I was going to Photoshop something clever and witty in place of the title,
but I think this expresses my views with a distinct clarity.
Every now and then during life, we are met with a marvel the likes of which could not be predicted, nor copied by any means necessary.
Sometimes a book comes out that is so incredibly shitty, and yet at the same so gripping to everybody that people cannot help but praise it, to shower it with affection and love the likes of which should be given, but of course are not, to works of genius such as the official World of Warcraft strategy guide. Seriously folks, the strategy guide is pure genius.
The book in question is, as you have guessed by now, the DaVinci Code.
Allow me to give you the plot of the DaVinci code.
There is a gigantic Church conspiracy which aims to cover up the true nature of Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews and whom the Christians believe to be God Incarnate.
Because of this Church conspiracy, there has been a history of shady dealings and even death. But, it is through the work of the hero that the truth is uncovered and everybody becomes all the wiser about the truth of Jesus and all is made right with the world.
Nice job, Dan Brown. I've never seen a better rip off of "Dogma" in my entire life, you worthless piece of shit.
However, the true stupidity in the book is not the blatant fact that it steals the majority of its background plot from a Kevin Smith comedic movie. It is the fact that it bases this plot on retarded assumptions made about the famous "Last Supper" painting by Leonardo DaVinci.
What is this assumption? Mary Magdalene is Jesus' wife, since the person sitting next to Jesus in the picture has no beard (obviously this makes them a woman).
Well I don't know about you, but I am past my teenage years and I still don't have a beard yet. If that makes me a woman, then I nearly failed the wrong Bio class in high school.
Jesus was in his early 30's. His followers were fishermen all, and seeing as how most lower-class people in that day and age didn't live much past 40, especially someone with a backbreaking job like a fisherman, we can assume that his apostles were also in their early thirties or their twenties. What significance lies here?
Simple. The apostle John is historically known to be the youngest of the group. The youngest of the group you say? As in, young enough to have written parts of the Gospels themselves? They were written decades after Jesus' death, so he had to have been in his...early 20's when Jesus was alive.
Simple logic. I am in my early 20's and I have no beard. Why should John?
Obviously since he had no Gillette Mach 9 7 blade razor, he had some facial hair. But Leo was trying to depict how young he was in a way that we would all know: no beard.
Another was that the Church told everybody that Mary Magdalene was a whore to cover up the marriage. But it doesn't say that she was a whore ANYWHERE in Church teaching.
I know because I had the Bible beaten into my head for years on end. Which explains why I'm not Catholic now. But I digress.
The Bible says that she "had seven demons driven out of her." That doesn't constitute a whore. If it does, I'm a whore because I let out at least eight demons when I took a shit this morning.
So while Dan Brown chooses to make ridiculous statements about the goings on in the Bible based on an erroneous interpretation of a painting made by a man who lived NO WHERE NEAR Jesus' time, I thought I would show y'all the true picture, according to the genius of Dan Brown.
Fucking asshole.