This blog is part of my academic activity. To know more about it, click here.
1. Brown states on his website that his books are not anti-Christian, though he is on a 'constant spiritual journey' himself, and says that his book The Da Vinci Code is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith."
I agree on what Brown is saying. His book “The Da Vinci Code” has many interesting things which will attract people. The book is highly controversial but what Brown is saying is also can be taken in to the consideration. He is on a constant spiritual journey, and if there he finds some faults in religion, it is his duty to let others know about that. There is not only one religion in the world and if Brown is finding other religion better than one which he knows that, then he can try to change it, after all religion is made by humans. Spirituality is in knowing our own self and this book let the characters do it. He also have shown some flaws of Christianity, which if we look at it with sceptic eye seems true to us. Then everything needs change with time, so does the religion. So I agree what Brown is talking about debate, that this book give us the different angle for looking towards the things and it doesn’t mean to be anti – Christianity. It provides us the ground for healthy discussion and debate and the book can be used as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.
2. “Although it is obvious that much of what Brown presented in his novel as absolutely true and accurate is neither of those, some of that material is of course essential to the intrigue, and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman has retained the novel's core, the Grail-related material: the sacred feminine, Mary Magdalene's marriage, the Priory of Sion, certain aspects of Leonardo's art, and so on[1].” How far do you agree with this observation of Norris J. Lacy?
I do agree with Lacy’s observation. What film is trying to show as fact those are just made up theories. But it obviously held the viewers attention as it is unfolding in very interesting way. It will beautifully fooled those who don’t have enough historical sense and proofs to prove Brown’s narration wrong. I do agree with second statement also that screenwriter has held the core of the novel till the end, by focusing on Grail, Sacred Feminine, Mary Magdalene, Priory of Sion, and Leonardo Da Vinci’s art.
3. (If)You have studied ‘Genesis’ (The Bible), ‘The Paradise Lost’ (John Milton) and ‘The Da Vinci Code’ (Dan Brown). Which of the narrative/s seem/s to be truthful? Whose narrative is convincing to the contemporary young mind?
If we look towards these three text by its style of genre of narration than, “The Da Vinci Code” is more convincing to the contemporary young mind than “Genesis” and “”The Paradise Lost”. “Genesis” (The Bible) is written as words of God, where there is no space to question anything which seems totally foolish or unbelievable. “The Paradise Lost” (John Milton) tries to give some different personality to the characters of “Genesis”. But it still shows the fear of God. When we talk about “The Da Vinci Code” (Dan Brown) he is trying to free human being from blind faith in religion. It also tries to give logical reasons (though not fact) to convince the readers. Other texts are trying to show God as divine but “The Da Vinci Code” is trying to show God as human being who has done good deeds. It tries to says that religion is made by human being, for the betterment of human being according to the ancient time, and if there is necessity we can make change according to the recent time. So, “The Da Vinci Code” is more convincing to the contemporary mind.
4. What harm has been done to humanity by the biblical narration or that of Milton’s in The Paradise Lose? What sort of damage does narrative like ‘The Vinci Code’ do to humanity?
Every narrative left it imprints in the mind of human beings. Same every narrative has done something good or bad for humanity. Here we are looking for the harms which has done by “The Paradise Lost” (John Milton), and “The Da Vinci Code” (Dan Brown). Milton by portraying God as punishment giver, it tries to make humans afraid of something and tries to control the free will of human being. It also seems to say that questioning mind is not good because it leads towards the punishment. So it kills the basic human instinct to be curious and free. While on the other hand “The Da Vinci Code” is trying make humans free from the shackles of religion, but humans also need something to believe in it, from which they gain strength to fight the difficulties in their life. On the other hand there are some people who have grown up with religion and if suddenly someone snatch the very base of their existence it will become hard to live for them. So from both the ways it damages humanity.
5. What difference do you see in the portrayal of 'Ophelia' (Kate Winslet) in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, 'Elizabeth' (Helena Bonham Carter) in Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or 'Hester Prynne' (Demi Moore) in Roland Joffé's The Scarlet Letter' or David Yates's 'Hermione Granger' (Emma Watson) in last four Harry Potter films - and 'Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautau) in Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code? How would justify your answer?
Mostly these all female characters are similar but at some extent they differ from each other. If we talk about Ophelia and Elizabeth are portrayed as subordinated to the male characters while Hester Prynne, Hermione Granger and Sophie Neveu have their own voice in movies. Another big difference between all these characters and Sophie is objectification of their body. Directors have shown women’s body very openly and also when there is no need of such scenes, but Ron Howard has remain faithful to the theme of novel and which he keeps in his film is that Female Sacredness. He has not shown Sophie’s body as a object. This is the big difference between portrayal of all other female characters and portrayal of Sophie Neveu.
6. Do novel / film lead us into critical (deconstructive) thinking about your religion? Can we think of such conspiracy theory about Hindu religious symbols / myths?
Yes, this novel/film leads us to think about our religion in same way. Like the novel says that Jesus was human not divine. Same we can find in Hindu religion that there are some books which says that when Ramayana and Mahabharata was written for the first time The Rama and The Krishna were portrayed as a humans only but after that deification happen and everybody starts taking both of them as divine. If we talk about symbols then the Shivling, has been interpreted by Wendy Doniger as male and female phallic symbols and people worship it, but then people denied this theory. So Hindi religion also have conspiracy theories.
7. Have you come across any similar book/movie, which tries to deconstruct accepted notions about Hindu religion or culture and by dismantling it, attempts to reconstruct another possible interpretation of truth?
Wendy Doniger has written many books which are challenging the accepted notions about Hindu religion. “The Purpose” by T. P. Kailasam also tries to break the accepted notion about Pandvas and especially about Arjuna. Amish Tripathi has also written many books on retelling the myths of Shiva and Ramayana. Many movies like PK and OMG tries to break the boundaries between religion and also the portrayal and many beliefs of God.
8. When we do traditional reading of the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’, Robert Langdon, Professor of Religious Symbology, Harvard University emerges as protagonist and Sir Leigh Teabing, a British Historian as antagonist. Who will claim the position of protagonist if we do atheist reading of the novel?
If we do atheist reading o the novel, Sir Leigh Teabing will claim the position of protagonist. Because if he knows the secret of Holy Grail, he will reveal it to the world and will show the real face of Church to the world. He wants to give freedom to the humanity and for that he will do anything. Some may find Sophie as a atheist protagonist but then she is not knowing much about religion, she just knows what is popular. But after that also when she comes to know about herself, she can come front of the world and can give the whole new way to the Church but then she choose to be silent. So Sir Leigh Teabing will be better as protagonist as atheist.
9. Explain Ann Gray’s three propositions on ‘knowability’ with illustrations from the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’.
a. 1) Identifying what is knowable
b. 2) identifying and acknowledging the relationship of the knower and the known
c. 3) What is the procedure for ‘knowing’?
Three proposition of Ann Gray on “Knowability” is very much present in the novel, “The Da Vinci Code”. This concept works through out the whole novel.
1) Identifying what is knowable is a process to realize what we actually know. Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu both are trying to decode the codes given by Sauniere, so they are identifying what they know and then they are applying their knowledge to make a way.
2) Identifying and acknowledging the relationship of the knower and the known. This leads to the knowledge of self. We can again see this in the characters of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu. They both know so many things but they don’t know why there were knowing those things. After reaching at particular point they both come to know about their own self and the reason behind their knowledge of particular things.
3) The procedure of knowing is to walk alone on the path of quest. Sauniere was used to laugh upon Robert Langdon, because Langdon was knowing everything but then even he was unknown to the things. To get this thing Langdon has to walk on that path quest by himself. No one else can provide him that understanding of his knowledge. He has to get it by himself and at the end by walking on the path of quest he come to know the procedure of knowing. It is like, “Knowledge always dawns when time comes.”
1. Brown states on his website that his books are not anti-Christian, though he is on a 'constant spiritual journey' himself, and says that his book The Da Vinci Code is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith."
I agree on what Brown is saying. His book “The Da Vinci Code” has many interesting things which will attract people. The book is highly controversial but what Brown is saying is also can be taken in to the consideration. He is on a constant spiritual journey, and if there he finds some faults in religion, it is his duty to let others know about that. There is not only one religion in the world and if Brown is finding other religion better than one which he knows that, then he can try to change it, after all religion is made by humans. Spirituality is in knowing our own self and this book let the characters do it. He also have shown some flaws of Christianity, which if we look at it with sceptic eye seems true to us. Then everything needs change with time, so does the religion. So I agree what Brown is talking about debate, that this book give us the different angle for looking towards the things and it doesn’t mean to be anti – Christianity. It provides us the ground for healthy discussion and debate and the book can be used as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.
2. “Although it is obvious that much of what Brown presented in his novel as absolutely true and accurate is neither of those, some of that material is of course essential to the intrigue, and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman has retained the novel's core, the Grail-related material: the sacred feminine, Mary Magdalene's marriage, the Priory of Sion, certain aspects of Leonardo's art, and so on[1].” How far do you agree with this observation of Norris J. Lacy?
I do agree with Lacy’s observation. What film is trying to show as fact those are just made up theories. But it obviously held the viewers attention as it is unfolding in very interesting way. It will beautifully fooled those who don’t have enough historical sense and proofs to prove Brown’s narration wrong. I do agree with second statement also that screenwriter has held the core of the novel till the end, by focusing on Grail, Sacred Feminine, Mary Magdalene, Priory of Sion, and Leonardo Da Vinci’s art.
3. (If)You have studied ‘Genesis’ (The Bible), ‘The Paradise Lost’ (John Milton) and ‘The Da Vinci Code’ (Dan Brown). Which of the narrative/s seem/s to be truthful? Whose narrative is convincing to the contemporary young mind?
If we look towards these three text by its style of genre of narration than, “The Da Vinci Code” is more convincing to the contemporary young mind than “Genesis” and “”The Paradise Lost”. “Genesis” (The Bible) is written as words of God, where there is no space to question anything which seems totally foolish or unbelievable. “The Paradise Lost” (John Milton) tries to give some different personality to the characters of “Genesis”. But it still shows the fear of God. When we talk about “The Da Vinci Code” (Dan Brown) he is trying to free human being from blind faith in religion. It also tries to give logical reasons (though not fact) to convince the readers. Other texts are trying to show God as divine but “The Da Vinci Code” is trying to show God as human being who has done good deeds. It tries to says that religion is made by human being, for the betterment of human being according to the ancient time, and if there is necessity we can make change according to the recent time. So, “The Da Vinci Code” is more convincing to the contemporary mind.
4. What harm has been done to humanity by the biblical narration or that of Milton’s in The Paradise Lose? What sort of damage does narrative like ‘The Vinci Code’ do to humanity?
Every narrative left it imprints in the mind of human beings. Same every narrative has done something good or bad for humanity. Here we are looking for the harms which has done by “The Paradise Lost” (John Milton), and “The Da Vinci Code” (Dan Brown). Milton by portraying God as punishment giver, it tries to make humans afraid of something and tries to control the free will of human being. It also seems to say that questioning mind is not good because it leads towards the punishment. So it kills the basic human instinct to be curious and free. While on the other hand “The Da Vinci Code” is trying make humans free from the shackles of religion, but humans also need something to believe in it, from which they gain strength to fight the difficulties in their life. On the other hand there are some people who have grown up with religion and if suddenly someone snatch the very base of their existence it will become hard to live for them. So from both the ways it damages humanity.
5. What difference do you see in the portrayal of 'Ophelia' (Kate Winslet) in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, 'Elizabeth' (Helena Bonham Carter) in Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or 'Hester Prynne' (Demi Moore) in Roland Joffé's The Scarlet Letter' or David Yates's 'Hermione Granger' (Emma Watson) in last four Harry Potter films - and 'Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautau) in Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code? How would justify your answer?
Mostly these all female characters are similar but at some extent they differ from each other. If we talk about Ophelia and Elizabeth are portrayed as subordinated to the male characters while Hester Prynne, Hermione Granger and Sophie Neveu have their own voice in movies. Another big difference between all these characters and Sophie is objectification of their body. Directors have shown women’s body very openly and also when there is no need of such scenes, but Ron Howard has remain faithful to the theme of novel and which he keeps in his film is that Female Sacredness. He has not shown Sophie’s body as a object. This is the big difference between portrayal of all other female characters and portrayal of Sophie Neveu.
6. Do novel / film lead us into critical (deconstructive) thinking about your religion? Can we think of such conspiracy theory about Hindu religious symbols / myths?
Yes, this novel/film leads us to think about our religion in same way. Like the novel says that Jesus was human not divine. Same we can find in Hindu religion that there are some books which says that when Ramayana and Mahabharata was written for the first time The Rama and The Krishna were portrayed as a humans only but after that deification happen and everybody starts taking both of them as divine. If we talk about symbols then the Shivling, has been interpreted by Wendy Doniger as male and female phallic symbols and people worship it, but then people denied this theory. So Hindi religion also have conspiracy theories.
7. Have you come across any similar book/movie, which tries to deconstruct accepted notions about Hindu religion or culture and by dismantling it, attempts to reconstruct another possible interpretation of truth?
Wendy Doniger has written many books which are challenging the accepted notions about Hindu religion. “The Purpose” by T. P. Kailasam also tries to break the accepted notion about Pandvas and especially about Arjuna. Amish Tripathi has also written many books on retelling the myths of Shiva and Ramayana. Many movies like PK and OMG tries to break the boundaries between religion and also the portrayal and many beliefs of God.
8. When we do traditional reading of the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’, Robert Langdon, Professor of Religious Symbology, Harvard University emerges as protagonist and Sir Leigh Teabing, a British Historian as antagonist. Who will claim the position of protagonist if we do atheist reading of the novel?
If we do atheist reading o the novel, Sir Leigh Teabing will claim the position of protagonist. Because if he knows the secret of Holy Grail, he will reveal it to the world and will show the real face of Church to the world. He wants to give freedom to the humanity and for that he will do anything. Some may find Sophie as a atheist protagonist but then she is not knowing much about religion, she just knows what is popular. But after that also when she comes to know about herself, she can come front of the world and can give the whole new way to the Church but then she choose to be silent. So Sir Leigh Teabing will be better as protagonist as atheist.
9. Explain Ann Gray’s three propositions on ‘knowability’ with illustrations from the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’.
a. 1) Identifying what is knowable
b. 2) identifying and acknowledging the relationship of the knower and the known
c. 3) What is the procedure for ‘knowing’?
Three proposition of Ann Gray on “Knowability” is very much present in the novel, “The Da Vinci Code”. This concept works through out the whole novel.
1) Identifying what is knowable is a process to realize what we actually know. Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu both are trying to decode the codes given by Sauniere, so they are identifying what they know and then they are applying their knowledge to make a way.
2) Identifying and acknowledging the relationship of the knower and the known. This leads to the knowledge of self. We can again see this in the characters of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu. They both know so many things but they don’t know why there were knowing those things. After reaching at particular point they both come to know about their own self and the reason behind their knowledge of particular things.
3) The procedure of knowing is to walk alone on the path of quest. Sauniere was used to laugh upon Robert Langdon, because Langdon was knowing everything but then even he was unknown to the things. To get this thing Langdon has to walk on that path quest by himself. No one else can provide him that understanding of his knowledge. He has to get it by himself and at the end by walking on the path of quest he come to know the procedure of knowing. It is like, “Knowledge always dawns when time comes.”
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.