثبات نشده، مقدار لازم تخیل و مقدار زیادی هنر داستان نویسی. ه

One night about five years back, I stopped over at a friend's house to drop off a movie I'd borrowed. Her husband greeted me at the door and said she would have come out to say hi, but she was too busy reading. "Oh, what's she reading?" I asked. "The Da Vinci Code. She said it's, like, the best book ever."

I was shocked and appalled. Surely not! Not from my 19th century lit-loving friend, whose main criterion for a good book is that the author is no longer living, and has preferably been that way for at least 100 years. I talked to her on the phone the next day and she explained, to my relief, that she didn't think the book was well written (you know, good), she just thought it was interesting, and appreciated the way it subverted religion and revealed the lengths people will go to to justify and reinforce their beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (she was in a big anti-religion phase at the time).

"Phew!" I thought. "Friendship crisis averted."

Then just today at work, conversation turned to popular fiction. It started with Stieg Larsson, and that I am totally on board with -- even though the man doesn't so much write stories as explain to you what is happening in them, in Lisbeth Salander he created a character for the ages (hyperbole alert). I kept my scoffs to myself when co-worker A mentioned that she had looved Water for Elephants, finding it a wonderful break from her usual diet of James Patterson, though my nose may have begun to point ever so slightly upwards (full disclosure: I thought the former a perfectly cromulent, perfectly forgettable plane read, though I can't recall ever reading The World's Best-Selling Author).

But then.

Then co-worker B said it: "Have you read The Da Vinci Code? That is seriously the best book ever."

I could have filled a terabyte hard drive with my sighs and eye rolls.

Um. Except. Except I have never read The Da Vinci Code, or anything by Dan Brown. Normally I am strongly against literary snobbery (you have to be when you read as many genre books as I have been lately), but everyone has a weak spot, and mine is that book. Can't say why. The hype? The overblown controversy? The terrible movie? Tom Hanks' terrible, terrible mullet?



The thing is, sometimes I will disparage this book aloud, in conversation, as if I know what I am talking about. Look, I even gave it a star rating. I am such a pretentious jerk sometimes.

But I can't help feeling that the book deserves it.

Facebook 30 Day Book Challenge Day 23: Book you tell people you’ve read, but haven’t.

رغم البعد الدينى اللى فى الروايه اللى غالبا (لو انت عربى) هيتعارض مع معتقدك
ورغم حساسية القضيه ككل . إلا إنك لا تملك إلا الإنبهار . والإنبهار فقط
بهذا العمل الساحر
روايه ضخمه (غالبا) لن تمل منها ابدا
الشخصيات غاية الوضوح (حتى ولو ظاهريا )كل مُيّسر لما كُتب له
الاحداث سريعه (تلهث ورائها)
عبقرية الكاتب فى إنه اختار موضوع نادرًا ما يطرقه احد
ضرب كل التابوهات المقدسه ليجبر الجميع على الالتفات الى عظمة العمل
منطقى جدا معارضة الكثير من الجهات والافراد لهذا العمل

I freely admit that my disdain for The Da Vinci Code is my own personal backlash over its popularity.

Dan Brown isn't a terrible writer, despite facing that charge from many experienced readers. He has a likable style, and he drives the pace of the book relentlessly, which is exactly what one would want from a pulpy adventure that one can take to the beach.

Likewise, the charge that The Da Vinci Code is somehow a failure because it is in any way inaccurate or unbelievable is unfair. The story is fiction, after all, and one should expect to have his/her credulity stretched, especially when reading pulp that is written with the screen in mind (as The Da Vinci Code surely was).

I even enjoyed the Sunday afternoon it took me to read The Da Vinci Code. It was an absolute waste of time and exactly what I wanted to be doing, sitting on a comfy sofa, drinking tea and reading about self-flagellating albino monks (and other fun things).

I've given many books that are just as good as The Da Vinci Code and even some that are worse three stars, and I meant every star. The truth is that on its own merits, I'd have given The Da Vinci Code a similar rating if not for a repeated experience that led to my backlash.

At the beginning of every semester, in a bid to get to know my students better, I play a memory game wherein the students provide me with their favourite things (books, food, music) and some personal details (people they hate, people they love, things they are proud of), then I connect something about them, something that stands out for me, with their name. It is a good start in getting to know the students, but it has also led to my hatred for Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

A good half of the students that enter my courses declare that they don't have favourite books, and/or they've only ever read three books in their lives -- two involuntary (both assigned by an English teacher, and always seeming to include To Kill a Mockingbird) and one voluntary (The Da Vinci Code). What pisses me off most is that even if these people liked The Da Vinci Code, Brown's novel didn't spur them on to read more. They read the The Da Vinci Code, enjoyed it or didn't, then went back to their reading apathy.

Moreover, if I could convince people to read one book voluntarily, one book for their pleasure, it would not be ANY cheesy, pulpy, low grade adventure story. It's like pouring a glass of $9 dollar wine for a person who is trying wine for the first time. They may enjoy the glass, but they're not going to choose wine as their alcohol of choice based on Fortant de France.

And for that reason, I hate The Da Vinci Code. It is the cheap wine that keeps people away from the joy of good wine, and while I admit that it is the fault of popular culture rather than Dan Brown, each reader I find who stops at The Da Vinci Code makes me hate the book a little bit more.

حسناً ... بدايةً اودُ التنبيه الى شيء في غاية الاهمية ، لن تتمكن من فهم الروايه و ما فيها اذا لم تكن لديك معلومات عن ( مريم المجدلية ، بطرس ، فكرة عن الطوائف المسيحية ، اخوية سيون ، الكأس المقدسة ، النجمة الخماسيه ، ليونارد دافينشي ، لوحتا العشاء الاخير و الموناليزا ) لذلك سأكتُب القليل عنهم في نهاية الملخص ، اما اذا كانت لديك معلومات و لو بسيطة فيمكنك ان تفهم ما يجري .
تعتمد الرواية على الرموز و الاحاجي ( الالغاز ) عندما تتأمل في كثير من سطورها ستجد بأن الغرض منها ليست مجرد احداث بوليسية او كشف حقائق معينة و بيان مدى صحتها ، لكن الامر الذي ركزَ عليه المؤلف مابين السطور " اعتبار ان جميع الاديان موضوعة ، اي انها مجرد رموز و إن كل مجموعه من الناس آمنتْ بشيء معين و اصبحت الديانات و المذاهب جزء من حياتهم " ، و اراد ايضاً ان يصل الى نقطة مهمه ( رجال الدين ممكن ان يجعلوا من الدين حجة على الناس لبقائهم و ذلك من خلال تقديسهم و تبجيلهم و استخدام اي و سيلة للوصول الى ذلك ) و خلال سرد التفاصيل ذكرَ ان الانجيل الحالي هو جُمِعَ على يد الامبراطور قسطنطين لكن هذا الامبراطور في الاصل وثني اي انه كان يؤمن بالطبيعه فقد كان الدين الرسمي في روما هو عبادة الشمس لكن مع اهتياج متزايد لأتباع المسيح فقد خشيّ ان تنقسم روما لذلك قرر توحيدها تحت لواء دين واحد و هو المسيحية الكاثوليكية و ان فكرة " المسيح هو ابن الرب " قد تم التصويت عليها من قبل المجلس النيقاوي اذاً المسألة هي سلطة و نفوذ ( فكرة المسيح كمخلص كان ضرورياً لتفعيل وظيفة الكنيسة و الدولة ) ، و كذلك المسيحية التي جاء بها السيد المسيح تختلف عن الكاثوليكية التي اسسها بطرس و المفاهيم التي ادخلها الرومان بعد اعتناقهم للمسيحية ، و حاول من خلال الرواية يُظهرْ انّ المسيحية في الاصل تقوم جذورها على الديانه اليهودية
؛ في اغلب فصول الكتاب ميّز الكاتب بين الكاثوليكية و قوانين الكنيسة من جهة و الوثنيه من جهة اخرى ، شرح من خلالها ان الكنيسة كانت تعرف بتلك الحقائق لكنها قامت بإخفائها و كذلك غيبت هيمنة الالهة الانثوية ،
الروايه ذات حبكه ، سرد ، تفاصيل برأيي لا يمكن ان يختلف عليها احد كذلك المعلومات التي تكسبها للقارئ لكن " الحقائق التي تكشفها لن يتمكن القارئ من الحكم على مدى صحتها كونّهُ غير مٰلِم بكثير من تفاصيل الديانة المسيحية " .

@ توضيح لبعض التفاصيل :
* مريم المجدلية
تعتبر من اهم تلميذات السيد المسيح وكان عددهم " ١٢ " ، و قد اختلفت الروايات في مكانتها فمنهم من يعتبرها امرأة سيئة ( حسب رأيي الكاثوليكية ) و منهم من يعتبرها زوجة السيد المسيح .
* بطرس
احد تلاميذ السيد المسيح لكنه كان على خلاف مع مريم المجدلية .
* اخوية سيون
تأسست في القدس ، ١٠٩٩ م ، على يد ملك فرنسي ( غودفروا دو بيون ) بعد ان احتلها ، كان الهدف منها هو الاحتفاظ بسر و وثائق معينة و فيها عدة اعضاء سريين ، منهم دافينشي ، نيوتن ، فيگتور هوجو )
حسب رأيي الكاتب لكن الرأيي الاخر يقول بأنها تأسست ١٩٥٦ على يد بيير بلانتار .
الكأس المقدسه
استخدمها السيد المسيح في العشاء الاخير و تدور حولها روايات متعددة في كيفية شرحها او تفسيرها .
* النجمة الخماسية ( المقدسه )
رمز يعود الى ما قبل المسيحية و يدل على عبادة الطبيعة ( الوثنية ) ، الذي يؤمن بها يعتقد بأن العالم منقسم الى نصفين في كل شيء ( مذكر و مؤنث ) و ان هذه النجمه تشير الى ا��نصف المؤنث الذي بشكل قدح و النصف المذكر الذي يكون بشكل السيف و مع اندماجهما تتشكل نجمه داوود ، من كان يعتقد بها هو شخص مرفوض من قبل الكنيسة الكاثوليكية ، و قد حاولت الكنيسة تشويه الرموز الوثنية بكل الطرق حتى و صفتها برمز الشيطان ، و قامت بألغاء المفاهيم القديمه لجذب الناس الى الديانة الكاثوليكية .
* لوحة العشاء الاخير
رسمها دافينشي ، المسيح يجلس في الوسط و الى يمينه و يساره يجلس تلاميذه ، كانت مريم تجلس بالقرب منه و من خلال اللوحه يتشكل الحرف V و يرمز الى الالهة الانثى و ايضاً الى الكأس المقدسة ، تظهرْ في اللوحة سكينة لكن لا تنتمي الى اي شخص ، اراد من خلالها ان يُظهر عداوة بطرس ل مريم المجدلية .
* لوحة الموناليزا
رسمها دافينشي كان يقصد ان النصف الايمن من الوجه يمثل الذكر و الايسر يمثل الانثى ، جاءت تسمية اللوحه من خلال دمج اسمي ( آمون + ليزا ) و هما اله الخصوبة الذكرية و المؤنثة .

The writing 2/5

The unexpected acknowledgment of the rise of the sacred feminine in this ultimate dad book 5/5

Exciting news for the blind and partially-sighted community, as the publishers release a Braille version:

داستان جذابی داشت و ترجمه واقعا عالی بود. دارم فکر میکنم اگر با یه ترجمه بد میخوندمش شاید اصلا به آخرش نمیرسیدم چون قرار نبود چیزی متوجه بشم. مترجم پاورقیهای زیادی داره و درباره اشخاص، اماکن و... توضیح داده که اتفاقا دونستنشون برام جالب بود.

داستان از این قراره: یه قتل توی موزه لوور اتفاق میفته. رئیس موزه کشته شده و پلیس میاد و صحنه جرم رو بررسی میکنه و یه اسم اونجاست؛ رابرت لنگدان، استاد نمادشناسی. وقتی رابرت میاد اونجا متوجه میشه که میخوان قتل رو بندازن گردنش چون پلیسا حدس زدن مقتول اسم قاتلش رو در لحظات آخر نوشته اما قضیه چیز دیگه‌ای هست. اینو سوفی نوو یکی از ماموران حاضر در موزه هم میدونه پس سعی میکنه رابرت لنگدان رو نجات بده تا راز قتل رئیس موزه لوور مشخص بشه.

کتاب پر از رمز و رمزنگاریه. همینطور نمادها و داستانهای جالبی از گذشته میگه که من نمیدونستم. یکم هم از آثار داوینچی یاد گرفتم. درکل شبیه به یه کلاس درس اما از نوع جذابش بود.
دو نکته منفی برای من وجود داشت. اول اینکه شخصیت پردازی ضعیف بود. ما چیز زیادی از افکار و زندگی شخصیت‌ها نمیخوندیم. من دوست دارم بیشتر شخصیت اصلی رو بشناسم تا درگیر رفتارها و انتخابهاش بشم.
دوم اینکه چیز زیادی برای حدس زدن وجود نداشت. خود نویسنده همه جوابهارو میداد چون معماها به رازهای تاریخی و نمادشناسی و رمزگشایی ربط داشتن که برای کسی که اطلاعاتی به این گستردگی نداره قابل حدس نبودن.
با این حال بنظرم کتاب خوبی بود و پیشنهادش میکنم.

I liked A&D better than this one but it was still a good read. Sometimes though I felt like it was just rambling on and on. Sometimes books like these feel more like a lesson than a following of the plot even if the dialogue is relevant to the story.

Overall, not bad at all. Great for people who love mysteries and history.

Impossibly complicated plot. Really, really, really bad writing. This book was forced upon me. I should have known better.

the da vinci code is cool. and i'm not ashamed of that.

this book is fun as hell. i don't care that it reads like grown-up religious nancy drew for men. i don't care that it's sold a bajillion copies and therefore we all have to hate it. i don't care that it takes a weird turn into body horror - okay yes to be fair i do care about that, and dislike it intensely.

but everything else??? i am so on board i can't stand it.

part of a series i'm doing in which i review books i read a long time ago and threaten to reread so many of them it would mean devoting my life exclusively to stuff i've already read

Alternate history, uchronias, and indirect criticism of faith and ideology combined into one of the most successful thriller series of all time.

The separate parts were already there
Everything was already on the table, many authors had dealt with the different ideas Brown is mixing together, and finding and recombining conspiracy theories isn´t that complicated. It´s the mix of different topics that interest many people stirred together that make it entertaining for the ones who like art or thrillers, for atheists and religious people, for the ones interested in plot or characterization, it´s just difficult to find someone who would immediately say that she/he isn´t interested in one of the plot vehicles.

Uchronia, dystopia, or big history?
It doesn´t just relativizes general history, but religious and political history in a way that makes it a prime example of the fact that history and holy texts are written by the winners. Widening the range, questioning the status quo, and making people skeptical regarding omniscience, commandments, and whatever is something of huge importance. Brown did more than Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens combined and multiplied could have done in centuries by reaching so many people and making them think about the legitimation of any kind of belief.

Religious fan fiction
Imagine many people would start writing fanfiction like that about different religious texts, expanding universes with new and alternative prophets, letting the whole thing collapse into a parody of itself within years.

Hard vs soft science
I tend to equate religious, economic, and political science texts for the simple reason that, as soon as there is one more truth, or in hard science, formulas, and equations, the others or even the own one must the wrong. The more open criticism and sarcastic to profound interpretations of all those one hit wonders are made by sophisticated, young people, the less power all of those charlatanries can generate in their stupid quest towards the one and only variation of reality they want to establish.

Blasphemy in a  Why can´t JC have a daughter, what´s your problem dudes? It´s so ridiculous, if any prophet would be a woman or, gosh, a lesbian (or even a gay male prophet), they would of course completely freak out even more.

Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...

A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...
Sakrileg ist der Titel der 2004 erschienenen Übersetzung eines