Too personal, too anti-Da-Vinci-Code
927339
The title is misleading. It is the story of the Sinclair family that built the chapel and their castle from the darkest and dimmest origins of Sanctus Clarus to today. They were linked to the famous Templars and the armourers' guilds, groups, that followed them, many of them gypsies from Egypt. When the Templars came back to Europe they settled in many places but were particularly welcome in Rosslyn. The Rosslyn Sinclairs became the weapon providers of the Scottish crown and various factions. When the Templars were banned, it is highly probable that at least some of the ships transporting their treasures took refuge in Rosslyn. The chapel is built as a crossing and mixing of various influences. First the Templars influence and the clearly asserted desire to build a new Temple of Solomon with the two columns of Jachin and Boaz. Strangely enough in reverse order when compared with the original in Jerusalem : Boaz, the master, and Jachin, the pupil, the apprentice. Apart from this element many other elements are wrongly interpreted. The vault is a barrel vault, so romanesque, whereas the outside look is Gothic. The extremely carved decoration and tiling is not cistercian (Saint Bernard was for plain and only vegetal decoration) but directly romanesque, hence benedictine. What Andrew Sinclair says is problematic. Some elements are even unacceptable the way he presents them. He says there are seventy odd green men borrowed from nordic mythology. Wrong. Green men are Irish, hence Celtic, and they are always twinned with Sheela-na-gigs, female representations of fertility. Sinclair does not even speak of Sheela-na-gigs. So either they were all destroyed as lustful, or they were never there and then the green men are a continental Celtic representation widely recuperated by the Benedictines in their romanesque period and they are  wuyvres , male repr&eacute;sentations of the creative power of nature, of underground forces, and of the power of the Verb, the Word, hence a representation of the Druid, the one who knows, the master, recuperated into the Christian faith as the patriarch, the creative power of the Verb, the Word, of God's Word, hence of the creative power of God. I could multiply examples, and I should visit this chapel to really see what it is all about. A last remark. The final diatribe against those who invented 50 years ago (on the basis of a quite longer tradition) the connection of the Saint Clairs with the blood line of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is out of place in a serious book. The final paragraph against the Da Vinci Code in this diatribe is purely un-academic and hence absurd.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, Universit&eacute; Paris Dauphine, Universit&eacute; Paris I Panth&eacute;on Sorbonne
1657050
The book introduces the character of Robert Landon, a religious iconologist and art history teacher at Harvard University, made popular by Brown's recent bestseller - The DaVinci Code. Just as in The DaVinci Code, Langdon is coerced out of bed, by Maximilian Kohler, the director of CERN- the world's largest research facility, in relation to the murder of one of his top physicists - Leonardo Vetra. Vetra is not only brutally murdered and left with his eye gorged out, but also branded by the symbol of the ancient secret brotherhood of the Illuminati, the cult dedicated to promoting science and condemning the blind faith of Catholics. Vetra is also a priest with an adopted daughter, Vittoria, who is his colleague at CERN. Vittoria discovers that the final and secret discovery of her father -a vial of antimatter, the most powerful energy source known to man, that the Vetras successfully produced about five thousand nanograms of is missing. Unless the vial is contained in a specifically designed canister powered by a battery source, the antimatter would annihilate upon the slightest contact with air. Almost immediately the canister of antimatter is discovered by the Swiss Guard, somewhere in the Vatican City, counting down to annihilation in twenty four hours, on the eve of the papal election.

Langdon and Vittoria race to the Vatican to find the canister and contain it safely, only to be stopped by the Swiss Guard due to the election, until the Camerlengo receives a threat from the `assassin' that he has the preferiti and intends to sacrifice each of the four by the hour and plans to eliminate the rest of the cardinals locked in the Sistine chapel, defacing the church by the end of the day. Langdon and Vittoria race against time, digging through the archives, trying to find the clues that lead to the 400-year old trail leading to the secret lair of the Illuminati, taking the reader through ancient churches, fountains, crypts and catacombs, hoping to find the cardinals and the canister before its too late.

The novel is gripping till the last page, with the usual Brownian twists and turns, although it needs to be read with enough suspension of logic. Brown alters the anatomy of the Vatican City and Rome to cater to the plot, adds pizzazz to ancient architecture and the artists of that era. There are certain points in the book that are almost impossible to imagine, like when Langdon survives a nuclear explosion, finds a tarp to land himself safely in the river Tiber, and just as easily is rescued by onlookers. Brown tries to build the characters by giving us an insight into their memories, but it seems more like he is citing incidents of the past for no particular reason. In the end though, it does make for an interesting read.
3854409
I got this book to learn about Robespierre because I didn't know enough about the French revolution and especially the Terror. Yes, the book is well-written. I didn't end up finishing it because in the early going, the author was too speculative to trust.  Two (early) examples: (1) She cites "a forgery" describing a meeting of Robespierre and Rousseau. She says the source is "discredited" and the meeting is "apocryphal" but that the account is "too alluring to pass over."  C'mon! You describe a meeting that didn't happen to illuminate your argument using a source that was a forgery! (2) Because during Robespierre's schooldays in Paris, the city was the largest city in Europe after London, the author concludes it would be "hard to believe that the students" felt negatively about it. Maybe it's hard to believe for the Londoner author. But the *past is another country.* We should not assume contemporary feelings about city life are the feelings of a young man from a provincial town in the 18th century! Another example: Describing Rousseau's description of the horrors of wet nursing the author concludes "any mother would feel panic and guilt reading this." Maybe today's mother's might feel guilt, but if, as the author writes "even comparatively impoverished urban women dispatched their babies to wet nurses," the 18th century mother might not have felt guilt. Again, *the past is another country*.  I am disappointed to have wasted money on a book that uses discredited evidence because it contributes to the picture the author is trying to draw and that reasons about the feelings of 18th century people based on contemporary assumptions.
4218789
This book -- actually, it's more like a pamphlet at 96 pages -- is little more than an exercise in Catholic polemics disguised as a serious commentary on Dan Brown's best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code.  If that sort of thing appeals to you, then you'll love this book; otherwise, save your money.  Despite its disingenuous title, Kellmeyer's pamphlet spends very little time discussing historical evidence, at least as I understand the concept.  Instead, Kellmeyer spends most of his 96 pages attacking the novel as inconsistent with Catholic doctrine.  It had never occurred to me that The Da Vinci Code was consistent with Catholic doctrine; so, this is neither here nor there for me.  Kellmeyer makes it very clear that he views The Da Vinci Code -- which he compares to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, no less -- as nothing less than an attack on the Catholic faith; and his pamphlet is an obvious apologia offered in response to that attack.  Kellmeyer's basic thesis is that The Da Vinci Code should be viewed as an historical novel set in an "alternate universe", in which the Catholic faith is founded "on a lie".  The lie, of course, is the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Of course, mainstream Christianity in general would be founded on a lie in such an "alternate universe" -- not just the Catholic faith -- but, Kellmeyer is so focused on defending Catholicism from the perceived challenge offered by The Da Vinci Code that he never seems to recognize this fact.  Kellmeyer also never clearly articulates the reasoning underlying his thesis that The Da Vinci Code is set in an "alternate universe"; but, he strongly suggests that this conclusion follows naturally from the self-evident fact that Catholic doctrine (again, specifically Catholic doctrine, not Christianity broadly speaking) is ultimate Truth.  In other words, we all know that the Catholic faith is Truth, so any novel that suggests otherwise must take place in an alternate universe.  This sort of vague, clumsy, and ultimately circular reasoning is characteristic of much of Kellmeyer's tract, which appears to have been hurriedly written, and shows it.  For those who don't know -- and you won't find out from Kellmeyer -- the foundational premises of The Da Vinci Code's plot did not originate with Dan Brown or his novel.  The Da Vinci Code's plot premises appear to have been drawn directly from the pages of an earlier (1982-83) non-fiction book entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln.  I'm certainly not endorsing this book one way or the other, but it seems to me that any investigation of the historical evidence -- or lack thereof -- for the ideas presented in The Da Vinci Code should probably begin with this book.  For my part, I am both intrigued by and skeptical of the ideas found in both Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code.  I am intrigued because the Holy Grail is an historical riddle; I am skeptical because the evidence for this particular solution to the riddle seems rather thin to me.  Personally, I find the ideas presented in these books to be neither shocking nor implausible (nor do I think that they must necessarily be viewed as an attack on Catholicism or Christianity); but, I also don't think that they have met the burden of proof as yet.  I was hoping that Kellmeyer's pamphlet might shed some light on the matter.  It appears that I was wrong.
4298983
Truth be told, the excerpt on the cover told the story better than the 209 pages of text.

What's touted as the biography of "a thirteen-year old pioneer traveling west toward Zion, with her Mormon family"(teaser on cover) is written with an obvious anti-Mormon sentiment. The Oatman family are actually "Brewsterites", a group headed by James Colin Brewster, a self-proclaimed prophet, determined to start his own church after disagreeing with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Ironically, Mifflin addresses this, but fails to make the distinction between the two religious groups.)

The Brewsterites were not headed for Zion--which was the community in the Great Basin (now known as the Salt Lake Valley and is still the headquarters for the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--also known as the "Mormons")--but were actually following the Santa Fe Trail "arguing with Brewster about whether to continue to California or settle in Socorro, New Mexico"(pg 23). (Still no distinction is made.)

The "story" jumped all over the place. Instead of just focusing on Olive and what was known about her. Ms. Mifflin spends pages upon pages telling us about a variety of characters like Olive's brother, Lorenzo; or Sarah Bowman and her "brothel across the river"(pg 113); or James O'Connell, the first tattooed man in America. Understanding that these people were influences in Olive's life is important, I'll concede that fact. But sometimes it felt like we were exploring their histories just for the sake of shock factor.

Despite all the notes in the back depicting the accuracies in The Blue Tattoo, when it comes to the Mormon portion of it, The Blue Tattoo has many inaccuracies. The most glaring of which is on page 138; "...in the wake of Joseph Smith's lynching...". In reality, the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum were shot--martyred--in Carthage Jail on June 27, 1844. This obvious and easily researchable blunder makes me wonder how many other parts of this "biography" are figments of the author's imagination.

With all of this said, learning about Olive Oatman and her past was intriguing. Yet there is a huge asterisk on that statement because of all the mistakes. Intentional or not, they exist and ruin what could have been a great portrayal of a mysterious historical figure.
4642459
The Gilder's make a very interesting accusation in their novel (read: novel, fiction).  Sadly, this accusation is backed up by half-proofs and misrepresentations.

Kepler's words, which have been so methodically groomed throughout this novel, condemn him to no end.  He wrote about childhood trauma (giving him an unstable mind... one that could commit murder), He wrote about his incessent anger (giving him the ability to lash out and hurt someone), and he wrote about his obsession with obtaining Brahe's data (a motive for murder).  Sadly, however, all of Kepler's words, though they are true, only tell half the story of the man's life.  Self Analysis, which the Gilder's obtained most of their 'evidence', was written as an exercise for Kepler, and much of what he said was overly harsh onto himself, and he likely didn't belive much of what he said about himself.  As for his letters, much of the same can be said for them.  They included letters that looked badly on him, but failed to include those which would give him a softer edge.

I'm sad that this might be the only book on Kepler and Brahe people will read, if they read others, a different picture of the two can be painted.  Though, because of the current CSI craze, many people, including fellow reviewers, seem to be taking this as the word of god and saying that these forenzics don't lie.  Maybe not, but Kepler isn't the guy they're looking for, he's just an exciting, interesting scapegoat.

The book was written in an accessable format, and if one can keep an objective mind and realize that the Gilder's are spitting a lot of bullsh*t, one can learn a fair deal about Astronomy and Alchemy.  It's a shame that that won't be all.

I only hope that the scientific world comes out swinging on this one and puts an end to the Gilder's unfounded condemnation of Johannes Kepler
2068128
It is difficult to rate this book. It was suspenseful and well-written. I noted a few grammatical issues, but not nearly enough to affect a reader's enjoyment of the story. The subject matter was fascinating and the story did keep me enthralled.

Now, for the reason it received three stars, rather than four or five. The book professed too much of a certain Protestant philosophy - Calvinism (yes, this is a philosophy, not a religion) and proceeded as if that were the correct Christianity. As much as I enjoyed the basic plot and the character development, I resented the attempts to preach to the reader and the ill-disguised digs at other Christian sects (particularly Catholicism which is portrayed as quite mercenary and un-Christian). In spite of the writer's talent and skills, I will not be reading another book by this author.

I am what I consider a "lapsed" Lutheran if that matters to anyone reading this review.
377716
This book makes an interesting read, but I my jaw dropped when the authors dragged the Shroud of Turin into it. Also, the book is quite Anti-Catholic. There are bits and pieces of interesting research here, but they are put together with innuendos, half-truths and very broad suppositions to make a  confusing picture which I consider false.
3582787
I'm kind of enjoying this book, though it's not what I thought it would be. Way too much anti-American/Christian sentiment and way too much pro-Darwin thoughts. It would've been an enjoyable read if he'd stayed with the original theme but he went off on tangents that history has shown to be dead wrong.

An example of his wrongheaded thoughts: He laughs at the British for spending "5 billion pounds" on war preparation instead of just "sending citizens to the Riviera on vacation." That was in 1937.  Two years later, the Brits would very much need that war prep...but Lin Yutang didn't think like that.

The book didn't age well in other sections, either, as the author is proven disastrously wrong on other points, as well.

A funny example of his dated writing: ON ENJOYING DINNER: "A Chinese must be dressed in a white silk robe and sitting at a table made from the Pine from nearby hills. A woman--not too young nor old--should pour tea and serve the gentleman crab, but only in the months of October-November, and only when asked to do so. The gentleman should dine with a friend whom he hasn't seen in many years. The friend should be a scholar, never an office worker, and the two should speak of interesting subjects such as poetry and politics and women and furniture placement. The woman serving tea must be beautiful and quiet and dressed in a red silk skirt and should never join the conversation, but instead smell of plum blossoms and juniper. If a Chinese cannot dine in such a manner at all times he is no better than the filthy Christians who are observed eating clam chowder without the scent of clams in Boston with their spoiled children."

Though I did enjoy the "Importance of Loafing" parts that I bought this for.
1912212
It's a good book; although, the movie did not live up to its source material.

As for the questions it spawned, I leave the implications and religious beliefs to theologians and scholars. We may never know the full truth; unless there's DNA testing between a living heir of Jesus and DNA from him, unlike a cheesy daytime talk show it's not that easy. For those who believe in the story's hypothetical ideas based on historical interpretation, you guys have your belief and it's fine, if Chistians find that offensive, then it's merely a statement of your own faith. On the flip side, if this makes you feel uncomfortable and you deeply dislike this story's ideas to the point where you must make it your life mission to decry every point and line in the book, it is your life and your choices. To defend ones faith is not wrong, even if it is to others a waste of time. That's how I think the ongoing on and off debate can end.

Dan Brown created one of his most memorable stories in this book; he made himself a talking point on faith, history, and fictional writing for years afterward. I think this book could be a great teaching tool for High School literature on Comparative theology, if the different sides of it can ever agree to let their oppponent speak.
2688675
This mixed review comes because the book is well written and has plenty of suspense. It will keep you on the edge of your seat. But, unfortunately, Dan Brown thinks that his theories are somehow factual. Unfortunately for him, the fact is that the church had more issues in the first 3 centuries with Christ's humanity than his deity. Besides setting up the Council of Nicea in 325, there is no truth to the claim that Constantine had anything to do with creating Christ's deity or putting together the New Testament. In addition, Brown's theories that the NT is not trustworthy have no basis in fact. In fact, these errors make it hard to take this book seriously. Brown's lack of scholarly qualifications as well as his weak support and logical inconsistencies show that, while entertaining as fiction, the hype cannot be supported. Thus, I say, read the book for entertainment, but don't get caught up in its ridiculous claims. There are a number of good rebuttals against this book that show Dan Brown is no historian. Rather, fiction is his forte.
3145578
While "The Final Prophecies" is a fascinating and very well made documentary, it ultimately falls apart because of its overriding premise.  Namely, that numerous very specific prophecies made in the Bible which have already come true must be attributed either to the word of God or to pure chance.  And of course chance, at least as most people misunderstand it, cannot possibly account for the accuracy of so many prophecies.  The problem with this "either-or" paradigm is, first, that chance is not an entirely random occurrence for which no semblance of causality exists; but rather a number of possible outcomes deriving logically from a certain series of events, whether those events can be catalogued or not.  And the second problem with "either-or" as used in "The Final Prophecies" is that it completely discounts human intuition. What it says is that humans can only see into the future if they're looking through the eyes of God; that second sight, or clairvoyance, is not a human but only a divine attribute - yet there exists considerable evidence that this faculty does indeed exist in humans.

The thrust of the documentary is two-fold.  First and foremost is the contention that without prophecy the Bible loses all credibility; that is to say, if all prophecy is removed from the Bible, or dis-proven, the book virtually ceases to exist.  Therefore, it is crucial to prove the validity of biblical prophecy.  And, as a corollary, is the contention that the world is right now experiencing "The Final Days."  This is because certain events have recently taken place, and continue to take place, which are prophecied  to occur as the prelude to the End Times.  Therefore, it becomes as crucial to prove that these events can be directly traced to biblical prophecy as it is to verify prophecies which have already taken place.

The documentary notes that, of all peoples who have ever existed, only the Jewish people have retained their ancient identity through history.  And that the Jews have even retained that identity through numerous exiles from their original homeland and scatterings throughout the world - even down to retaining the original Hebrew writing.  In fact, this documentary is as much about the exceptional identity of the Jews as it is about biblical prophecy: the two go hand-in-hand in that proof of prophecy also verifies the Jews' unique position as God's "Chosen People."

As might be expected, the documentary attributes all prophetic events to the word of God; and dismisses those secularists who insist upon finding rational as opposed to supernatural explanations for prophecy as mis-guided and perhaps lost souls.  It attributes the skepticism of secular scientists to the historical events portrayed in the Bible as deriving from their realization that to certify these events as authentic is necessarily to accept the existence of God.  Which reinforces the "either-or" paradigm with which the documentary began with another "either-or" - namely, that the historical events either happened because of God's intervention or they did not happen at all.  But, once again, this presents a false dichotomy; because the historical events could have happened even if they do not reflect divine intervention.  In sum, be very wary of "either-or" or "black and white" situations. They can foil even the best made arguments.
2605711
Raising Atlantis goes seriously wrong a little after the middle.  At first, the mystery is quite intriguing, particulary as I have a love of anything concerning the Antarctic, although it begins to sound like a lecture at moments.  That is a problem many of these books have.  Once upon a time people would have written a non-fiction Chariot of the Gods or Holy Blood/Holy Grail to posit their often charminly odd theories.  Now in the wake of The Code of Four and the Da Vinci Code creating a fictional mouthpiece is the way to go.  Something is lost or forced in the transition, such as the workings of a true suspense novel with situations and people who exist for reasons other than to spout ideas.  The characters are a little wooden in this particular book but perhaps no more so than something like the Da Vinci Code. Where the author, Thomas Greanias, goes most off-kilter is continually increasing the number of people who know about what is happening before it even began happening until it enters a whole world of silliness on its own.  The premise is not terrible and is even somewhat interesting but the execution is a little regrettable.
3838608
Robert Longone, a Professor of Symbology at Harvard, was in Paris to give a presentation at an academic conference. On the last day of his trip, he is tied to a murder in the Louvre and soon finds himself drawn into a web of conspiracy and intrigue that spans farther than he can imagine and dates back to the time of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalen.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Don't worry; it's not that other book.

In the world of The Da Vinci Barcode, everyone knows where the bones of Mary Magdalen are, there is a shopping mall under the Louvre, and symbology is the study of barcodes. The mystery is not who killed the former director of the Louvre Shopping Mall, but why he was killed and why he sent strange barcodes to his two granddaughters and Robert Longone just before his death.

The secrets are hidden not in codices, but in barcodes, including the ultimate barcode: human DNA. If Robert can't figure out how to read the barcodes in time, something catastrophic could happen.

Well, sort of catastrophic. Bad, anyway. Okay, not really all that horrible, but that's sort of the point. It's not supposed to be bad, it's supposed to be silly and confusing and perhaps point out how ridiculous a few things in that other book are, and The Da Vinci Barcode does that quite well. There's lots of technical banter to keep things confusing, lots of plot twists to keep things entertaining, and two beautiful women to keep things interesting.

The Da Vinci Barcode claims to be a parody--it's even subtitled thus--but it goes beyond that, breaking away from the plot of that other book early on and developing into a story of its own right. Though certain parodied elements and characters do appear later in the book, it really is its own tale, sometimes silly, sometimes confusing, and always entertaining.

Armchair Interviews says: If you are looking for a lighthearted, entertaining read, you will enjoy The Da Vinci Barcode...even if they haven't read that other book.
3426676
More of a hagiography than a biography, and a disturbing book in many ways.  On the one hand, Bonhoeffer and his fellow conspirators against Hitler were clearly on the side of the angels.  On the other hand, he espoused a theology which had more in common with the 15th than the 20th century, and he and his fellow conspirators opposed Hitler as much because he and the other Nazi leaders were low class slobs who threatened the dominance of the aristocratic ruling class as for moral reasons.

It is worth noting that Bonhoeffer's storybook romance was that of a 37 year old pastor with an 18 year old fiancee whom he had known since she was 12.  He has elaborate Biblical and religious justification for it.  My wife (whose family is from one town over in Alabama from where Roy Moore was banned from the malls) thinks it is creepy and disgusting. By modern American standards, it is.

Germany clearly needed heroes in 1945.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer, because of his international ecumenical connections, was a convenient choice, but also a highly flawed one.
4920196
I loved Dan Brown's DaVinci Code.  It was clever and like a wonderful maze a challenge to figure out and dazzling in its theory.

Inferno, unfortunately, was a dreary who-done-it, in which the reader is dragged reluctantly from one rather overdone and unrealistic violent scene to another all in the setting of Florentine and Venetian art/architecture, described in more detail than ever necessary.

Furthermore, it is a rather dreary rehash of Malthusian theory that accepts that overpopulation will destroy mankind if not drastically reduced by the brilliance of science.

I could barely finish it.
2731961
While I enjoyed the parts where the author actually taught us something about the myths about what the Bible really says, it seems that the author spends too much time on a subject that a book like this should not even address.  I'm talking about defending the Christian Bible (and Christians) from invisible attackers.  He tends, at these times in the writing, to adopt a "poor pitiful me" tone and to pretend that Christianity is a persecuted minority. In fact, at one point in the book he comes right out and says that Christians are always being executed all over the world, to which I must refer to the skeptics credo, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."  From what I have witnessed in my life, Christians, far from being a persecuted minority, is much more likely to be the group doing the persecuting and being the tyrannical majority.

All in all, having just paid a penny for it and only $4 for shipping, I'd say the book was worth the price.  Just barely.