Where to go after Robert Anton Wilson?

As perhaps many of you, I had to sit down and read all eight hundred pages of Wilson's Illuminatus Trilogy, which I consider to be at once the best piece of literature I've ever read and the worst, for different reasons. But in any case, it gave me a heap of information on the Illuminati (in all of its shifting forms) that I've been craving ever since I played through the masterpiece video game that is "Deus Ex". I'm about to read the book "Angels and Demons" this summer (written by Dan Brown, who recently wrote a somewhat decent-selling book about Da Vinci or something) which is also about this most fascinating of secret societies, but what other required reading is there on them? Either non-fiction or half-fiction, I'd accept both.

Well, first of all, though, you are aware that the "Illuminatus" trilogy is fiction, right? Not only is it fiction, but if we created a graded scale of "fictionality," with 1 being the least fictional, and 10 being the most fictional, this trilogy would probably score at least a 9. I sincerely hope you're not proceeding on the information found in these books as if they have any basis in reality.

Of course not, but it ties together many different parts of the Illuminati myths into an interesting narrative. In any case, is there anything you can recommend that's closer to a 1?

Well, why rely on fiction when you can have the real thing?.

You might find the above link educational. I must say I'm impressed by your zeal to figure things out... it's a good quality.

Don't count on Dan Brown, either. I just read his Angels & Demons,and was sorely disappointed. It supplied little facts with its fiction, IMHO. The ending stunk. The Da Vinci Code, is the follow-up the A&D, and probably is no better.
Mr. Brown aslo seems to have big issues with the Catholic Church, so cannot be relied upon for fact in the Catholic area.

Actually I was very pleased with The Da Vinci Code; it provided a massive amount of information on not only the radical Opus Dei sect of the Catholic Church, as well as the Priory of Scion, not to mention the shocking hidden messages in famous artwork and the Church's less-hailed history. Aside from the characters and the narrative plot, all, or at least most of the facts offered by Brown are true. It's a pity you didn't like Angels and Demons, but based on my approval of this other book (and of course the Illuminati factor) I think I'll give it a chance anyway.

Don, what makes you think the "facts" in The Da Vinci Code were accurate? This site, for example, indicates that many of them are bunk, as do a number of recently published books (which I, sadly, do not own, so I can't give you an overview). The whole "bloodline of Jesus" thing is from "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," a very poorly-researched book (I should know, I own it and have slogged through it, and even once thought it had some glimmering of facts... to my shame), which pulls the old trick of suggesting an idea as speculation, then ten pages later taking that idea as fact. The reader is lulled into the belief that a chain of iron-clad facts has been built, while all that has really happened is that a dung-heap of speculations and misunderstandings has been piled up.

I'm about 90 pages into the Illuminatus Trilogy and I am not really sure what to make of it...so far. Wanted something a bit different and "out there." Well, I think I found it. Not sure I follow the storyline(s) all that well so far, hopefully it gets a bit more entertaining. There are some interesting links throughout this piece of fiction.

Off topic just a bit, finished the Area 51 series by Robert Doherty which I enjoyed. Talk about connecting places, events and people together....whoa.

Stick with Illuminatus as long as possible. Before you know it, you'll be so hooked, you won't be able to put it down. Truly a great piece of 20th centruy fiction.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Don't count on Dan Brown, either. I just read his Angels & Demons,and was sorely disappointed. It supplied little facts with its fiction, IMHO. The ending stunk.

I totally agree. Dan Brown is a hack. In Angels & Demons, he sets up a painfully surface-level dichotomy between right & wrong, good & evil, etc, etc, (thus the title, Angels & Demons). I see the point he was trying to make, but I think the dichotomy is so obvious and conspicuous that it detracts from the story. Plus, his portrayal of the Illuminati is very cliche and cheesy (if you'll pardon the term).

However, I'll have to say that I'm impressed with his knowledge of the history of Rome, the Vatican, and Italian art in general.

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
Don, what makes you think the "facts" in The Da Vinci Code were accurate? This site, for example, indicates that many of them are bunk, as do a number of recently published books (which I, sadly, do not own, so I can't give you an overview).

Very interesting site, Alex; that does place certain things into perspective (I'm atheist, so Catholic documents don't mean much to me) although considering it's a piece of fiction one does have to dramatize certain pieces.

In Angels & Demons, he sets up a painfully surface-level dichotomy between right & wrong, good & evil, etc, etc, (thus the title, Angels & Demons). I see the point he was trying to make, but I think the dichotomy is so obvious and conspicuous that it detracts from the story. Plus, his portrayal of the Illuminati is very cliche and cheesy (if you'll pardon the term).

Another good point (I'll see if I agree after I read the book) although one could fault Illuminatus! for being exactly the opposite: even by the end of the book, you can't really tell which side is more "in the right" than the other, and while this is intentional, and even beneficial, it can turn a number of readers off. Not to mention, it can't even settle on a single interpretation of the Illuminati (many of which were quite "cheesy") It's obvious from your screenname that you're an Illuminati buff, but if we're reading a fictional book, not quite intended for the hardcore audience of researchers, then some parts have to be simplified in order to please publishers.

Right, well, all that I'm trying to get across is that Dan Brown's works are completely fictional, yet some people insist on believing, "Yeah, it's a fictional book, but much of the stuff he says in it is based on fact!" In fact, it's based on seriously flawed research that was disproven long before Brown got at it.

As for the website, sure, I'm not a Catholic either (Anglican - we're like Catholics, only more boring ), but you and I both know that that doesn't affect the content of their arguments. Plus, it was the first page I came across while searching on Google .

Anyway, to recap: I have no problem whatever with Dan Brown, except that he passes off shoddy research (by others) as "truth." This sets up the dangerous situation where if you argue against it, many people will tell you "well, of course it's not real, it's fiction," but if you don't argue against it, many people will believe it's true.

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
The whole "bloodline of Jesus" thing is from "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail"

I did think that the DaVinci code was OK. But it was OK as fiction. Nothing more.

The whole thing with the bloodline of Jesus thing doesn't make sense. People argue that the Priory de Sion is trying to protect and restore the bloodline of Jesus to the throne but the whole argument is totally negated by the fact that if Jesus did have a family he would not have been the divine figure that he is known as and would not warrant the reverence that the Priory supposedly place on him.

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
This sets up the dangerous situation where if you argue against it, many people will tell you "well, of course it's not real, it's fiction," but if you don't argue against it, many people will believe it's true.

Excellent point. That's why I believe that, if the Illuminati really do exist, they're certainly winning, as we aren't brought up to question things very easily.

Read Schrodinger's cat also by Wilson. I read it quite a while ago but I do remember that it really delves into quantum reality and what effects it has on us.

An eyeopener for sure.

Wilson takes some really interesting perspectives on reality (whatever that may be), and tries to get you to expand your own base.

Interesting re-reading. I own just about everything he has written and consider him to be one of the foremost philosophers of our time. However, I am really a nobody ... So whadoIknow?

Angels and Demons The Davinci Code

Regarding the Illuminati, read anything and everything you can, but be aware that most of what you find is speculation and inaccurate.

If you're interest in that type of fiction with some factual basis, try Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum." One of the best books I've ever read. Its more on the occult side of things though.

Originally posted by Don Armageddon
Actually I was very pleased with The Da Vinci Code; it provided a massive amount of information on not only the radical Opus Dei sect of the Catholic Church...

I disagree. I used to teach English to Opus Dei nuns. They were nothing at all like the characters in that book. Dan Brown would have you believe that Opus Dei wants to keep women in the 13th century. Why, then, are Opus Dei nuns allowed (and encouraged) to work? Most of the nuns I taught had "day jobs," which is part of Opus Dei's philosophy that the religious should be part of regular life, not separate from it. Many of the nuns had advanced degrees.

He also makes it sound like they are a crazy cult that will brainwash anyone they can. I taught those nuns for several months, and the most they ever did was invite me to mass, which was not significantly different from any other Catholic mass. If they were a cult, why didn't they try to brainwash me into joining their group?

Also, I thought it was very strange that he portrayed the Opus Dei monk as wearing a monk's robe. The nuns never wore habits, because Opus Dei teaches that the religious should not boast that they are thus. For that reason, I doubt Opus Dei monks wear robes, either.

Although I never became more than casually acquainted with the organization, nothing that I saw fit with what he wrote about them. Although Opus Dei may be more fundamentalist than I would like, I thought his portrayal of them was mean-spirited.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Estrella]

First, as far as "The Da Vinci Code" goes, have a look at the article that appeared in the May/June copy of "Biblical Archaeology Review" (an excellenct magazine, btw.) They spend ten pages going through the book's "Facts" point by point, and checking with some of the best known authorities in the field. The Da Vinci Code has nothing to do with either history or archaeology, other than some serious name-dropping.

A conspiracy bibliography

Verifiable:
"The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" - Joseph Borkin
"None Dare Call It Treason" - John A. Stormer
"None Dare Call It Conspiracy" - Gary Allen
"Krushev Killed Kennedy" u.t.l.
"The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control" - John D. Marks
"The 70 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time: Histories Biggest Mysteries, Coverups, and Cabals" - Vanken & Whalen
"Secret Societies" - Arkon Daraul

"Speculative/Fiction":
"Morning of the Magicians" Bergier & Powells"
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" - Michel Baigent
"The Spear of Destiny" - Trevor Ravenscroft
"Illuminatus!" - R. A. Wilson and Robert Shea
"Shroedinger's Cat" - R. A. Wilson & R. Shea
"The Cosmic Trigger" - R. A. Wilson
"The Baphomet" - Pierre Klossowski