A major Da Vinci revelation for Harry Potter fans!!!!

Quite seriously, I doubt of there are many of us who actually find both fictions satisfying, but strange as it might be, I have found something of GREAT interest in respect to the history of the Da Vinci code.

I've been watching some of the TV show documentaries on the code, and on what is real and what is fiction, and they have shown over and over again, a list of the Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion, showing where Leonardo da Vinci is listed.

The list is listed by the dates of the Grand Masters. About five names above Leonardo da Vinci, is the name Nicolas Flamel.

For Harry Potter fans, Nicolas Flamel is the VERY famous "Sorcerer" or "Philospher" of the first of the Harry Potter book. It is he who owns the stone which promises immortality.

Coincidence or something more? It's not exactly "John Smith" is it?

Rowling has said that she gathered names for years. When she saw or heard one she liked, then she wrote it down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamel

He was a real 15th century alchemist and appears in a few works of fiction, ancient and modern. Seems we can't get enough of Mr. Flamel.

I noticed that when I read The DaVinci Code, in fact it jumped out at me.

And yes I am one of the few (?) who like both the Harry Potter series and Dan Brown's books....although I liked Angels and Demons better that DVC.

Cheers

I just ran across it today (rereading book after seeing movie).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion

My daughter took a class last year (she's at Brandeis) on adolescent literature, and I sat in on a day when they were deep into the Potter books. The professor was delighted by how the kids were figuring out all the references to other books and mythologies, but he wasn't thrilled with her writing.
I enjoy the books, wait anxiously for every one, but wouldn't calll them brilliant.

Maybe J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown used the same source in a different way:bounce:

check your sources. Dan Brown didn't. His book is full of historical and geographical innacurracies. About the religious ones I let the fundies and others fight over them and have a good laugh...

Its like saying:

"Pfft! Star Wars is so full of historical and geographical innaccuracies."

i.e. makes you look like a moron.

No offense.

Just sayin'.

and pretends being based on research. That's where the problem is. You can write a book of fiction like "gone with the wind" and pretend that Sherman fought for the south and wins the war, that's OK. But if you give the actual war of secession as the BACKGROUND of a fictive story, you better not reverse the roles and most of all not pretend that you have the "true" version.

Dan Brown surfs on statements that the BACKGROUND to his novel is ACCURATE. Or it isn't, therefore the book is a fallacy.

"but he says it is all real, so it must be."

UP:"no, it is fiction, even that"

"but why would he write that?"

UP:"because he is a fiction author"

"but that's not faaaaiiirrrr!"

Although the book is readily identifiable as a thriller – a work of fiction – and not as a historical tome, Brown does preface his novel with a page he calls "Facts" and has published a page on his website titled "Bizarre True Facts from The Da Vinci Code," which repeats some disputed claims. Although Brown's website makes use of words such as "alleged," "rumored," and "seem to be," some critics consider the qualifiers misleading.

Much of the controversy caused by the book stems from the fact that the novel, as a work of fiction, asserts opinions on debates that have not been resolved as facts, and that a layman might be confused and believe that the facts asserted as "true" for the purposes of the story are actually true. Multiple tourist attractions in Europe have had to post signs and release other information emphasizing that the descriptions in Brown's book about their locations are wrong – that there is no secret chamber under the floor in a particular chapel, that a particular building was not built by a secret society, and so forth. <1>

These claims of the book, combined with the presentation of religious opinions that oppose or offend some within the communities discussed, has caused a great deal of debate and partisan material to erupt. Sometimes the book has been recognised as a form of reference; for example, a front page article in The Independent on May 10 2006 refers specifically to the book in a feature about a senior British Government Minister - Ms Kelly's early days as Education Secretary were dogged with questions about her religion, and her membership of the conservative Opus Dei organisation which features in the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code

"Star Wars" is set in an entirely fictional universe, so any 'facts' about it are necessarily fictional.

So called 'historical fiction' (such as novels involving real historical figures or events), can easily contain historical inaccuracies if they say that something happened, when it didn't. The inaccuracy may be intentional (for example, if the work is 'counterfactual' in nature) or uninintentional (if the author made a mistake). For example, a character in a novel may say that Germany won WWII. This may be a useful device like in Len Deighton's SS/GB or a simple mistake.

Fiction: Adolf Hitler won WWII for his country, Germany.
Also Fiction: Adolf Hitler won WWII for his country, Russia.

I really don't think you comprehend this.

A work of fiction...
is....
by definition....
fiction....
and therefore....
not factual....
in....
any....
way.

...none of the historical facts mentioned in a fictional book are 'factual in any way.' Simply by writing something in a book and calling it 'fiction,' I can erase actual events from history?

Better not tell the Republicans, they'll start writing novels tomorrow.

person arguing this point ...

but if you start writing AS A MATTER OF FACT "Hitler was a jew" and there are documents in the Reichstag that prove it, just go and check it (as if they really existed), it's not fiction, it's either very bad research or a conscious lie.

And it's exactly what Dan Brown does. He writes "as a matter of FACT the Priory of Sion was founded year 1099 - or whatever date"... when it wasn't. In that way he induces he reader to believe that there is a FACTUAL background to his fiction, and that is abusive. Writing that Jesus might have had kids doesn't matter because there are no historical records and you can write whatever you want on religion, because it's a matter of faith. But when you start writing about HISTORICAL records and change completely their accuracy to fit your story, you are out on a limb, specially when you present them as facts.

He was being interviewed on Good Morning, America on November 2, 2003, and was asked what he would change about the "historical" basis for DVC if he was writing a non-fiction book on the subject of how Christianity came to exist. He answered that he wouldn't change anything.

Given that, the "lighten up, it's just fiction" excuse rings pretty hollow.

Rowlings Potter books but I don't believe in magic. (I see both sides of this issue - see my post above - but don't agree with you ... Many works of fiction present certain things as fact when in fact, they're not, and I don't have a problem with that. But there are other circumstances when I might disagree with the author on a judgement call.)

"But when you start writing about HISTORICAL records and change completely their accuracy to fit your story, you are out on a limb, specially when you present them as facts." So many non-fiction "history" books are full of fiction ... or at the very least, selectively present facts to lead one to a conclusion different from that you might have made had you been given a more complete picture.

I'f you meant 'no offense', you wouldn't say that a post "makes you look like a moron". That's fucking offensive language, and has no place on DU. Your post is complete hypocrisy.

An organization named The Priory of Sion and created in 1956 is a hoax.

Whether an organization existed that functioned like the Priory of Sion is unknown, and some, admittedly very controversial evidence suggests it might have.

There is no way for us to always be certain if the facts are true. Even now with 24/7 news channels and the internet we can all be duped by accident or design. Like Teabing says in the movie about the painting of The Last Supper, when we look at a painting we see what we want to see and don’t see what we don’t want to see.

...was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."

If there is a secret society out there protecting a secret that is not ready for exposure, why would they want to make any risks? It seems to me the most logical thing to do is to put out information that disproves the existance of such society to create enough confusion that anyone looking for it would be on a wild goose chase. Or better yet...think of it as a hoax.

Some say this is what the Illuminati did when they were hunted in Europe. Many say they were shut down and no longer exist. Are we sure? Or did they just bury themselves deeper? Change their name? Or go dormant waiting for just the right moment to come back up?

when I read the book.

For example Saint Godric and St Mungo are both real.

Possible Origins of Names in Harry Potter
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ma.rathfelder/Katy/HarryPotterorigins.htm

Dan Brown references the Kryptos sculpture in Langley, too, but he changed something. Kryptos mentions 38° 57' 6.5" N 77° 8' 44" W, which is a spot symmetrical to Kryptos itself on the other side of the courtyard at Langley. But Brown puts on his cover 37° 57' 6.5" N 77° 8' 44" W, which is a spot between US 301 and Tappahanock (of Fahrenheit 911 fame) in the King and Queen Swamp in VA. I've never managed to get to that spot but if anybody nearby can google map those coordinates maybe there's something there? (Or it's a typo? But Brown mentioned once it was intentional. But I might say that too if it were a typo.)

Palimpset.