The Da Vinci Code - Another slap on the common man's face.
Just finished reading the above novel. The first 3/4th is quite spell-binding [My Potter mania shows clearly :-)]. But the climax is quite tepid and is infact a let-down.
The book is about a symbologist and a cryptologist who get entwined in a murder, the victim of which tries to lead them to the Holy Grail using a series of complex puzzles. The book presents the view that Jesus was not divine but was infact a mortal and that the Catholic Church has been playing a trick on everybody for two thousand years. The Holy Grail is said to be a set of documents which support this view. At the end, the two main protagonists do locate the Holy Grail but decide not to reveal it's location. The purported reason for this was that they did not want to invade upon peoples established beliefs. They feared that maybe, this would lead people to reject the concept of God and would lead to anarchy.
I feel that this is a classic example of intellectual arrogance. A few people, just because they have studied a few more books than others, presume to be able to predict the reaction of the 'common man'. This prediction invariably portrays the common folk as weak. In my experience, the 'common man' as a group has shown wisdom, fortitude and resilience far greater than the greatest leaders known to mankind. The common man has survived countless kings, tyrants, corrupt leaders, plagues, wars and crusades. Surely, they need leadership and direction. But this is not because of any weakness of character but because of the incoherence and amorphousness naturally present in such a large group. To say that this group would tumble into helplessness or anarchy just because one leader's credentials are challenged is to grossly underestimate them.
Also purely as a matter of principle, the suppression of truth/scientific evidence should never be condoned. It is far better to confront it than to keep it secret. To suppress the truth or evidence for fear of the reaction to it, is to deprive mankind of an option or thought. It makes the suppressor a far greater criminal against mankind than the people who suppressed it originally for personal gain.
All this said, the book still makes a good read. I just didn't agree with the author as to the direction he gave it.
The book is about a symbologist and a cryptologist who get entwined in a murder, the victim of which tries to lead them to the Holy Grail using a series of complex puzzles. The book presents the view that Jesus was not divine but was infact a mortal and that the Catholic Church has been playing a trick on everybody for two thousand years. The Holy Grail is said to be a set of documents which support this view. At the end, the two main protagonists do locate the Holy Grail but decide not to reveal it's location. The purported reason for this was that they did not want to invade upon peoples established beliefs. They feared that maybe, this would lead people to reject the concept of God and would lead to anarchy.
I feel that this is a classic example of intellectual arrogance. A few people, just because they have studied a few more books than others, presume to be able to predict the reaction of the 'common man'. This prediction invariably portrays the common folk as weak. In my experience, the 'common man' as a group has shown wisdom, fortitude and resilience far greater than the greatest leaders known to mankind. The common man has survived countless kings, tyrants, corrupt leaders, plagues, wars and crusades. Surely, they need leadership and direction. But this is not because of any weakness of character but because of the incoherence and amorphousness naturally present in such a large group. To say that this group would tumble into helplessness or anarchy just because one leader's credentials are challenged is to grossly underestimate them.
Also purely as a matter of principle, the suppression of truth/scientific evidence should never be condoned. It is far better to confront it than to keep it secret. To suppress the truth or evidence for fear of the reaction to it, is to deprive mankind of an option or thought. It makes the suppressor a far greater criminal against mankind than the people who suppressed it originally for personal gain.
All this said, the book still makes a good read. I just didn't agree with the author as to the direction he gave it.
posted by Avinash | 5:54 PM
<< Home