Scan barcode
A review by uncle_remus
Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent
3.0
"Conspiratorially satisfying" says one reviewer. I have to agree.
I read this after reading The Da Vinci Code. That being said, many reviewers compare these two books, as-if both were non-fiction books, and blast Dan Brown. If that's your take, you got it wrong. Dan Brown's book is a work of fiction. He freely acknowledges it. He only claims that the art work and architecture are accurate. The rest is just a story, a conspiratory story, a hidden history, and a fast-paced mystery, where only parts are true. I don't think Dan Brown is confused; I think you are.
That being said, is this a case of a midget on a giant's shoulders, or a giant on a midget's shoulders? I think the latter.
As so many have pointed out, this book is presented as legitimate research (not sure you'd call it "scientific" research), but it is being passed off as legitimate. And, there is oodles of research. At times, it is confusing, or mind-numbingly boring. It really does bog down in the middle. A lot of time is spent building up a ground work. But, then there is a lot, and I mean a LOT, of speculation, and castles built in the air. It certainly is thought-provoking and fun. But make no mistake, it is speculation.
From a rating standpoint, it loses a star for the presentation. Lots of duplication of ideas, and not well-organized (maybe it should lose two for this?). It loses yet another star because this passes itself off as legitimate research, and fails the necessary logical connections. But, it is all jolly good fun, if you are not a true-blue blood believer and gasping at the (ahem) heresy.
Did Jesus have a wife? The bible doesn't say he did. But it also doesn't say he didn't.
Did Jesus have kids? The bible doesn't say he did. But it also doesn't say he didn't.
Did Jesus ever laugh? The bible doesn't say he did. But it also doesn't say he didn't. WAIT! WHAT? Jesus never laughed. Never in his lifetime. Not as a kid? See, the bible doesn't record everything he did. Did he ever defecate? Not in the bible, so therefore it never happened. That's the problem with the literal interpretation. The rest is speculation. Therefore, it really IS possible. But that's not to say it is definitive. (And, THAT is why you cannot compare this book to Dan Brown's...one knows it is fiction, the other thinks it is not).
One problem I do have is with SANGREAL. Is it split SAN GREAL or SANG REAL? And this is so monumental, it is the crux of the book, as it is the penultimate; the title of the book. Ponder this. That's like saying someone finding a book a 1000 years from now and seeing the word "THERAPIST", and then a pseudo-scientist arguing that the word should be split "THE RAPIST," and then writing a 500 page book on those implications.
Just saying...
I read this after reading The Da Vinci Code. That being said, many reviewers compare these two books, as-if both were non-fiction books, and blast Dan Brown. If that's your take, you got it wrong. Dan Brown's book is a work of fiction. He freely acknowledges it. He only claims that the art work and architecture are accurate. The rest is just a story, a conspiratory story, a hidden history, and a fast-paced mystery, where only parts are true. I don't think Dan Brown is confused; I think you are.
That being said, is this a case of a midget on a giant's shoulders, or a giant on a midget's shoulders? I think the latter.
As so many have pointed out, this book is presented as legitimate research (not sure you'd call it "scientific" research), but it is being passed off as legitimate. And, there is oodles of research. At times, it is confusing, or mind-numbingly boring. It really does bog down in the middle. A lot of time is spent building up a ground work. But, then there is a lot, and I mean a LOT, of speculation, and castles built in the air. It certainly is thought-provoking and fun. But make no mistake, it is speculation.
From a rating standpoint, it loses a star for the presentation. Lots of duplication of ideas, and not well-organized (maybe it should lose two for this?). It loses yet another star because this passes itself off as legitimate research, and fails the necessary logical connections. But, it is all jolly good fun, if you are not a true-blue blood believer and gasping at the (ahem) heresy.
Did Jesus have a wife? The bible doesn't say he did. But it also doesn't say he didn't.
Did Jesus have kids? The bible doesn't say he did. But it also doesn't say he didn't.
Did Jesus ever laugh? The bible doesn't say he did. But it also doesn't say he didn't. WAIT! WHAT? Jesus never laughed. Never in his lifetime. Not as a kid? See, the bible doesn't record everything he did. Did he ever defecate? Not in the bible, so therefore it never happened. That's the problem with the literal interpretation. The rest is speculation. Therefore, it really IS possible. But that's not to say it is definitive. (And, THAT is why you cannot compare this book to Dan Brown's...one knows it is fiction, the other thinks it is not).
One problem I do have is with SANGREAL. Is it split SAN GREAL or SANG REAL? And this is so monumental, it is the crux of the book, as it is the penultimate; the title of the book. Ponder this. That's like saying someone finding a book a 1000 years from now and seeing the word "THERAPIST", and then a pseudo-scientist arguing that the word should be split "THE RAPIST," and then writing a 500 page book on those implications.
Just saying...