June 01, 2006

I've Got Your code Right Here

Okay, you can admit it. Just between you and me—and the other five people who read this—you're kind of sick and tired of hearing about "The Da Vinci code," aren't you? Don't be ashamed. Go on, raise your hand. You there, in the back, don't lie. I saw you wince when you read the title just now.

Let's engage in a nice, carthartic release, shall we. On the count of three, let's yell at the top of our voices: "shut up, shut up, shut up about ‘The Da Vinci code' already."

Ready? 1. . . 2. . . 3


There, now that we've gotten that out of the way, I thought I'd write a little bit about "The Da Vinci code." Not to worry, I have no intention of including spoilers regarding the plot and the—Dum, DUM DUMMM—hidden truths "revealed" in the book, except for when I do. And, no, I have NOT seen the movie. Reading the book was torture enough, thank you very much.

I know, I know, criticizing the Blessed code just proves I'm simply a nay-saying stick in the mud. Which, of course, "stick in the mud" is a saying that has its roots in the Latin term, "stickus indo mudus," which translated into German is "der shtick ist ein muddenshtein," which of course in English means "that's a mighty muddy stick you have there." This has deep religious significance, since it's generally known that Moses walked with a stick, and most surely stuck that stick in the mud while making his way through the parted Red Sea. Therefore, by saying I'm a nay-saying stick in the mud, you are, in fact, implying that I'm a nay-saying Moses, so you're kind of complimenting me, in a way.

Anyway, getting back to "The Da Vinci code," where the main bad guy is a self-flagellating albino assassin monk. I'll write that again so it can soak in nice and good: the main bad guy is a self-flagellating albino assassin monk. Call me a nay-saying Moses if you will, but you'd think a guy with a personal resume like that would tend to stick out a bit. Hey, look at the self-flagellating albino monk! It has to be nearly impossible to work as an assassin with that level of visibility.

"Oh, Moses," you say to me. "It's a book of fiction; the author has creative license to create a less-than-believable bad guy."

Poppycock, I say to you. Poppycock! Poppycock, as most everyone on the planet and Mars should know, comes from the ancient Greek word poppacean-coccyx, which is commonly known to have been a popular model of chair that was very comfortable. So, when I say poppycock to you, I'm saying "Sit down!" This has deep religious significance, since many major figures in the Bible, it is widely believed, likely sat down quite a bit. Therefore, telling you to sit down is basically telling you to "Be Like Methuselah!" And, since Methuselah is Biblically reported to have lived to be 969 years old, I'm telling you to do something quite remarkable.

Without giving the plot away to the two or three of you who haven't read the book or seen the movie, I'll simply say it's a race against time—and against a self-flagellating albino assassin monk—to locate the long-lost Holy Grail, which turns out not to be what you might think it is.

This is a literary device known as the bait-and-switch, which is to promise one thing, while delivering something else entirely. This is also a common practice in shoe stores today, and in fact dates back to Roman times, when shops that sold sandals (called "switches" then) also sold fishing bait. Therefore, "Bait and Switch" shops were a very common sight. The religious implications of this are profound, indeed, as some scholars hint that Jesus may have purchased sandals from a Bait and Switch shop just prior to his walking on water miracle. Scholars surmise that Jesus was walking, not on water, but on a solid school of fish near the surface that were attracted by the smell of bait on Jesus' new sandals.

I'm going to stop now before this entry gets even more ridiculous than "The Da Vinci code."

Dark Knight. Heath Ledger. Batman. The Joker. Dark Knight. Heath Ledger. Batman. The Joker. Dark Knight. Heath Ledger. Batman. The Joker.

Posted by Ryan at June 1, 2006 03:00 PM | TrackBack

Too late.
Jk I liked the book, and the movie wasn't too bad either, it was just another way of looking at something that you wouldn't wonder about usually.

I don't get why it was so controversial, it was just a book, not something written on papyrus and wrapped around a scroll in a cave in the dead sea or anything. Get a grip people, and open your minds to other possibilities. You don't have to believe it, or that other book, (the bible) either.

Posted by: donna at June 1, 2006 03:31 PM

If religious figures had been smart and not said anything about A BOOK OF FICTION, there never would have been any controversy. That it's become the story it has is remarkable, and kinda sad, given that the book itself was chock full of cliche'd characters and heaps of not-particularly-good writing.

I didn't hate the book overall. It was an amusing read.

Posted by: Ryan at June 1, 2006 03:44 PM

i read the book and liked it for the most part - although the super obvious attempts at creating "suspense" made me roll my eyes at least 2 dozen times. the content was good, the characther details...not so much.

anyway, as i was just home in northern michigan, it seemed every other church had some sort of sign on their lawn or marquee about upcoming sermons on the Code, how to "debunk" the Code, why not to read the Code, etcetera, which is stupid for churches to do. if they don't want you reading the book, putting a huge sign on your church lawn isn't really going to help.

and so yes, i'm sick of all the hoopla myself, and there's no way i'm going to pay to see the movie. the trailers show that the film obviously emphasizes the DUM-DUM-DUUUMMMMMMMM suspense of the novel (not my favorite genre for films) and probably glosses over most of the important historical details anyway.

Posted by: amy.leblanc at June 1, 2006 05:20 PM

I think I may be the only person on the planet who has never read the book, has no desire to see the movie, and doesn't give two shits about the "controversy."

I've tried to read a few of those mega-popular airport books over the last decade or so (The Firm, The Perfect Storm) and I just can't get through them. I find the writing is so dreadfully bad that my mind wanders while reading until I finally put it down before I'm done with the first chapter.

Although, I can read really crappy fantasy.

And I can read Rambling Rhodes.

Posted by: DG at June 2, 2006 07:58 AM

You don't really READ Rambling Rhodes; you endure it.

Posted by: Ryan at June 2, 2006 09:09 AM

You read rambling rhodes, you endure the dirty mushroom that just KEEPS POPPING UP LIKE A, A, A, DIRTY MUSHROOM OK!
I went to see the movie, only because I already knew the story, and wanted to see the places they talked about since I'm stuck in a crappy job I hate and may never get to go there. (Sorry, I'm having a bitter day, week, month.) I really liked the churches.

Posted by: donna at June 3, 2006 10:34 AM

I don't get what all the religions are all up in arms about anyway. I'd feel more inclined to have a relationship with a jesus that was more shall we say, human? What are they afraid of, that women will rise up and say that look, Jesus wanted Mary to be the head of his church and not a bunch of men and take away all their power, and with that power their money and control? Hmm. Yeah, ok. Answered my own question I guess.

Posted by: donna at June 3, 2006 10:39 AM

I'm proudly one of the three.

And I thought the Grail was a crude wooden cup that Harrison Ford found in that atrocious Indiana Jones sequel with Sean Connery.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 3, 2006 03:48 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!