Thinking activity on da Vinci code

Thinking Activity : The Da Vinci Code This Blog is a part of my academic activity to know the task click Here

        1. Brown states on his website that his books are not anti-Christian, though he is on a 'constant spiritual journey' himself, and says that his book The Da Vinci Code is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.

" The larger part of narrative is Anti Christian because at the very beginning of the novel it questions about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The character of Sophie Neveu is portrayed as anti Christian. In the novel she consider as a life line of Jesus though she don't believe in this. She not believe in Christian religion. After knowing the truth still she make fun of the thing that she belongs to Jesus life line. The main antagonist of novel Leigh Teabing believes that there is not like any divine force. He believes that on the name of religious and God people are fooling by priest. Mankind should be free from this all things. The way church and priest are portrayed as corrupt and wealthy people who can do anything for the money. So the larger part of narrative is anti Christian that questions upon the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and process and importance of Christianity in life. The novel highly based on the Anti Christian idea. 

 2) “Although it is obvious that much of what Brown presented in his novel as absolutely true and accurate is neither of those, some of that material is of course essential to the intrigue, and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman has retained the novel's core, the Grail-related material: the sacred feminine, Mary Magdalene's marriage, the Priory of Sion, certain aspects of Leonardo's art, and so on[1].” How far do you agree with this observation of Norris J. Lacy?

 Lucy is right on her place that in the film Akiva Goldsman has retained the novel's core, sacred feminine and Mary Magdalene's Marriage and her relationship with Jesus, Priory of Sion and use of Da Vinci 's art . In the film and novel all this things used for make this story more interesting and convincing. Through this all things it successfully grabbing the attention of audience throughout the film. It also helping in build the thriller. Though Everything is not true and not interconnected with each other in reality but it has deeper historical sense. These all things are connected historically not reality. It used to only make story interesting.

 3.If You have studied ‘Genesis’ (The Bible), ‘The Paradise Lost’ (John Milton) and ‘The Da Vinci Code’ (Dan Brown). Which of the narrative/s seem/s to be truthful? Whose narrative is convincing to the contemporary young mind? 

I think paradise lost is more convincing to the contemporary young mind because in this Human is in the center of the narrative while in the Genesis God is at the center rather than human. In the Genesis the voice of human is marginalised by God and religion. In this narrative Adam and Eve shows as inferior and God as superior place. In the Da Vinci code the narrative highly question the relationship of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. But the way narrative moves with the clues of Da Vinci 's painting is highly problematic. When we compare the narrative structure of this three in compare to Da Vinci and Genesis, the paradise lost is better. The way Eve portreyed as rational thinker and questioning against God is more convincing as true to human nature. In this narrative Human's nature and thoughts given priority over God. The Human emotions has given priority like temptation , resistance, love , beauty. The whole narrative is human centric and because of it this narrative is more convincing to young mind. 

 4 .What harm has been done to humanity by the biblical narration or that of Milton’s in The Paradise Lose? What sort of damage does narrative like ‘The Vinci Code’ do to humanity?

 In the Da Vinci Code the way religion trying controlling over other is harmful. Silas believed and followed each and every command of Aringarosa. Silas believes that he is doing all this thing for religious. On the name of God he killed many people and after that he punished himself. On the name of religion priest trying to find Holy grail and wanted to destroy it. He want do this for saving the religion which is harmful to humanity. In the similar way in the Genesis God punished Adam and Eve. In this they have no resisting voice against God. In the paradise lost Eve has resisting nature. She also wants to live freely. But Adam and Eve have to live in the fear of God. It trying to build the resisting nature in human being. The nature of doubt and questioning but however on the morality based it consider as harmful. In the Da Vinci code shows how religion is harmful. People are fooling by priest on the name of religion and God. It gives message that Mankind should be free from this all things.

 5. What difference do you see in the portrayal of 'Ophelia' (Kate Winslet) in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, 'Elizabeth' (Helena Bonham Carter) in Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or 'Hester Prynne' (Demi Moore) in Roland Joffé's The Scarlet Letter' or David Yates's 'Harmione Granger' (Emma Watson) in last four Harry Potter films - and 'Sophie Neuve' (Audrey Tautau) in Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code? 

How would justify your answer? There is many difference in the portrayal of female characters in the film and novel. In the "Hamlet", in the novel there is no any description of sexual relationshilp between Hamlet and Ophelia but in the film the more focus is on the body of Ophelia and there is also intimate scenes of Hamlet and Ophelia. Similarly in the Demi Moore The Scarlet letter the camera focus on the body of Hester while taking bath. In the Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein there is intimate scenes between Victor and Elizabeth.similarly in the Harry Potter there is kissing scenes of Harry and Genny , Ron and Hermione. There is no need to put this scenes in the film. So in all this film women used as sexual tool to make film more interesting. But the film Da Vinci code is different from all this thing the film truely follows feminine sacredness. In the film there is no one close scene of Robert and Sophie. The film truly followed the Novel.

 6. Do novel / film lead us into critical (deconstructive) thinking about your religion? Can we think of such conspiracy theory about Hindu religious symbols / myths? And 7. Have you come across any similar book/movie, which tries to deconstruct accepted notions about Hindu religion or culture and by dismantling it, attempts to reconstruct another possible interpretation of truth?

 Yes , the novel teaches us to doubt on the things which is highly acceptable by people in the name of religion. In the Hindu religion there is many myths. The myths it self questionable because it interpretated by people time and again. The novel The Immortals of Meluha byAmish Tripathi is based on deconstructive idea of God shiva. In the book Meluha the protegonist shiv is normal human being. He becomes the God by his karma. It told that every human being have capacity to go beyond things. There is no any kind of spirituality outside in the world but it is within. Similarly in the movie Oh My God deconstruct the existence of God. It told that on the name of religion people are fooling by priest.

 8. When we do traditional reading of the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’, Robert Langdon, Professor of Religious Symbology, Harvard University emerges protagonist and Sir Leigh Teabing, a British Historian as antagonist. Who will claim the position of protagonist if we do atheist reading of the novel? 

Leighh Teabing consider as protagonist if we do the atheist reading of the novel. He is the true protagonist of Novel. Because he thinks about Humanity not Religion. For him Humanity is more important rather than freedom. He wants to free the humanity from the Christian religion. Because he believes that religion not make people free. The true freedom emerging when people will free from religion. He thinks for humanity not for God. For him human freedom is more important. He is the protagonist in true sense because for him Humanity is more important rather than religion. 

 9. Explain Ann Gray’s three propositions on ‘knowability’ with illustrations from the novel 'The Da Vinci Code’.

 a. 1) Identifying what is knowable b. 2) identifying and acknowledging the relationship of the knower and the known c. 3) What is the procedure for ‘knowing’? 1) The novel Based on the solving the code and painting of Da Vinci Code. Through this the Protagonist reached the real holy Grail. In the novel this all code and painting solved by the Protagonist. It is the way they can reach to the truth. 2) In this identifying and acknowledging the relationship of the knower and the known. The true knowledge of self. Sophie doesn't belive in the Jesus through out the novel she thinks that Jacques Sauniera is his grand father but later on she came to know that he is only protecting her. She came to know that she belongs to the lifeline of Jesus. 3) In this understand the process of knowing. Robert is the professor of symbolism and he wrote Many books. He writes things but the knowledge is remain only in the books and mind. He know many things but he don't know how to connect the thing and understand the true knowledge. He understand the process of knowing at the end when suddenly thought sticking in his mind and he found the Holy Grail. In the novel each code has double meaning. Through the process of decoding the code they came to know about the real meaning of the code. This process of knowing helping Robert and Sophie to solve the real puzzle of Holy Grail.

Thank you

When the god is traveling

Hello readers welcome to my blog, this blog is reflective work on Arundhati Subramaniam's poem. This blog is given by our honorable HOD of English department prof. Dilip Barad sir.

Arundhathi Subramaniam is an Indian poet, writer, critic, curator, translator, Journalist, writing in English.

Arundhathi Subramaniam's poems explore ambivalences -- the desire for adventure and anchorage, expansion and containment, vulnerability and strength, freedom and belonging, withdrawal and engagement, language as exciting resource and as desperate refuge. These are poems of wonder and precarious elation, and all the roadblocks and rewards on the long dangerous route to recovering what it is to be alive and human. Winner of the inaugural Khushwant Singh Poetry Prize and shortlisted for the 2014 T.S. Eliot Prize, When God Is a Traveller is a remarkable book of poetry(Google books) 

In the poem which gives the book its title, “When God is a Traveller,” Subramaniam muses about “Kartikeya/Murga/Subramania, my namesake.” Kartikeya/Murga/Subramania is known by all those names, as well as Skanda, and is the son of Śiva, in some legends of him alone, as Gaṇeśa is born of Pārvatī alone, but also often considered the son of both Śiva and Pārvatī. Subramania is the god of war who is also known as Guhā (cave, secret) or Guruguhā (cave-teacher) as he renounces war in some legends and retreats to the mountains. (For stories of Subramania, see Kartikeya as well as the Skanda Purāṇa and for comparison of various legends. 

God is a Traveller, circled the theme of journeys both real and mythical. This book circles the themes of love and time. These are ancient themes of lyric poetry, of course. But they’re markedly contemporary in tone and treatment.

These poems have certainly meant a journey of self-discovery. That is the magic of making poetry — its capacity to lead even its author to places she never knew existed. That is the intelligence of metaphor. It is always wiser than you are. The most significant discovery for me in this book was perhaps the deepening insight it offered into the process of ageing. ‘Song for Catabolic Women’, for instance, is an anthem to all women over fifty, women who’ve finally figured that they needn’t be tyrannised by biological clocks and cultural expectations. Who are no longer anxious to please, desperate to impress.