Comments on: Da Vinci Blows http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/ Creativity x Technology Sat, 17 Mar 2012 05:09:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Alex Groce http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2815 Alex Groce Mon, 22 May 2006 17:26:17 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2815 Er, I mean "more women than men present" obviously. Er, I mean “more women than men present” obviously.

]]> By: Alex Groce http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2814 Alex Groce Mon, 22 May 2006 17:22:59 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2814 "Completely purged"? What a load of nonsense. The last many times I've been to Mass, I'd be willing to wager there were more men than women present, including women lectors and "altar girls." Chesterton was right that one of the interesting things about the Catholic Church is that it typicall gets assaulted for being horribly wrong about something -- from two opposite points of view. Just as the Protestant accusations of being Mary-worshippers in a feminized Church started to fade a bit, "progressive" denunciations of a Church that has "purged" women (Mary doesn't count) became popular with a different crowd of usual suspects. I'm not a big fan of the "dissidents" who go around ordaining women priests (can't such people go be Anglican or something?), but I hesitate to insult them by assuming the success of DVC has anything to do with their bad ideas. “Completely purged”? What a load of nonsense. The last many times I’ve been to Mass, I’d be willing to wager there were more men than women present, including women lectors and “altar girls.” Chesterton was right that one of the interesting things about the Catholic Church is that it typicall gets assaulted for being horribly wrong about something — from two opposite points of view. Just as the Protestant accusations of being Mary-worshippers in a feminized Church started to fade a bit, “progressive” denunciations of a Church that has “purged” women (Mary doesn’t count) became popular with a different crowd of usual suspects.

I’m not a big fan of the “dissidents” who go around ordaining women priests (can’t such people go be Anglican or something?), but I hesitate to insult them by assuming the success of DVC has anything to do with their bad ideas.

]]> By: katrinka http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2813 katrinka Fri, 19 May 2006 13:47:23 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2813 <i>I heard on the radio that more women than men "believe" the DVC. Not surprizing.</i> Why is that not surprising? Even though the novel is crap, I think a lot of modern women (especially Catholic women) dig the idea of a Catholic Church from which women haven't been almost completely purged. I heard on the radio that more women than men “believe” the DVC. Not surprizing.

Why is that not surprising? Even though the novel is crap, I think a lot of modern women (especially Catholic women) dig the idea of a Catholic Church from which women haven’t been almost completely purged.

]]> By: Amos the Poker Cat http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2812 Amos the Poker Cat Wed, 17 May 2006 21:54:38 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2812 Ignoring the tired bitter electoral college spam, if you are interested in reading an article about best selling and publishing, PW ran this in Jan '06. Bestsellers by the Numbers http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6297555.html I count 74 publishers that had an adult hardcover bestseller in 2005. Does not seem like consolidation to me. Reading the article, publishing seems to be more of a crap shoot than working for a dot com. I can see no barrier to entry for new publishers, other than having more money than common sense. Ignoring the tired bitter electoral college spam, if you are interested in reading an article about best selling and publishing, PW ran this in Jan ’06.

Bestsellers by the Numbers
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6297555.html

I count 74 publishers that had an adult hardcover bestseller in 2005. Does not seem like consolidation to me.

Reading the article, publishing seems to be more of a crap shoot than working for a dot com. I can see no barrier to entry for new publishers, other than having more money than common sense.

]]> By: Amos the Poker Cat http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2811 Amos the Poker Cat Wed, 17 May 2006 21:42:25 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2811 Like Dr. Click, I am shocked that you are shocked. There are two things going on: the popularity of the book, and the hyping of a movie with Tom Hanks based on a best seller directed by Ron Howard. What sales make a book a best seller? 100k? 200k? To put it on top of the NYT list for 51 weeks? Publishers Weekly says the DVC sold 41M copies worldwide. What is that 10%? of the first world? I heard on the radio that more women than men "believe" the DVC. Not surprizing. More higher income people than lower income people "believe" the DVC. That is strange. Oh, well, I guess there is no correlation between income and intelligence. As to the movie hype clutter, if you bought the rights to this film wouldn't you hype it? As a generic concept, it looks like it would be a lead cinch box office hit. Given the few, the very few, almost no pre-lauch reviews, it seems that my litter box is chocked full of turds that stink less than the DVC movie. It seems that they did a faith full adapation of the book. Yup, no chemistry, tired lines, boring. Oh, well. Hanks, and Howard can walk away from it. Too bad for Audrey Tautou. Like Dr. Click, I am shocked that you are shocked.

There are two things going on: the popularity of the book, and the hyping of a movie with Tom Hanks based on a best seller directed by Ron Howard.

What sales make a book a best seller? 100k? 200k? To put it on top of the NYT list for 51 weeks? Publishers Weekly says the DVC sold 41M copies worldwide. What is that 10%? of the first world?

I heard on the radio that more women than men “believe” the DVC. Not surprizing. More higher income people than lower income people “believe” the DVC. That is strange. Oh, well, I guess there is no correlation between income and intelligence.

As to the movie hype clutter, if you bought the rights to this film wouldn’t you hype it? As a generic concept, it looks like it would be a lead cinch box office hit. Given the few, the very few, almost no pre-lauch reviews, it seems that my litter box is chocked full of turds that stink less than the DVC movie.

It seems that they did a faith full adapation of the book. Yup, no chemistry, tired lines, boring. Oh, well. Hanks, and Howard can walk away from it. Too bad for Audrey Tautou.

]]> By: Dr. Click http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2810 Dr. Click Wed, 17 May 2006 18:55:03 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2810 People eat at PF Chang's and buy Icelandic lamb at Whole Foods, and you're *surprised* that they don't recognize The Da Vinci Code for the potboiler it is? Shocked, shocked I tell you. People eat at PF Chang’s and buy Icelandic lamb at Whole Foods, and you’re *surprised* that they don’t recognize The Da Vinci Code for the potboiler it is? Shocked, shocked I tell you.

]]> By: Paulj http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2809 Paulj Wed, 17 May 2006 17:03:17 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2809 After reading the Da Vinci code I felt the same as you. Utterly hopeless pap. I read a review of The Rule of Four which read "the Da Vinci Code, for people with a brain". I figured the reviewer must have had one (as everyone else was in raptures about the DVC). Turns out it was the brain of a 4 year old... but still several years on the DVC! DVC is pretty much like a Robert Ludlum novel, crap but strangely compelling all the same. P.S. I agree, Digital Fortress was even worse. After reading the Da Vinci code I felt the same as you. Utterly hopeless pap. I read a review of The Rule of Four which read “the Da Vinci Code, for people with a brain”. I figured the reviewer must have had one (as everyone else was in raptures about the DVC). Turns out it was the brain of a 4 year old… but still several years on the DVC!
DVC is pretty much like a Robert Ludlum novel, crap but strangely compelling all the same.
P.S. I agree, Digital Fortress was even worse.

]]> By: Chris http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2808 Chris Wed, 17 May 2006 11:53:06 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2808 There has always been a strong market for hokey tangentially religious pulp c.f The Celestine Prophecy. In this particular case, part of the draw is probably from the Mary Magdelene mythology - which hasn't been commercially exploited before - and part of it is the mish mash of fairly familiar ideas cobbled together. The sooner one accepts that massively successful books will not be particularly well written, but will be readily absorbable (c.f. Harry Potter) the sooner one can sit back and ride out these bubbles of nonsense as perfectly normal fads. There's not much difference between this and the hula hoop. :) There has always been a strong market for hokey tangentially religious pulp c.f The Celestine Prophecy. In this particular case, part of the draw is probably from the Mary Magdelene mythology – which hasn’t been commercially exploited before – and part of it is the mish mash of fairly familiar ideas cobbled together.

The sooner one accepts that massively successful books will not be particularly well written, but will be readily absorbable (c.f. Harry Potter) the sooner one can sit back and ride out these bubbles of nonsense as perfectly normal fads. There’s not much difference between this and the hula hoop. :)

]]> By: Trin http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2807 Trin Wed, 17 May 2006 06:09:56 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2807 Wait, what? One second I'm reading about media and publishing houses, then suddenly you're complaining about the voting system. I'm confused... Maybe that's the point. Wait, what? One second I’m reading about media and publishing houses, then suddenly you’re complaining about the voting system. I’m confused… Maybe that’s the point.

]]> By: Paul http://tleaves.com/2006/05/16/da-vinci-blows/comment-page-1/#comment-2806 Paul Wed, 17 May 2006 04:17:26 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=619#comment-2806 Media consolidation: When you were growing up, there were dozens of major publishing houses. Now there are about half a dozen, so when they think they might be on to some sort of a "marketing synergy," everyone gets blitzed with thematic crap. Write your congresscritter demanding stricter antritrust laws -- oh, wait, with consolidation they don't need to ask as many potential big campaign donors for the huge contributions, so they won't care. And forget your newspaper's editor: he knows which side of his bread is buttered. And the Bush administration? Ha! The Democrats aren't much better. And voting for Greens like Nader is spitting into the wind under winner-take-all. Therefore, if you want less banality, the first step is to fight for electoral reform. The Electoral College isn't going to budge until instant runoff voting (the fastest growing of all the similar kinds of ranked-choice voting) catches on. www.fairvote.org Media consolidation: When you were growing up, there were dozens of major publishing houses. Now there are about half a dozen, so when they think they might be on to some sort of a “marketing synergy,” everyone gets blitzed with thematic crap.

Write your congresscritter demanding stricter antritrust laws — oh, wait, with consolidation they don’t need to ask as many potential big campaign donors for the huge contributions, so they won’t care. And forget your newspaper’s editor: he knows which side of his bread is buttered. And the Bush administration? Ha! The Democrats aren’t much better. And voting for Greens like Nader is spitting into the wind under winner-take-all.

Therefore, if you want less banality, the first step is to fight for electoral reform. The Electoral College isn’t going to budge until instant runoff voting (the fastest growing of all the similar kinds of ranked-choice voting) catches on.

http://www.fairvote.org

]]>