Mrs. Betty Bowers is the First to Review "The Da Vinci Code"
The Da Vinci Code is a wildly contrived story about how the forbidden love between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, the Brad and Angelina of Judea, was revealed by Renaissance fresco-paparazzi, and later immortalized by Pierre Plantard, the L. Ron Hubbard of France, in the 1960s with his fabulous hoax called the "Priory of Sion," which author Dan Brown, the Tom Cruise of literature, took seriously.
Opus Dei Vinci: The Book Behind This Dreadful Movie
As an unwavering Republican, I have quite naturally burned more books than I have read.[1] As such, I seldom read any fiction not found between the bejeweled covers of the Bowers' family Bible. Nevertheless, believing that anything that infuriates Catholics can't be all bad, I finally closed my autographed Bible long enough to read the The Da Vinci Code. I must say that Dan Brown's book proved a delightful change of pace. After all, the entire volume has far less gratuitous sex and dismemberment by psychotic zealots than even the first chapter of the Bible, the Lord's more effective stab at writing a book that makes Catholics look silly.
After decades of reading the Bible, it was such a delightful novelty to find a book where the readers can look down their noses at the author, rather than the other way around! Indeed, there is something to be said for reading anything that doesn't constantly tell me what I should be washing the filthy feet of strangers instead of shopping. And since there was no chance that anyone would ever expect me to abide by any of the words in The Da Vinci Code, I tried an approach I deem most suitable for the New Testament: I actually read it rather carefully.
This man (on the left wearing a fabulous vintage chiffon-lined Dior gold lamé gown over a silk Vera Wang empire waist tulle cocktail dress, accessorized with a 3-foot beaded peaked House of Whoville hat, and the ruby slippers Judy Garland wore in the Wizard of Oz) is worried that The Da Vinci Code might make the Roman Catholic Church look foolish.
As a True Christian whose amber-paneled prayer room contains only King James Bibles, I must admit that I initially found reading an entire work from start to finish (instead of cherry picking the sentences most suitable for needle-pointing onto throw pillows) a revolutionary, and potentially dangerous, approach to understanding a book. And now that I've thrown caution to the wind by trying this wholly secular fad called "reading the whole thing," I'm left unconvinced that this time-consuming technique in any way better edifies a reader. To be honest, I found the plot points of The Da Vinci Code no easier to swallow or piece together than those in the fragments of the Bible I've read. Indeed, The Da Vinci Code has more convoluted and gimmicky twists than anything I've read since I thumbed through the pleadings filed in Denise Richards vs. Charlie Sheen a/k/a Customer on The Smoking Gun.
Fortunately, I am a Southern Baptist. That means, of course, that I never succumb to using common sense as a crutch -- or rely on the uncooperative niceties of logic to make a story work. Indeed, my staunch refusal to yield to the quintessentially "liberal elite" expectation that things should make sense has made possible my enjoyment of countless Hollywood movies. This is particularly the case with that Scientology robot trilogy called "Mission Impossible," which even a cursory attachment to logic would have rendered unwatchable.
Veni Vedi da Vinci: The Movie
I find, however, that my forgiving ability to overlook cinematic flaws is not without limits. Frankly, The Da Vinci Code tested the tensile strength of my seemingly elastic credulity. While the film is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book, it accomplishes this fidelity in the manner that television programs are faithful to the movies upon which they are based. You know, sort of the same thing, only with less attractive people.
Take, for instance, Tom Hanks, who plays Robert Langdon. Now you know that I would never ridicule anyone for their personal appearance if I couldn't claim that I was actually talking about someone else if called on it. Nevertheless, I must break this already malleable rule to comment on Mr. Hanks' face. Friends, we are talking about a face that will frighten more people away from the consequences of booze than MADD's most graphic teenager-through-a-windshield public service spot could ever hope to accomplish.
When I was reading the book, I imagined Robert Langdon more as George Clooney. Well, truth be told, exactly like George Clooney, only in tighter pants. Not Don Knotts in a greasy mullet. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate how difficult it must be to pull off an authentic NASCAR hairstyle with hair plugs, but I just don't see even a French gal (who, let's be honest, is used to men with bad hair) giving her number, much less her Smart Car, to someone who looks like that.[2]
Sophie Neveu, the love interest with said Smart Car, is played by Audrey Tatou, who had elfish charm and Hanks' haircut in Amélie. Poor Audrey, a full 20 years Hanks' junior and thereby slightly older than Hanks in Hollywood years, is left with the thankless task of bedding such an unsightly man, simply because her grandfather, Jacques Saunière, has more puzzles to solve than Vanna White. Indeed, when not participating in ritualistic sex orgies in response to postings on the Normandy Craig's List, the French Jacques Saunière is writing clues to his French granddaughter in English. Like that could happen. In behavior more typically French, in a wildly over-the-top gesture, he flags his most important cryptic clue with his naked body. An American would have used a Post-It.
Jacques Saunière body is found in the Denon Wing of the Louvre. Some claim he was posing in homage to Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, but I suspect that being naked and spread eagle in public was something he picked up from Paris Hilton. Don't worry about seeing his rude parts. Ron Howard has him lit like Madonna: You can't see anything!
Anyway, none of this really matters. The thing that has the Pope pooping his Prada is that Hanks' character discovers super-confidential information so secret it is only available to those few, privileged souls who know how to order books off the Internet from Amazon. The secret? Jesus finally made an honest woman out of Mary Magdalene! According to Dan Brown, the Catholic Church hid this fact because it didn't wish to revere a female. Call me a nitpicking killjoy, but I find this professed Catholic aversion to genuflecting before women a bit difficult to swallow. We are, after all, talking about an institution that has spent the past 2,000 years demoting Jesus and His Daddy, so as to better transform a bit part in the Gospel of Mark, played by the other Mary, into its Goddess. Clearly, it was simply a case of one Mary being the wrong Mary. In fact, I suspect that divinity is much like the Screen Actors Guild: You can't use a name that has already been taken.
But I don't know why the Catholics are so eager to venerate Mary (the mother one). Frankly, had that Mary been a more diligent homemaker and whipped up a hot meal on her Son's last night on Earth, the other Mary and Jesus would never have had to dine in a public restaurant for the Last Supper in the first place. Had they stayed home, they wouldn't have been subjected to the galling - and, according to The Da Vinci Code, Gauling -- infamy of being the Brad and Angelina of their time. Flaunting a romance destined for doom, but not before being memorialized by Judean gossips and, later, by Renaissance fresco-paparazzi. Apparently, in times before a camera with a telescopic lens, celebrity sightings were reported in fine art. But only to those who can read things backwards in blood.
While the post-Kodak celebrity paparazzi may be less skilled than Leonardo da Vinci when it comes to composition, they are, frankly, more reliable. Speaking of which: Would someone please remember to go to the Paramount Prop Department and retrieve Suri if Tom Cruise ever returns from his relentless promotion of his new film? Thanks.
FOOTNOTE 1: Indeed, I don't wish to brag, but I'm quite confident that our planet is currently minus a handful of glaciers as a result of the wildly successful Harry Potter "Eternal Flame" Bonfire franchises, which I have managed to sell in 37 states. For those of you have bought into an outrageous liberal fiction called "Cause and Effect" and have concerns about the potentially deleterious effect submergence might have on the resale value of expensive beach homes, I encourage you Henny Pennys to take the more environmentally friendly "green approach" to book burning. It's called "censorship."
FOOTNOTE 2: Since Tom Hanks is an executive producer on HBO's Big Love, I think it is safe to assume that he drew inspiration for his character's appearance from that program's cluster of incestuous Mormon hillbillies who inhabit the clapboard shacks at the Juniper Creek polygamy compound. Goodness me, since all the men at Big Love's Juniper Creek look like Sweet Betsy from Pike's pimp, it is a marvel they are able to attract enough wives to fix lunch, much less populate their private prairie bordellos!
Her satire is difficult to match -- I haven't seen any other reviews yet but they are almost on our doorstep.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Wed 17 May, 2006 09:46 am
0 Replies
material girl
1
Reply
Wed 17 May, 2006 10:00 am
the article was very entertaining but I couldnt work out if Betty Bowers liked the film or not!!
I reckon the book is written as a story merely as a catalyst to portray the facts.
Take the story away and you have (what Id imagine to be as ive not read it)The Holy blood, Holy Grail book which I doubt would make a good film.
I saw 2 of the actors in the film on TV this morning and they said thay hadnt seen any protests about the film at all.
Why are albinos offended when murderers are portrayed as absolutely anyone?!Should we all be offended.
Why are Christians offended.They offend me by saying its wrong for Jesus to have got married, yet they insist on marriage for everybody else!!
Id imagine the film has no more surprises than the book.
Readers of the book are gona be dissapointed by the film.
I plan on seeing it this weekend.
I can see im gona get annoyed by this.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Wed 17 May, 2006 10:06 am
Doesn't look good for the film -- five bad reviews already posted on Rotten Tomatoes. Here's the one from Variety:
Posted: Tue., May 16, 2006, 5:40pm PT
The Da Vinci Code
A Sony Pictures Entertainment release of a Columbia Pictures and Imagine Entertainment presentation of a Brian Grazer/John Calley production. Produced by Grazer, Calley. Executive producers, Todd Hallowell, Dan Brown. Directed by Ron Howard. Screenplay, Akiva Goldsman, based on the book by Dan Brown.
Robert Langdon - Tom Hanks
Sophie Neveu - Audrey Tautou
Sir Leigh Teabing - Ian McKellen
Captain Bezu Fache - Jean Reno
Silas - Paul Bettany
Bishop Aringarosa - Alfred Molina
Vernet - Jurgen Prochnow
Remy Jean - Jean-Yves Berteloot
Lt. Collet - Etienne Chicot
Jacques Sauniere - Jean-Pierre Marielle
Sister
Sandrine - Marie-Francoise Audollent
By TODD MCCARTHY
Tom Hanks explores a religious mystery in film adaptation 'The Da Vinci Code.'
Audrey Tautou and Ian McKellen compare notes in 'The Da Vinci Code.'
A pulpy page-turner in its original incarnation as a huge international bestseller has become a stodgy, grim thing in the exceedingly literal-minded film version of "The Da Vinci Code." Tackling head-on novelist Dan Brown's controversy-stirring thriller hinging on a subversively revisionist view of Jesus Christ's life, director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have conspired to drain any sense of fun out of the melodrama, leaving expectant audiences with an oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull, but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative material; result is perhaps the best thing the project's critics could have hoped for. Enormous public anticipation worldwide will result in explosive B.O. at the start in near-simultaneous release in most international territories, beginning May 17 in some countries -- day-and-date with the official Cannes opening-night preem -- and May 19 in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Sitting through all the verbose explanations and speculations about symbols, codes, secret cults, religious history and covert messages in art, it is impossible to believe that, had the novel never existed, such a script would ever have been considered by a Hollywood studio. It's esoteric, heady stuff, made compelling only by the fact that what it's proposing undermines the fundamental tenants of Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, and, by extension, Western Civilization for the past 2,000 years.
The irony in the film's inadequacy is that the novel was widely found to be so cinematic. Although pretty dismal as prose, the tome fairly rips along, courtesy of a strong story hook, very short chapters that seem like movie scenes, constant movement by the principal characters in a series of conveyances, periodic eruptions of violent action and a compressed 24-hour time frame.
The appearance of its easy adaptability may have been deceptive, however, as what went down easily on the page becomes laborious onscreen, even with the huge visual plus of fabulous French and English locations, fine actors and the ability to scrutinize works of Da Vinci in detail.
What one is left with is high-minded lurid material sucked dry by a desperately solemn approach. Some nifty scene-setting, with strong images amplifying a Paris lecture delivered by Harvard symbology professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) intercut with the Louvre murder of curator Sauniere by albino monk Silas (Paul Bettany), spurs hope that Howard might be on track to find a visual way to communicate the book's content.
But from the first one-on-one scene between Robert and French police cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou, occasionally hard to understand), in which she convinces him that cop Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) intends to hold him for the murder, the temperature level drops, and continues to do so as the pair goes on the run to stay one step ahead of Fache while using their complementary specialties to decipher the meaning of the cryptic messages Sauniere scrawled on his body in his own blood before he died.
Part of the quick deflation is due to a palpable lack of chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, an odd thing in itself given their genial accessibility in many previous roles. Howard, normally a generous director of actors, makes them both look stiff, pasty and inexpressive in material that provides them little opportunity to express basic human nature; unlike in the book, they are never allowed to even suggest their fatigue after a full night and day of non-stop running, nor to say anything that doesn't relate directly to narrative forward movement. It's a film so overloaded with plot that there's no room for anything else, from emotion to stylistic grace notes.
The pursuit of a man and a woman barely known to one another was a favorite premise of Alfred Hitchcock, and one need only think of the mileage the director got out of such a set-up in films from "The 39 Steps" to "North by Northwest" to realize some of the missed opportunities here.
Temporary relief comes, an hour in, with the arrival of Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing, an immensely wealthy Holy Grail fanatic to whom it falls to explain, in unavoidably fascinating monologues, the alternate history the story advances. It is Teabing's thesis that the early Church, beginning with the Emperor Constantine, suppressed the feminine aspects of religion both stemming from pagan times as well as from the prominent role in spreading the faith he insists was played by Mary Magdalene, a role underlined by a close look at Da Vinci's celebrated "The Last Supper."
More than that, however, Teabing insists that Mary Magdalene, far from having been a prostitute, was actually Jesus' wife and that they had a daughter whose bloodline has persisted. McKellen seems to relish every moment and line, which can scarcely be said of the other thesps.
Given the widespread readership the book has enjoyed and the howls of protest from Christian entities beginning with the Vatican, it is hardly spoiling things to point out that the baddies here are members of the strict Catholic sect Opus Dei, including Silas and Alfred Molina's Bishop Aringarosa, defenders of doctrine determined to eliminate the threat to the established order posed by the so-called Priory of Sion, an organization secretly holding the "knowledge" that could cripple the church.
Even after the action moves from France to England, there's still a long way to go, and the final dramatic revelations, however mind-boggling from a content p.o.v., come off as particularly flat.
The darkly burnished stylings cinematographer Salvatore Totino brought to Howard's previous two films, "The Missing" and "Cinderella Man," prove rather less seductive in the largely nocturnal realms of "The Da Vinci Code." Hans Zimmer's ever-present score is at times dramatic to the point of over-insistence.
I don;t know if I am listening to those critics- I mean, expectations for this film were through the roof- how can anything live up to such hype. Plus, it just sounds like a good film, so why wouldn't I see it?!
0 Replies
Merry Andrew
1
Reply
Wed 17 May, 2006 05:25 pm
The critics agree on only one thing: they don't like the film. I found it fascinating (and amusing) that the AP's Christy Lemir says the film is rushed and leaves out too much, while The Times' A.O. Scott seems to think it's too plodding, takes too long to come to a climax. I don't know how you can have it both ways. Lemir also says something extremely silly. She compares the movie version of the plot to a teen-ager scavenger hunt, while the book, supposedly, was more tense. Teen-age scavenger hunt is exactly the first thing I thought of when I read Brown's hilarious sendup of the conspiracy genre. That is exactly what the DVC is -- book and movie both -- a scavenger hunt with a soupcon of Perils of Pauline thrown in. Sounds to me like Howard understod this and emphasized the jittery motion. But I haven't seen it yet so I'm just guessing.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Thu 18 May, 2006 08:23 am
The flip-side is Ebert's understanding the tongue-in-cheek pot shots at the Catholic Church:
The Da Vinci Code
BY ROGER EBERT / May 17, 2006
Cast & CreditsRobert Langdon: Tom Hanks
Sophie Neveu: Audrey Tautou
Sir Leigh Teabing: Ian McKellen
Bishop Aringarosa: Alfred Molina
Andre Vernet: Jurgen Prochnow
Silas: Paul Bettany
Bezu Fache: Jean Reno
Jacques Sauniere: Jean-Pierre Marielle
Lt. Collet: Etienne Chicot
Columbia Pictures presents a film directed by Ron Howard. Written by Akiva Goldsman. Based on the novel by Dan Brown. Running time: 148 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content). Opening Friday at local theaters.
They say The Da Vinci Code has sold more copies than any book since the Bible. Good thing it has a different ending. Dan Brown's novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard's movie is preposterously entertaining. Both contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them. I know there are people who believe Brown's fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane.
Let us begin, then, by agreeing that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. And that since everyone has read the novel, I need only give away one secret -- that the movie follows the book religiously. While the book is a potboiler written with little grace and style, it does supply an intriguing plot. Luckily, Ron Howard is a better filmmaker than Dan Brown is a novelist; he follows Brown's formula (exotic location, startling revelation, desperate chase scene, repeat as needed) and elevates it into a superior entertainment, with Tom Hanks as a theo-intellectual Indiana Jones.
Hanks stars as Robert Langdon, a Harvard symbologist in Paris for a lecture when Inspector Fache (Jean Reno) informs him of the murder of museum curator Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle). This poor man has been shot and will die late at night inside the Louvre; his wounds, although mortal, fortunately leave him time enough to conceal a safe deposit key, strip himself, cover his body with symbols written in his own blood, arrange his body in a pose and within a design by Da Vinci, and write out, also in blood, an encrypted message, a scrambled numerical sequence and a footnote to Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), the pretty French policewoman whom he raised after the death of her parents. Most people are content with a dying word or two; Jacques leaves us with a film treatment.
Having read the novel, we know what happens then. Sophie warns Robert he is in danger from Fache, and they elude capture in the Louvre and set off on a quest that leads them to the vault of a private bank, to the French villa of Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), to the Temple Church in London, to an isolated Templar church in the British countryside, to a hidden crypt and then back to the Louvre again. The police, both French and British, are one step behind them all of this time, but Sophie and Robert are facile, inventive and daring. Also, perhaps, they have God on their side.
This series of chases, discoveries and escapes is intercut with another story, involving an albino named Silas (Paul Bettany), who works under the command of the Teacher, a mysterious figure at the center of a conspiracy to conceal the location of the Holy Grail, what it really is, and what that implies. The conspiracy involves members of Opus Dei, a society of Catholics who in real life (I learn from a recent issue of the Spectator) are rather conventionally devout and prayerful. Although the movie describes their practices as "maso-chastity," not all of them are chaste and hardly any practice self-flagellation. In the months ahead, I would advise Opus Dei to carefully scrutinize membership applications.
Opus Dei works within but not with the church, which also harbors a secret cell of cardinals who are in on the conspiracy (the pope and most other Catholics apparently don't have backstage passes).
These men keep a secret that, if known, could destroy the church. That's why they keep it. If I were their adviser, I would point out that by preserving the secret, they preserve the threat to the church, and the wisest strategy would have been to destroy the secret, say, 1,000 years ago.
But one of the fascinations of the Catholic Church is that it is the oldest continuously surviving organization in the world, and that's why movies like "The Da Vinci Code" are more fascinating than thrillers about religions founded, for example, by a science-fiction author in the 1950s. All of the places in "The Da Vinci Code" really exist, though the last time I visited the Temple Church I was disappointed to find it closed for "repairs." A likely story.
Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou and Jean Reno do a good job of not overplaying their roles, and Sir Ian McKellen overplays his in just the right way, making Sir Leigh into a fanatic whose study just happens to contain all the materials for an audio-visual presentation that briefs his visitors on the secrets of Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" and other matters. Apparently he keeps in close touch with other initiates. On the one hand, we have a conspiracy that lasts 2,000 years and threatens the very foundations of Christianity, and on the other hand a network of rich dilettantes who resemble a theological branch of the Baker Street Irregulars.
Yes, the plot is absurd, but then most movie plots are absurd. That's what we pay to see. What Ron Howard brings to the material is tone and style, and an aura of mystery that is undeniable. He begins right at the top; Columbia Pictures logo falls into shadow as Hans Zimmer's music sounds simultaneously liturgical and ominous. The murder scene in the Louvre is creepy in a ritualistic way, and it's clever the way Langdon is able to look at letters, numbers and symbols and mentally rearrange them to yield their secrets. He's like the Flora Cross character in "Bee Season," who used kabbalistic magic to visualize spelling words floating before her in the air.
The movie works; it's involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations. After it's over and we're back on the street, we wonder why this crucial secret needed to be protected by the equivalent of a brain-twister puzzle crossed with a scavenger hunt. The trail that Robert and Sophie follow is so difficult and convoluted that it seems impossible that anyone, including them, could ever follow it. The secret needs to be protected up to a point; beyond that it is absolutely lost, and the whole point of protecting it is beside the point. Here's another question: Considering where the trail begins, isn't it sort of curious where it leads? Still, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "In my beginning is my end." Maybe he was on to something.
0 Replies
Merry Andrew
1
Reply
Thu 18 May, 2006 03:43 pm
LW, it sounds to me as though Ebert is the only reviewer cited thus far -- always excepting the erudite Mrs. Betty Bowers -- who actually understood what book and movie are all about. Good for him!
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Thu 18 May, 2006 11:39 pm
I started to read Ebert's review. I stopped at "Dan Brown's novel is utterly preposterous". I knew that.
The fact that a piece of "dreck" like "The DaVinci" code sold so many copies when much better writers go unread reveals to me that the average American book buyer is a moron!
0 Replies
Phoenix32890
1
Reply
Fri 19 May, 2006 05:25 am
Quote:
The fact that a piece of "dreck" like "The DaVinci" code sold so many copies when much better writers go unread reveals to me that the average American book buyer is a moron!
I read that "dreck", loved it, and I certainly don't consider myself a moron. I think that if people weren't so paranoid about the sanctity of their religion nowadays, and took the book for what it is.........a rip roaring piece of fiction, there would have not been the brouhaha surrounding the book, and now the movie.
LW- Ebert's review is very interesting, in the light that many others gave the film only mediocre reviews. I have not seen the film yet, but plan to, with an open mind. I am curious though, as to whether the not too enthusiastic reviews were more of a ploy to neutralize the dissention surrounding the movie. I cannot imagine a bad performance by Tom Hanks.
Well, I will reserve judgement, and wait until I see the movie, before I open my mouth!
0 Replies
Paaskynen
1
Reply
Fri 19 May, 2006 06:58 am
BernardR wrote:
I.
I am quite impressed by the effort Mr BernardR puts into A2K. Well over 400 messages in only 3 weeks! I wonder where he gets the time and the stamina from. It took me at least a year and a half to get that many entries to my name.
Am looking forward to seeing The Da Vinci Code for myself (when it finally gets to this corner of the world. )
0 Replies
Phoenix32890
1
Reply
Fri 19 May, 2006 07:10 am
I think that the fact that the church has made such a big fuss about this is very telling. Do they think that their flock is so stupid that a book of fiction might turn their parishoners away from the church? Or maybe it is the idea, that when one begins to question, the questioning begins to snowball.
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Fri 19 May, 2006 07:31 am
Phoenix32890--I am sure that the DaVinciCode, as a novel, will become part of the canon. You do know what the canon is, I am sure. If you have access to any reviews on the DaVinciCode made by bona-fide English and Literature professors, please read them. You will find that if you read carefully, the people who know what 'good literature is, will maintain that the DaVinci Code is a book chiefly enjoyed by morons!
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Fri 19 May, 2006 08:21 am
Be asured, Phoenix, that BerhardR doesn't seem a lot about what he writes: the Canon is the law of the Roman Catholic Church
0 Replies
tin sword arthur
1
Reply
Fri 19 May, 2006 08:26 am
It's a good thing books aren't written for English and Literature professors. If all novels had to pass their inspection before hitting the market, I'd sure have missed out on some books I enjoyed. Including this one. I don't need anyone else to tell me what is good and what is not. I am not a moron, and am perfectly capable of making that decision on my own. Nor do I spend my time bashing those books I don't enjoy.
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Fri 19 May, 2006 08:42 am
Mr. Hinteler--sir--I earnestly implore you to consider that you may be mistaken.
If I may, sir---
Please be so good as to refer to the book--"The Western Canon" subtitled the books and school of the ages by Harold Bloom, who is probably the best know and most respected literary critic in the United States.
I will quote from his book--
"This book studies twenty-six writers, necessarily with a certain nostalgia, since I seek to isolate the qualities that made these authors canonical, that is, authoritative in our culture."
and,
"I am not directly concerned inthis book with the intertextual purpose to consider them as representatives of the Canon"
It is clear that you are unaware of the many meanings of the word.
Definition one--an ecclesiastical rule of law, enacted by a coundil or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
Definition two--ANY COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF BOOKS WITHIN A FIELD
Defintion three- LITERATURE- THE WORKS OF AUTHORS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS AUTHENTIC.
I hope this helps, Mr, Hinteler. I think that Professor Bloom has written one of the most outstanding books on the Canon in American Literature.
It would help anyone who wishes the understand the Zeitgeist in the USA.