Debunking Dan Brown
Warning: For people who haven't read the Da Vinci Code- Spoiler ahead!
Was checking out that new book following up on the Da Vinci Code. That was good! What I liked about that book was that it gives Dan Brown a fair chance. It does pick holes in Dan Brown's plot, but at the same time, gives him the credit for a totally new perspective. Basically, its not a rant against the book, but is more like an academic look at its theories. Some of the points I picked up:
1. Mona Lisa - or Amon l'isa?
Dan Brown's reasoning - Amon is the Egyptian god of masculine fertility. Isis is the Egyptian goddess of fertility; who was once called L’ISA. Ha! In the first place, Leonardo Da Vinci never called the painting Mona Lisa. Secondly, the painting was of Lisa di Anton Maria di Noldo Gherardini. So Mona Lisa makes perfect sense. In fact, the painting is known as La Joconde (after Lisa's married name) in the Louvre. And- I dont know Italian, and am pretty darn sure Leonardo did not know 20th Century english. So linking Mona Lisa and Amon L'Isa using 20th century english shows nothing short of EXCEPTIONAL foresight by Leonardo. Felt like kicking myself for having missed this one!
And why is the poor thing supposed to be androgynous? She looks quite feminine to me!
2. 666 Glass panes?
Brown says there are 666 glass panes in the Mitterand Pyramid. The usual reasoning.
Well, the Louvre doesnt seem to know its facts, then. It seems to be under the misapprehension that there are 673 glass panes! And it goes so far as to state the same in its website! tsk, tsk...
3. Robert Langdon - Symbologist?
He must have created the discipline somewhere around 2005 AD and travelled back in time- because there is no such a person as a "symbologist" today. Certainly not at harvard. I could call the stenographer in the next office a "symbologist"- but I doubt if he would qualify for Dan Brown.
4. Da Vinci!
This was quite obvious during the book. You guys know of Michelangelo. His name is Michelangelo Buonarrotti-Simoni. Do you call him Buonarrotti?
Leonardo is Leonardo di Ser Piero d'Antonio di Ser Piero di Ser Guido. da Vinci, because thats where he hailed from. I wouldnt mind being called Aishwariya, Mrs Suresh, Mrs Viswanathan, but would absolutely draw the line at "From Madras". Historically, Poor Leonardo has never been abused thus! No body calls him Da Vinci. He is called Leonardo.
That and many, many other glaring inaccuracies for a book that purpots to accurately describe all books, artwork architecture, documents etc etc which it has roped in!
Was checking out that new book following up on the Da Vinci Code. That was good! What I liked about that book was that it gives Dan Brown a fair chance. It does pick holes in Dan Brown's plot, but at the same time, gives him the credit for a totally new perspective. Basically, its not a rant against the book, but is more like an academic look at its theories. Some of the points I picked up:
1. Mona Lisa - or Amon l'isa?
Dan Brown's reasoning - Amon is the Egyptian god of masculine fertility. Isis is the Egyptian goddess of fertility; who was once called L’ISA. Ha! In the first place, Leonardo Da Vinci never called the painting Mona Lisa. Secondly, the painting was of Lisa di Anton Maria di Noldo Gherardini. So Mona Lisa makes perfect sense. In fact, the painting is known as La Joconde (after Lisa's married name) in the Louvre. And- I dont know Italian, and am pretty darn sure Leonardo did not know 20th Century english. So linking Mona Lisa and Amon L'Isa using 20th century english shows nothing short of EXCEPTIONAL foresight by Leonardo. Felt like kicking myself for having missed this one!
And why is the poor thing supposed to be androgynous? She looks quite feminine to me!
2. 666 Glass panes?
Brown says there are 666 glass panes in the Mitterand Pyramid. The usual reasoning.
Well, the Louvre doesnt seem to know its facts, then. It seems to be under the misapprehension that there are 673 glass panes! And it goes so far as to state the same in its website! tsk, tsk...
3. Robert Langdon - Symbologist?
He must have created the discipline somewhere around 2005 AD and travelled back in time- because there is no such a person as a "symbologist" today. Certainly not at harvard. I could call the stenographer in the next office a "symbologist"- but I doubt if he would qualify for Dan Brown.
4. Da Vinci!
This was quite obvious during the book. You guys know of Michelangelo. His name is Michelangelo Buonarrotti-Simoni. Do you call him Buonarrotti?
Leonardo is Leonardo di Ser Piero d'Antonio di Ser Piero di Ser Guido. da Vinci, because thats where he hailed from. I wouldnt mind being called Aishwariya, Mrs Suresh, Mrs Viswanathan, but would absolutely draw the line at "From Madras". Historically, Poor Leonardo has never been abused thus! No body calls him Da Vinci. He is called Leonardo.
That and many, many other glaring inaccuracies for a book that purpots to accurately describe all books, artwork architecture, documents etc etc which it has roped in!
posted by Aish @ 11:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home