h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Did anyone see Tony Robinson's Programme on C4 and what do they think of what he found

I wasn't going to watch it, but then I got completely hooked. I'm not a huge fan of Tony Robinson, but I thought the whole thing was very well done. My conclusion? That truth, if not stranger, is certainly more interesting than fiction (the Priory de Sion in particular is actually far more interesting when examined as what it actually was, an entirely twentieth-century French surrealist stunt).

I've never read 'The Da Vinci Code': I had a look but the prose appeared to have been fashioned out of some sort of cardboard. I did read 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' when young though. And enjoyed it - which was the last point Robinson made: as entertainment, the story is great. But Dan Brown's claims to historical veracity were clearly themselves someway short of truthful.

<>

I did read the book. And completely agree with your opinion of the prose.

<>

Apparently his wife is an art historian, which at least helped him to get those bits right.

az

I'd be interested to know, from those who have read both, if Dan Brown's book stacks up at all to Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum? It sounds very similar!
Having followed such theories for a while now (I find their reasoning fascinating!) it was tgood to see all the same old places and peoples being mentioned again.
Tony Robinson's programme was, unusually for me, quite interesting. He didn't overboard the enthusiasm, and he did a reasonable job of finding the right people to ask.

<>

Chalk and cheese, honey. Umberto Eco writes beautifully, albeit perhaps a bit 'snobbishly' (assuming a certain amount of intelligence from his readers). I found Foucault's Pendulum totally compelling, wonderfully written and also quite educational (as was The Name of The Rose).

I find that Dan Brown writes for the 'lowest common denominator' with the viewpoint that his books just might - just maybe - be made into a Hollywood film.

Well, just my opinion.


az

My problem with the Tony R show is that he makes no secet of the fact that he is a practicing Christian, and whilst I think the show did a very good job at exploding the false areas of DaVinvi code, it started with the statement that if right then Christianity was based on a lie.

However, on the one part that he did find some grounds for, the supression by the early church of the "gnostic gospels" (A307487) he glossed over what else was hidden and the reasons behind it.

So, having accepted that some "gospels" had been removed, the conclusion should have been that whilst not based "on a lie", Christianity is based on an incomplete version of the truth. Or so I interpret what was said.

CHawke

<>

False areas? It was a mediocre work of fiction at best. What I can't understand is why anyone at all is taking it seriously.


az

I've finally finished reading it, it's a facinating work of fiction, but then I like story's about the secret societies and the Catholic church, going to start on Angels and Demons tomorrow

'My problem with the Tony R show is that he makes no secret of the fact that he is a practicing Christian'

I personally didn't get this impression - and from interviews and other programmes TR has done, I would've said he probably wasn't a practising Christian.

I found the programme more interesting than I'd thought I would. The easiest bit for me to be convinced of was how that figure in the painting looked - certainly looked very female to me!

Jules

Yeah I noticed that figure was very feminine, no matter how they tried to dress it up as an effeminate man IMO that was a woman, and the french hoaxer who claimed to be from the Priory of Sion, no one from a secret society, from the Mafia to the school gang admits they are a member in public, let alone national television without 'repercussions'

I am pretty sure that in the past Tony R has done religious shows as a prractising christian, but this may be my memory playing up - and getting confused with his involvement in that other messianic organization - New Labour

CHawke

Why are people talking about it? If you offend the Christian right, they'll protest and you'll get a lot of free publicity.

If you want to make money in the book business, get a Christian to burn it.

I read it. I liked the book that came before it, Angels and Demons better. I have no classics education at all. I don't anything about the Bible or the Catholic Church except what they show on the History Channel. So it was easy for me to accept the facts as stated in the book for the purpose of the story itself. I'm a sucker for thrillers like that, as long as it doesn't controvene what I know about.

That's why I had a much harder time with another one of his books, Deception Point. It was about a NASA or military plot to fake a meteor.
I know the military and soldiers, and I think he does a poor job of writing them.

Some times I have a hard time with some Tom Clancy novels for the same reason.

Two Bit - I think you've hit on exactly why the book has been so popular, in this age, certainly in the UK, the majority, whilst stating to be Christian (71%) , probably have not much more understanding of their faith than the 15% that have no religious views.

So when a book comes out that states, as it does in the begining, that everything is based on true stuff, people believe it. And whilst I thought the book was predicable, lightwieght nonsense. It gives the impression of being very well researched - I bought the illustrated copy as an xmas present and it is a glorious book with every referenced peice of art shown. This impression can easilly make those that don't dig further believe in it wholesale.

BTW - I think Angels & Demons was better too.

CHawke

I thought the programme was really interesting - it didn't feel like it was 2 hours 10 minutes long, but it was!

I have to say, the figure in the painting definately looked like a woman to me!

If you go and look at other artists' versions of the Last Supper, painted at around the same time as Leonardo da Vinci's, John is painted sat next to Jesus and is always a pretty beardless lad with long hair. And da Vinci's Last Supper being as battered and tattered as it is, I don't think ANYONE can state that the figure is definitely a woman. Or definitely a man, for that matter. But as no one at the time made a hysterical fuss about da Vinci's painting being blasphemous, I think we can safely assume his contemporaries happily assumed it was John and left it at that.

Apply Occam's Razor to these things. What is more likely? A 2000-year-old secret society in cahoots with templars and cathars and so on, despite the fact that not only is there no evidence for said society IN THE PAST, but the 'modern' evidence is full of errors, missassumptions, silliness and getting over-excited about typos, or a recent and poorly thought out if rather jolly hoax? Hmmm.

I loved the nodding Jesus...

The "Priory of Sion" hoax was astounding - how so many people got sucked into it even after the hoaxers themselves had come clean - amazing. Crop circles, anyone?

Apart from the debunking what *really* fascinated me was the story of the Nag Hammadi scrolls and the fact that his mum put a few of them on the fire to warm the house up a bit!

I think I said this earlier but bells must have started ringing when the French Hoaxer admitted on TV that he was a member of Priory of Sion, no one but no one admits to being in a secret society in public without fear of repercussions

Ah it could all be a clever double bluff - now no-one who looks into it beleives they exist, whilst all the time they are there, controlling the world





" Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do, we do


Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do, we do


Who holds back the elctric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do, we do


Who robs gamefish of their site?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do, we do "

I love that song!

I'd never heard of those Egyptian scrolls before, had any of you?

<>

Well, and also that it give the average reader of bestsellers a bit of a pseudo-intellectual buzz.

<>

Um, that would all probably be from the wife, who is an art historian. As has been pointed out, he didn't do so well with research on other novels dealing with other themes.

I don't normally mind when mediocre stuff like this makes the bestseller lists, but I mean - man! All the hype surrounding this book seems so OTT. TV programmes being made about it, people offering Da Vinci Code tours of Rome and France, a movie in the making starring Tom Hanks (Tom Hanks? Why?) and all the rest of it. You can barely turn around these days without seeing something *else* being written about this silly book. I mean, honestly . . .


az