A better ending to the Code than Grilled Chese Sandwiches.

[kippurbird]

More harping on the character stuff. Another comment/response:

Which ironically kind of dovetails with the original question, because the time that I actually felt like my characters were acting independently of me, it turned out I was doing some really bad roleplaying and needed to take a break.

I imagine this is so because he felt like he didn't have control of his characters reactions. Which really, is a good thing. Because if they're acting independently it means that they're fully functional "people". And so what if you don't have "control".

[Poll #1089963]

*so totally didn't write an essay about the sexuality in DaVinci Code*



Speaking of which, I felt I needed to better summarize the ending of the Code better than "I want a grilled cheese sandwich" which while very true isn't actually... good in the analyzing sense. But it was late and I was tired and hungry.

First of all, the ending was extremely pat. The bad guys got their 'due' other than that nothing bad happened. Everything was tied up neatly.

Silas died (finally) and he was the guy who went around shooting people so it "fits" that he dies of gun shot wounds. This is Brown being ironic. I think it would have been more satisfying if Silas had been arrested and taken back to prison which is his own personal hell. He had tried so hard to redeem himself and instead became the demon instead of the angel. That would have also been more dramatic as Silas realizes what he has done and what the consequences are.

We also see what happens to the Cell Phone Bishop, who lives and will live happily ever after. CPB didn't do anything evil and instead was merely misguided (but then again he had absolutely nothing to do with the plot having never interacted with any other character) so he was injured but is allowed to redeem himself by being healed.

Teabag on the other hand is being muzzled and labeled as a mad man. He was the one however who tried to reveal the truth but now anything he says will be considered ravings of a loony. This too is Ironic. And he gets his Just Reward.

Our incompetent Police chief who was merely misled is given a second chance. Instead of taking the fall for trying to convict the wrong man on a high profile case, his reputation is save and he is allowed to continue on as before with the assurances that as long as he doesn't run into another Brown Hero he is an excellent police man.

Finally Sophie was allowed to regain her family. She thought she had lost her grandmother and brother but instead found them. There she was able to learn about her family secret and was granted the chance to continue her grandfather's legacy as the Holy Grail. All the bad things in her past with her grandfather have been washed away so that she can begin anew.

As for Langdon is free, he has found the Holy Grail and can now go on to the next adventure that awaits him where he'll probably not have sex with the next woman he meets.

Comments

[trinadi.livejournal.com]

Interesting essay, it brings up good points. I would say some of his wording was accidental, but screw that, he used up his three strikes on all the mistakes. He's just another guy on a powertrip over women. And coming to grips with his sexual preferences, as you said.

It makes me regret that most of my characters are male, even though they are decent(as decent as teenage characters can be, anyway). This seems to come up way to often in most books.

[berseker.livejournal.com]

The ending makes me feel that it was all for nothing. No lasting consequences for the heros. I mean, Sophie just made a huge discovery about her identity (come on, she´s the Grail!) and that was it? She should at least go find a therapist. And Langdon discovered that a whole religion is based on a lie, he saw the godess in the garden (btw, that was silly, if you ask me) and he goes around like nothing happened.

I know this kind of story is not about the psychological impact of, you know, stuff, but still. Meh. To me, it feels like a huge waste of time.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Accidental or an expression of the subconscious? One of the nice things about being an academic critic is that we're allowed to make shit up like this. We even have an entire subsection on Homosexuality and finding it sub-textually.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

It was a huge cop out, really.

[spoofmaster]

The essay raised some good points, but I would have liked to have seen more about the sex rites and so forth, and Brown's lack of interest in women as intellectual beings. I think it's just really interesting how all his grail-seekers are men (not counting Sophie, because she's too ignorant and slow-witted to count).

At the same time, I would like to point out that not having an interest in the opposite sex does not necessarily mean that you're homosexual, and lacking sexual interest isn't necessarily bad or unhealthy. You've seen my posts about when I realized I was asexual, no? Maybe not, I know I have trouble keeping track of my own flist.

[axilet.livejournal.com]

Probably learned from Hollywood.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

The essay raised some good points, but I would have liked to have seen more about the sex rites and so forth, and Brown's lack of interest in women as intellectual beings. I think it's just really interesting how all his grail-seekers are men (not counting Sophie, because she's too ignorant and slow-witted to count).

If I had longer I would have gone into it, but since I was writing it at work, I did not. =(

At the same time, I would like to point out that not having an interest in the opposite sex does not necessarily mean that you're homosexual, and lacking sexual interest isn't necessarily bad or unhealthy. You've seen my posts about when I realized I was asexual, no? Maybe not, I know I have trouble keeping track of my own flist.

No, of course not. However, I was playing a lot on the fact of the sexual and phallic imagery that seems to surround the male characters. Which would be better explained ... if I had more time.

[spoofmaster]

I do see how you mean about the sexual imagery focusing only on the male characters--from what I remember of the book, Sophie really didn't get much focus at all, sexual or otherwise, and I'm fairly sure she's the only female character really in the book. I'm just not sure that it can work as evidence that it's a purely homoerotic work, as there's all that business about sex rites (I'm assuming Grandpa Curator was doing it with a woman, not a man), and temple priestesses and all that. So heterosexual sex is at least theoretically a focus.

[smurasaki.livejournal.com]

Careful, you'll make it sound more carefully thought out and interesting than it was. As I recall, my response to the end of the book was: That's IT? What? -_- Well, that was a waste of time. The stupid book goes nowhere - the only thing that really changed was that Sophie found out she had living family members. Yet, somehow, even that failed to be dramatic and interesting. The book is a lot of drama over nothing.

(But your sporkings were fun. ^_^)

[karma-kalisutah.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

Also, Kip, I think you're way off base with the "You can't have sex with an object!" bit. Thinking of women as sex-objects is what misogyny is all about. Which is, I believe exactly why male homosexuality freaks a lot of men out – how could you penetrate an EQUAL? How could a PERSON allow himself to be penetrated?

I'd also like to point out that Silas's* little phallic imagery escapade was very much heterosexual: men don't have hymens.

Sorry, but to me this reads more like a case of straight-forward misogyny than of repressed homosexuality.

*I couldn't recall his name and almost typed "Sylar," but then went, "... waitaminute." I ended up having to look it up in your OP.