| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
05 Jan 2006 04:05:08 PM |
| Object: |
The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/colson_justfiction.ht=
ml
The "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into The Da Vinci
Code
by Carl E. Olson
March 14, 2005
"Why write a book about fiction?"
So asks the headline of a recently posted reader's review at amazon.com
of The Da Vinci Hoax, the book that Sandra Miesel and I wrote about Dan
Brown's The Da Vinci Code. The reviewer continued:
Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code is a novel and not a fact based
book. It is only a book of fiction and not to be taken seriously. It is
entertaining in its outrageous attitude to convince [readers that] what
he is writing is based on fact. Anyone who reads his book should not
even consider anything, but be entertained in the fast moving read.
Another reader-let's call her "Sue"-recently sent me an e-mail
expressing similar sentiments, albeit with more attitude. Sue wrote:
I'm failing to understand what all the controversy is about. The
beginning of Mr. Brown's book clearly states that it is a work of
fiction. As such it stands to reason that various facts and historical
data in the book should not be taken literally. It is a book meant to
be read for pleasure, not to be taken out of context as one man's
idea of factual historical events. This is like saying that someone
actually believes a Stephen King book to be fact! ... Writing a
"response" to a fictional work seems totally ludicrous to me. Now, if
The Da Vinci Code were touted as FACT I could understand. This is all
silliness to be all up in arms over a work of fiction.
These are typical statements of what I call the "It's Just Fiction!"
Doctrine, a nifty piece of polemical rhetoric coined by numerous fans
of The Da Vinci Code. The argument is simple: Dan Brown's best-selling
book is "just fiction," so why worry about it, write about it,
criticize it, or react negatively to it? Even people who admit they
didn't care for the novel are prone to using it, often with bemusement
or puzzlement. More often than not, however, the "It's Just Fiction!"
Doctrine is uttered with some measure of anger, contempt, and loathing.
Perhaps those most annoyed by The Da Vinci Hoax and its critique of The
Da Vinci Code will ignore this essay. But for everyone else, here are
some reasons that the "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine is untenable and
problematic.
What are people really talking about?
When the vast majority of Code readers talk about the novel, what do
they discuss? The intricate intellect of Robert Langdon? The mysterious
past of Sophie Neveu? The "24"-like structure of the plot? The
psychological profile of the albino monk Silas?
None of the above. Time spent reading reviews, blogs, and discussion
forums reveals that most discussion-and argument-centers on the
historical and religious claims of the novel. Even people who have not
read the novel and know little about its characters and plot are
usually familiar with its central claims: Jesus and Mary Magdalene were
married; they had children; this has been kept secret through force and
terror by the Catholic Church; clues about this "fact" were left in
Leonardo da Vinci's artwork. Television programs (on ABC, History
Channel, National Geographic, etc.) featuring lengthy specials on the
Code spend mere seconds or minutes on the characters and plot, instead
focusing on the historical and theological claims made by the
characters and which support the plot.
There are various reasons for this. First, the characters and plot are
generic, thin, and of little or no interest. Secondly, the story is
clearly a vehicle for beliefs that Brown apparently takes very
seriously (more on that below). Finally-once again-it is the
factual claims of the novel that interest readers, critics, and
everyone in between.
A perfect example of this can be found in another reader review at
amazon.com, written by a "Top 100 Reviewer":
Once I began this extraordinary book, I could not put it down. The Da
Vinci Code is so much more than a gripping suspense thriller. Dan Brown
takes us beyond the main plot and leads us on a quest for the Holy
Grail - a Grail totally unlike anything we have been taught to
believe. With his impeccable research, Mr. Brown introduces us to
aspects and interpretations of Western history and Christianity that I,
for one, had never known existed . . . or even thought about. I found
myself, unwillingly, leaving the novel, and time and time again, going
online to research Brown's research-only to find a new world of
historic possibilities opening up for me. And my quest for knowledge
and the answers to questions that the book poses, paralleled, in a
sense, the quest of the book's main characters.
Leaving aside the issue of "impeccable research," Brown does indeed
introduce "aspects and interpretations of Western history and
Christianity" not known to many readers. As Sandra and I show in The Da
Vinci Hoax, these "aspects and interpretations" are not new or
original, nor are they accurate-not even close, in most cases. They
are also not "fiction" in the proper sense of the word; they are not
stories, but numerous pseudo-scholarly assertions artlessly fitted
within a story. The whole point of the Code is go "beyond the main
plot"; in fact, the main plot does not exist without those assertions.
Give us the facts! Sorta. Kinda. Maybe.
The main reason that The Da Vinci Code has sold some twenty-five
million copies worldwide and remains on or near the top of best seller
lists is that people are enamored with its historical, artistic, and
theological claims. Staunch fans of the novel admit this is so in a
variety of ways.
For example, this curt statement from a heated fan of the Code: "You
self-righteous catholic freaks are going to try and debunk a book that
lets the world know the true nature of your religion!" And this e-mail,
from his apparent twin:
It doesn't surprise me that a Fundamentalist such as yourself would be
so closed minded as to not believe that even the possibility of
something such as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code could possibly happen.
You people have the inability to think outside the box.
Others parse their declarations with more nuance, seemingly torn
between the "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine and their conviction that the
novel does tell the truth. For example:
Just to let you know, I think you get very bothered over works of
fiction. Is The Da Vinci Code real? NO, it's a fictional piece. Is
there anything factual in it? YES. Is there a lot of theory and
speculation? YES, but only that. It seems you read the book as you
would read the front page news-a statement that is infallible and
fact. The truth of the matter is that it is not. It is a novel for
entertainment purposes and it does nothing more than bring some
interesting ideas to the table.
So: The Da Vinci Code is not real. But it does contain facts. But these
are really only theory and speculation. Which means they aren't "fact."
Yet these ideas remain "interesting"-but not "real." Get it yet? If
not, the same reader struggles to explain further: "Dan Brown wrote a
good story with some interesting theories. But theories nonetheless.
Theories that can be neither proven nor disproven just because they are
that: theories." However, even a general, non-technical use of the word
"theory" indicates that there is some sort of concrete, legitimate
evidence to support said theory. Unless, I suppose, we are talking
about a conspiracy theory, which always thrives best when no evidence
exists for it.
Interest in the Code has been explained well by one of its most public
fans, Dan Burstein, editor of Secrets of the Code: An Unauthorized
Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code (New York: CDS Books,
2004). Burstein, who runs a venture capital firm, is not shy about his
obsession with Brown's novel, stating: "I was as intellectually
challenged as I had been by any book I had read in a long time." He
recounts making his way through "scores of books that had been
mentioned or alluded to in The Da Vinci Code: Holy Blood, Holy Grail,
The Templar Revelation, Gnostic Gospels, The Woman With the Alabaster
Jar, The Nag Hammadi Library, and more." None of those books, of
course, have anything to do with the art of creating characters,
devising plot, or forming one's own unique voice as a novelist.
Burstein admits that the Code is not well-written, but explains that
literary quality is beside the point: "Say what you will about some of
the ham-fisted dialogue and improbably plot elements, Dan Brown has
wrapped large complex ideas, as well as minute details and fragments of
intriguing thoughts into his action-adventure-murder mystery." There
you have it: "large complex ideas," "minute details," and "fragments of
intriguing thoughts." Burstein is correct in stating that those are the
main attractions of Brown's novel. And such ideas, details, and
thoughts are not presented as "just fiction," nor are they taken as
"just fiction" by a large number of readers.
An even more intriguing and vulnerable examination of this is found in
a November 2004 article from the Village Voice, titled "Faith Off" and
written by Curtis White, author of The Middle Mind: Why Americans
Don't Think for Themselves. The Da Vinci Code, he argued,
is important as an expression of a desire for a spirituality that
cannot be had within the confines of the institutionalized church. More
simply yet, it is the popular expression of a desire for a kind of
meaningfulness to life that is missing for most of us. . . . Beyond the
scandal and the sensation and the heavy-handed fiction, it is this
assumption of our shared sense of spiritual fraud and the assumption
that we're willing to think heretically in order to escape that fraud
that makes Brown's deepest appeal to his readers.
Reader "Sue" had stated that she failed "to understand what all the
controversy is about." Here is what the controversy is all about, ably
expressed by Curtis White, who is not only a fan of the novel, but
laments that Brown doesn't have the courage to go further. He writes
that the Code
first holds out the possibility of a vast reimagining only in order to
betray it in the end through a re-establishment of the familiar (in
this case, the jaded world of the bourgeois scandal/commodity). In
short, it suggests redemption without ever having the courage to
destroy anything.
Does it sound as though White thinks this is "just fiction"? And do you
think that Dan Brown thinks his novel is "just fiction"?
The Brown Ambition
I suppose the response to this might be: "C'mon! Dan Brown simply wrote
a work of entertaining fiction. That's it. It's not his fault if some
readers take it too seriously." Or, as Sue wrote, "Now, if The Da Vinci
Code were touted as FACT I could understand."
The Code is, in fact, touted as FACT. When readers open up the novel,
they find that it contains a very prominent page titled "FACT". The
page states that "the Priory of Sion-a European secret society
founded in 1099-is a real organization" and makes statements about
the Les Dossiers Secrets and Opus Dei. It concludes by stating: "All
descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in
this novel are accurate". So Brown is saying that all descriptions of
the Bible, the Gnostic "gospels," the artwork of Leonardo da Vinci,
Gothic architecture, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jewish Temple, and much,
much more are accurate. It is a confident, bold claim.
Some fans have tried to explain that this just a fun literary device
(wink, wink!) or that Brown does actually provide accurate descriptions
of "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals," so critics
should lighten up and stop reading too much into the "FACT" page. But
critics don't need to put words into Brown's mouth-he has done it
himself.
In a June 9, 2003, interview on The Today Show, host Matt Lauer said to
Brown, "You ask the reader to-to challenge certain long-held beliefs
or truths about religion." Brown answered, "Yes." He then went on to
say that while some readers have found the Code to be "a little bit
shocking," the majority of readers "love it." The "shocking" ideas
found in the novel include a number of radical feminist notions about
the so-called "sacred feminine" and ancient goddess worship.
A major theme of Brown's novel is a call for the recovery of the
"sacred feminine" and a revitalized worship of a goddess or goddesses.
Brown stated in another interview:
Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses.
Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have
been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions
of how and why this shift occurred...and on what lessons we might learn
from it regarding our future.
In a July 17, 2003 interview with CNN, Brown emphasized this point more
than once, stating, "In the early days . . . we lived in a world of
gods and goddesses. . . . Every Mars had an Athena. The god of war had
the goddess of beauty; in the Egyptian tradition, Osiris and Isis. ...
And now we live in a world solely of gods. The female counterpart has
been erased."
He continued: "It's interesting to note that the word 'god'
conjures power and awe, while the word 'goddess' sounds imaginary".
Then, revealing his understanding of how his novel might affect
"traditional" Christians, he remarked, "There are some people in the
church for whom this book is a little bit shocking. But the reaction
from the vast majority of clergy and Christian scholars has been
positive". He added: "Nuns, in particular, are exceptionally excited
about the strong feminist message of the book."
It might be argued that Brown is just saying all of this as a way of
keeping up appearances; that is, there is a wink and sly grin behind
this heavy talk of alternative spiritualities and goddess worship. But
on May 18, 2004, Brown made a rare public appearance, giving a talk at
the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, New Hampshire (Brown lives
in New Hampshire). He again preached the gospel of the sacred feminine.
Eagle Tribune, the local newspaper, reported:
Brown described his book as an exploration of why the world has left
women behind in religion, going from worshipping gods and goddesses to
only gods, and how that shift affected culture. "I simply explored a
story about how and why the shift occurred, how it shaped our past and
more importantly, how it may shape our future," he said. "In the major
religions of the world, women remain second-class citizens. Why is this
a problem?"
Interviewed in 2004 for a National Geographic Channel documentary,
Unlocking Da Vinci's Code: The Full Story, Brown did not waver in his
beliefs. "I began as a skeptic," Brown said, "As I started researching
The Da Vinci Code, I really thought I would disprove a lot of this
theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a
believer."
So Brown frankly admits what his critics (and many of his fans) already
knew: his novel wasn't ultimately about Robert Langdon and Sophie
Neveu, but about being a "believer" and embarking on an "exploration"
of religious and cultural beliefs. The fiction writer clearly doesn't
think his novel is "just fiction."
MSM and the Ivory Tower
Many in the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media and the world of
academia also believe that the Code is much more than "just fiction."
Part of the proof is in the critical pudding.
The novel was described by New York Times as a "riddle-filled,
code-breaking, exhilaratingly brainy thriller" and has garnered
effusive praise from numerous reviewers. The Library Journal raved,
"This masterpiece should be mandatory reading"; the Chicago Tribune
stated that the book contained "several doctorates' worth of
fascinating history and learned speculation"; Salon magazine described
the novel as "an ingenious mixture of paranoid thriller, art history
lesson, chase story, religious symbology lecture and anti-clerical
screed."
Wired magazine marveled: "The Da Vinci Code shines-brilliantly-in
its exploration of cryptology, particularly the encoding methods
developed by Leonardo Da Vinci, whose art and manuscripts are packed
with mystifying symbolism and quirky codes." Numerous critics opine
about how "smart", "intelligent", and well-researched the novel
appeared to be. "His research is impeccable," stated New York Daily
News and The Mystery Reader noted that the "smart suspense novel . . .
incorporat[ed] massive amounts of historical and academic information."
Just fiction? Not on your life-the Code is as a textbook for hip,
smart people looking for answers to ancient, troublesome questions.
Considering its controversial nature and politically-correct themes,
it's no surprise that the novel now appears on the syllabi of various
colleges and universities. Students attending the University of
Arizona, for example, can take a class, "Women Mystics and Preachers in
Western Tradition," that requires a complete reading of the novel
alongside Gnostic texts and the works of female mystics. Hartford
Seminary in Connecticut offers a course, "Spirituality as a Source of
Hope," that includes required texts by controversial theologian Marcus
Borg, New Age guru Matthew Fox, and . . . novelist Dan Brown.
An online course called "The Da Vinci Code Demystified: A Scholarly
Perspective," is offered by Alllearn/Alliance for Lifelong Learning,
and is taught by three professors from Yale, including Harold W.
Attridge, Dean of Yale University Divinity School. Classes at many
other schools also feature the novel, almost always in courses on
theological or metaphysical subject matter.
The Nature and Meaning of Fiction
Very few, if any, college or university English courses utilize the
novel-perhaps because it is so poorly written, as has been pointed
out by some intrepid literary snobs. Regardless, those who hold to the
"It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine play a perilous game. They betray, even
if due to impatience, a failure to appreciate the value, influence, and
nature of fiction.
I suspect that many fans of the Code think that fiction is simply
another form of entertainment. Period. There's little doubt that many
people view fiction in that way. Fewer and fewer people read fiction,
and many reading it go for light fiction, not dusty works by Dickens,
James, or Hardy. For many Americans, fiction is what you read on
planes, in trains, and on lunch break. Fair enough. The point is not to
disparage light fiction, but to point out a lacking appreciation of
fiction.
Simply put, there is not such thing as "just fiction." Whether light or
heavy, pulp or classic, short or long, there is really only good
fiction and bad fiction. Good fiction shows us something about the
human condition; it reveals something about human nature. "Human life,"
wrote Eudora Welty, "is fiction's only theme." Edmund Fuller, in Man In
Modern Fiction, argued that "all fiction is a comment upon the life and
nature of man-though not necessarily consciously so. . . . The writer
cannot be wholly coherent, as artist, unless he possesses a wholly
coherent view of man to inform, illuminate, and integrate his work."
Fuller then noted: "Explicitly or implicitly, every novel reflects an
opinion about the nature of man, even if the author hadn't know he had
one." This is why there is no such thing as "just fiction"-all
fiction says something about man, the human condition, and the purpose
of living. But good fiction reveals; it doesn't lecture, hector,
evangelize, or bully the reader. Good fiction is truthful, but it
doesn't lay out facts and make arguments as an academic thesis or op-ed
might. G.K. Chesterton remarked:
People wonder why the novel is the most popular form of literature;
people wonder why it is read more than books of science or books of
metaphysics. The reason is very simple; it is merely that the novel is
more true than they are. Life may sometimes legitimately appear as a
book of science. Life may sometimes appear, and with a much greater
legitimacy, as a book of metaphysics. But life is always a novel. Our
existence may cease to be a song; it may cease even to be a beautiful
lament. Our existence may not be an intelligible justice, or even a
recognizable wrong. But our existence is still a story. (Heretics, ch
14)
In Mystery and Manners, her classic collection of essays on writing,
Flannery O'Connor wrote, "It is true, I think, that there are times
when the financial rewards for sorry writing are much greater than
those for good writing." I think The Da Vinci Code proves this point
with change to spare. But regardless of its literary quality, the Code
does say something. The very fact that it is a work of fiction means
that it communicates a perspective, an attitude, a belief system-as
every novel does. And a large part of that perspective, as The Da Vinci
Hoax shows in great detail, is ideological: anti-Christian, pro-"sacred
feminine," and relativistic. It does this not despite being fiction,
but because that is the intellectual and philosophical basis that
Brown, I think, knowingly built the novel upon.
There is another problem. If the Code, as "just fiction," is merely
entertaining, we should ask: How and why do people find it
entertaining? In what way, for example, is it entertaining to think
that Jesus was married and that the Catholic Church is a violent,
nasty, woman-hating institution? If it's because you enjoy the
possibility of that being the case, we are back to the question of
historical and theological truth. If it's because you enjoy asking
"What if?", we are again back to the question of historical and
theological truth.
It is, then, a matter of truth. Is truth revealed or defiled in the
Code? Since these questions are so important and since twenty-five
million copies of the Code have been sold, is it not reasonable to
examine the historical and theological claims, questions, and issues
contained within the Code? Is it really so ridiculous, or unfair, or
unprecedented to critique the style and substance of a novel that makes
bold claims-and has so obviously influence many readers?
A quick glance at the reaction to another best-selling work of fiction
might be helpful here. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the
publication of the first Left Behind novel. There are now thirteen
books in the Left Behind series, with some sixty million copies sold.
Tim LaHaye. the creator and co-author of that series, has been candid
about the purpose of the books: to use a fictional format to convey a
particular interpretation of "biblical prophecy" and explanation of the
impending end of the world.
Rather than brush the novels off as "just fiction," a number of critics
have written serious critiques of them. Titles include: Skipping
Towards Armageddon: The Politics and Propaganda of the Left Behind
Novels and the LaHaye Empire by Michael Standaert, Marks Of The Beast:
The Left Behind Novels And The Struggle For Evangelical Identity by
Glenn W. Shuck, Rapture Culture: Left Behind in Evangelical America by
Amy Johnson Frykholm, and Rapture, Revelation, and the End Times:
Exploring the Left Behind Series by Bruce David Forbes. Each of these
books examines the various claims and themes found in the Left Behind
series, the apparent agenda and beliefs of the authors, and the impact
the novels are having on popular American culture. In other words, they
are doing exactly what we do in The Da Vinci Hoax.
Code-breaking lit crit
This brings me to my final argument against the validity of the "It's
Just Fiction!" Doctrine: if you apply it one work of fiction, you need
to apply to every work of fiction. If you say that The Da Vinci Code is
just fiction, you need to say it about Hamlet and Uncle Tom's Cabin and
The Jungle and Oliver Twist. Each is a work of fiction-and yet
dozens, even hundreds, of essays, article, theses, and books have been
written about them. Such is the world of literature and literary
criticism. This is part of the work of literature departments at
colleges and universities: to study and critique fiction. Does anyone
think that the tens of thousands of teachers and professors who
dedicate their lives to such work think that they wasting their time
and energy on "just fiction"?
There are countless books written about fiction. Some focus on style,
others on themes, and others on structure and development. Some
criticize authors for their misuse of facts and others examine a novel
or story in the larger historical and cultural contexts. Most ask, in
one way or another, "Why was this written? Why does it succeed? Why
does it influence? What did the author intend it to say?" In The Da
Vinci Hoax we ask many of these same questions about Dan Brown's novel.
We take the Code, its claims, and its influence very seriously-and we
think that others should as well.
So, when asked, "Why write a book about fiction?", perhaps it's best to
ask in return: "Why read a book if it is 'just fiction'"?
Related links:
=B7 DaVinciHoax.com - Information about The Da Vinci Hoax.
=B7 Interviews with Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel about The Da Vinci
Code.
=B7 Other articles by Carl Olson about the Coded Craziness.
Carl E. Olson is the editor of IgnatiusInsight.com.
He is the co-author of The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da
Vinci Code and author of Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?
He resides in a top secret location in the Northwest somewhere between
Portland, Oregon and Sacramento, California. Visit his personal web
site at www.carl-olson.com .
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
05 Jan 2006 04:25:13 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com> in message
news:1136498708.739227.197300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
proved once more that he's a spammer with no thoughts of his own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
06 Jan 2006 10:29:35 AM |
|
|
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote
proved once more that he's a spammer with no thoughts of his own.
The book is clearly not science fiction.
Is it speculative fiction? I'm not sure, but basically I'd say no. It's more
a spy novel, though with the church rather than a fantasy Soviet Union as
the main protaganist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
06 Jan 2006 11:56:36 AM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dpm5te$mm2$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote
proved once more that he's a spammer with no thoughts of his own.
The book is clearly not science fiction.
Is it speculative fiction? I'm not sure, but basically I'd say no. It's
more a spy novel, though with the church rather than a fantasy Soviet
Union as the main protaganist.
Secret history can be SF, as in Tim Powers's The Stress of her Regard or
Declare. And TDVC is Gernsbackian in the depth of its characterizations and
the quality of its prose. But on the whole I agree with you that it doesn't
feel like SF.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
06 Jan 2006 12:01:17 PM |
|
|
In some ways it feels more like the (possible) novelization of the
movie based on Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, if Jerry Bruckheimer had
directed it, that is.
Mark
author of:
THE SECANTIS SEQUENCE
REMAINS
www.marktiedemann.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
06 Jan 2006 12:15:05 PM |
|
|
"Mark" <mtiedemann@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1136570477.706683.302420
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
In some ways it feels more like the (possible) novelization of the
movie based on Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, if Jerry Bruckheimer had
directed it, that is.
Now *that* was a good book! Far better than "The DaVinci Code".
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"Dogmatism is puppyism come to its full growth."
-- Douglas Jerrold 1803-1857
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis A. Miniter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
06 Jan 2006 12:29:31 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
"Mark" <mtiedemann@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1136570477.706683.302420
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
In some ways it feels more like the (possible) novelization of the
movie based on Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, if Jerry Bruckheimer had
directed it, that is.
Now *that* was a good book! Far better than "The DaVinci Code".
Agreed. Eco examines belief systems and how they (adversely) affect
the believers and, through them, others. It is the biggest put down of
faith-based action I have ever seen. They all get trashed.
Francis A. Miniter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
06 Jan 2006 02:31:53 PM |
|
|
"Francis A. Miniter" <miniter@attglobal.net> wrote in
news:43beb73f@kcnews01:
Enkidu wrote:
"Mark" <mtiedemann@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1136570477.706683.302420
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
In some ways it feels more like the (possible) novelization of the
movie based on Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, if Jerry Bruckheimer had
directed it, that is.
Now *that* was a good book! Far better than "The DaVinci Code".
Agreed. Eco examines belief systems and how they (adversely) affect
the believers and, through them, others. It is the biggest put down of
faith-based action I have ever seen. They all get trashed.
Have you read "Isle of the Day Before"? It would be hard to explain what
it's about, very much but worth the read.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
The pioneers and missionaries of religion have been the real cause of
more trouble and war than all other classes of mankind.
-- Edgar Allan Poe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Francis A. Miniter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
07 Jan 2006 05:47:33 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
"Francis A. Miniter" <miniter@attglobal.net> wrote in
news:43beb73f@kcnews01:
Enkidu wrote:
"Mark" <mtiedemann@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1136570477.706683.302420
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
In some ways it feels more like the (possible) novelization of the
movie based on Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, if Jerry Bruckheimer had
directed it, that is.
Now *that* was a good book! Far better than "The DaVinci Code".
Agreed. Eco examines belief systems and how they (adversely) affect
the believers and, through them, others. It is the biggest put down of
faith-based action I have ever seen. They all get trashed.
Have you read "Isle of the Day Before"? It would be hard to explain what
it's about, very much but worth the read.
Yes, I very much enjoyed it. What's it about? That is more difficult. But
there are some similarities an aspect of Foucault's Pendulum. Remember on the
first page of FP, where the narrator is talking about the pendulum itself, and
the fixed point in the heavens? Of course, there is no fixed point in the
heavens, and, even with respect to planet earth, the star polaris - marking the
only conceivable heavenly fixed point - is only roughly that, having a period of
about 300,000 years during much of which it is not really on point as the polar
star. So, there is an irony there as mobile reality denies the absolute
foothold that the narrator seeks.
In "The Island of the Day Before" we still have humans desperately seeking a
fixed point - the prime meridian - in an even more relativistic area, longitude.
At least with latitude, one has the poles about which the earth rotates. With
longitude, all one has is the rotation itself. During the period of time that
the story is set, just about every European country tried to declare its capital
as the prime meridian on that side of the world.
So, the expedition on which our narrator finds himself is a hopeless one from
before it started. And, having got somewhere, he is confronted with the further
paradox of sitting on a motionless ship looking at two islands that he is told
exist in two different days, one is in today, the other in yesterday, and they
will always be that way.
On top of that, they are unreachable. The ship is stuck where it is and both
"fixed points" are beyond the ability of the narrator and his companion to reach
even with their attempts to use science and such technology as they have. So,
to some extent (there are multiple things going on), it is all a metaphor for
the metaphysical "lostness" of the human mind.
Francis A. Miniter
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lewis Mammel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
06 Jan 2006 05:52:08 PM |
|
|
"Francis A. Miniter" wrote:
Agreed. Eco examines belief systems and how they (adversely) affect
the believers and, through them, others. It is the biggest put down of
faith-based action I have ever seen. They all get trashed.
Most particularly, faith in the Real.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
06 Jan 2006 12:21:22 PM |
|
|
I think in some ways Brown wanted to write Foucault's Pendulum. Oh,
well. Ironically for this thread--at least, for the opening
post--Foucault's Pendulum is the perfect answer. Be Ware What One
Takes Too Seriously.
Mark
author of:
THE SECANTIS SEQUENCE
REMAINS
www.marktiedemann.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
07 Jan 2006 02:13:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:29:35 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote
proved once more that he's a spammer with no thoughts of his own.
The book is clearly not science fiction.
The have a name for that: they call it 'fiction'. Booring he?
Is it speculative fiction? I'm not sure, but basically I'd say no. It's more
a spy novel, though with the church rather than a fantasy Soviet Union as
the main protaganist.
Even James Bond doesn't do USSR Russians anymore. Strange, if you
think about it. During the height of the Cold War, his main opponents
weren't the Russians, but evil geniuses. Normally Bond could get along
pretty well with the KGB.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Khubla" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
05 Jan 2006 04:53:47 PM |
|
|
A work of fiction about a book of fiction, the Bible.
"words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1136498708.739227.197300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/colson_justfiction.html
The "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into The Da Vinci
Code
by Carl E. Olson
March 14, 2005
"Why write a book about fiction?"
So asks the headline of a recently posted reader's review at amazon.com
of The Da Vinci Hoax, the book that Sandra Miesel and I wrote about Dan
Brown's The Da Vinci Code. The reviewer continued:
Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code is a novel and not a fact based
book. It is only a book of fiction and not to be taken seriously. It is
entertaining in its outrageous attitude to convince [readers that] what
he is writing is based on fact. Anyone who reads his book should not
even consider anything, but be entertained in the fast moving read.
Another reader-let's call her "Sue"-recently sent me an e-mail
expressing similar sentiments, albeit with more attitude. Sue wrote:
I'm failing to understand what all the controversy is about. The
beginning of Mr. Brown's book clearly states that it is a work of
fiction. As such it stands to reason that various facts and historical
data in the book should not be taken literally. It is a book meant to
be read for pleasure, not to be taken out of context as one man's
idea of factual historical events. This is like saying that someone
actually believes a Stephen King book to be fact! ... Writing a
"response" to a fictional work seems totally ludicrous to me. Now, if
The Da Vinci Code were touted as FACT I could understand. This is all
silliness to be all up in arms over a work of fiction.
These are typical statements of what I call the "It's Just Fiction!"
Doctrine, a nifty piece of polemical rhetoric coined by numerous fans
of The Da Vinci Code. The argument is simple: Dan Brown's best-selling
book is "just fiction," so why worry about it, write about it,
criticize it, or react negatively to it? Even people who admit they
didn't care for the novel are prone to using it, often with bemusement
or puzzlement. More often than not, however, the "It's Just Fiction!"
Doctrine is uttered with some measure of anger, contempt, and loathing.
Perhaps those most annoyed by The Da Vinci Hoax and its critique of The
Da Vinci Code will ignore this essay. But for everyone else, here are
some reasons that the "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine is untenable and
problematic.
What are people really talking about?
When the vast majority of Code readers talk about the novel, what do
they discuss? The intricate intellect of Robert Langdon? The mysterious
past of Sophie Neveu? The "24"-like structure of the plot? The
psychological profile of the albino monk Silas?
None of the above. Time spent reading reviews, blogs, and discussion
forums reveals that most discussion-and argument-centers on the
historical and religious claims of the novel. Even people who have not
read the novel and know little about its characters and plot are
usually familiar with its central claims: Jesus and Mary Magdalene were
married; they had children; this has been kept secret through force and
terror by the Catholic Church; clues about this "fact" were left in
Leonardo da Vinci's artwork. Television programs (on ABC, History
Channel, National Geographic, etc.) featuring lengthy specials on the
Code spend mere seconds or minutes on the characters and plot, instead
focusing on the historical and theological claims made by the
characters and which support the plot.
There are various reasons for this. First, the characters and plot are
generic, thin, and of little or no interest. Secondly, the story is
clearly a vehicle for beliefs that Brown apparently takes very
seriously (more on that below). Finally-once again-it is the
factual claims of the novel that interest readers, critics, and
everyone in between.
A perfect example of this can be found in another reader review at
amazon.com, written by a "Top 100 Reviewer":
Once I began this extraordinary book, I could not put it down. The Da
Vinci Code is so much more than a gripping suspense thriller. Dan Brown
takes us beyond the main plot and leads us on a quest for the Holy
Grail - a Grail totally unlike anything we have been taught to
believe. With his impeccable research, Mr. Brown introduces us to
aspects and interpretations of Western history and Christianity that I,
for one, had never known existed . . . or even thought about. I found
myself, unwillingly, leaving the novel, and time and time again, going
online to research Brown's research-only to find a new world of
historic possibilities opening up for me. And my quest for knowledge
and the answers to questions that the book poses, paralleled, in a
sense, the quest of the book's main characters.
Leaving aside the issue of "impeccable research," Brown does indeed
introduce "aspects and interpretations of Western history and
Christianity" not known to many readers. As Sandra and I show in The Da
Vinci Hoax, these "aspects and interpretations" are not new or
original, nor are they accurate-not even close, in most cases. They
are also not "fiction" in the proper sense of the word; they are not
stories, but numerous pseudo-scholarly assertions artlessly fitted
within a story. The whole point of the Code is go "beyond the main
plot"; in fact, the main plot does not exist without those assertions.
Give us the facts! Sorta. Kinda. Maybe.
The main reason that The Da Vinci Code has sold some twenty-five
million copies worldwide and remains on or near the top of best seller
lists is that people are enamored with its historical, artistic, and
theological claims. Staunch fans of the novel admit this is so in a
variety of ways.
For example, this curt statement from a heated fan of the Code: "You
self-righteous catholic freaks are going to try and debunk a book that
lets the world know the true nature of your religion!" And this e-mail,
from his apparent twin:
It doesn't surprise me that a Fundamentalist such as yourself would be
so closed minded as to not believe that even the possibility of
something such as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code could possibly happen.
You people have the inability to think outside the box.
Others parse their declarations with more nuance, seemingly torn
between the "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine and their conviction that the
novel does tell the truth. For example:
Just to let you know, I think you get very bothered over works of
fiction. Is The Da Vinci Code real? NO, it's a fictional piece. Is
there anything factual in it? YES. Is there a lot of theory and
speculation? YES, but only that. It seems you read the book as you
would read the front page news-a statement that is infallible and
fact. The truth of the matter is that it is not. It is a novel for
entertainment purposes and it does nothing more than bring some
interesting ideas to the table.
So: The Da Vinci Code is not real. But it does contain facts. But these
are really only theory and speculation. Which means they aren't "fact."
Yet these ideas remain "interesting"-but not "real." Get it yet? If
not, the same reader struggles to explain further: "Dan Brown wrote a
good story with some interesting theories. But theories nonetheless.
Theories that can be neither proven nor disproven just because they are
that: theories." However, even a general, non-technical use of the word
"theory" indicates that there is some sort of concrete, legitimate
evidence to support said theory. Unless, I suppose, we are talking
about a conspiracy theory, which always thrives best when no evidence
exists for it.
Interest in the Code has been explained well by one of its most public
fans, Dan Burstein, editor of Secrets of the Code: An Unauthorized
Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code (New York: CDS Books,
2004). Burstein, who runs a venture capital firm, is not shy about his
obsession with Brown's novel, stating: "I was as intellectually
challenged as I had been by any book I had read in a long time." He
recounts making his way through "scores of books that had been
mentioned or alluded to in The Da Vinci Code: Holy Blood, Holy Grail,
The Templar Revelation, Gnostic Gospels, The Woman With the Alabaster
Jar, The Nag Hammadi Library, and more." None of those books, of
course, have anything to do with the art of creating characters,
devising plot, or forming one's own unique voice as a novelist.
Burstein admits that the Code is not well-written, but explains that
literary quality is beside the point: "Say what you will about some of
the ham-fisted dialogue and improbably plot elements, Dan Brown has
wrapped large complex ideas, as well as minute details and fragments of
intriguing thoughts into his action-adventure-murder mystery." There
you have it: "large complex ideas," "minute details," and "fragments of
intriguing thoughts." Burstein is correct in stating that those are the
main attractions of Brown's novel. And such ideas, details, and
thoughts are not presented as "just fiction," nor are they taken as
"just fiction" by a large number of readers.
An even more intriguing and vulnerable examination of this is found in
a November 2004 article from the Village Voice, titled "Faith Off" and
written by Curtis White, author of The Middle Mind: Why Americans
Don't Think for Themselves. The Da Vinci Code, he argued,
is important as an expression of a desire for a spirituality that
cannot be had within the confines of the institutionalized church. More
simply yet, it is the popular expression of a desire for a kind of
meaningfulness to life that is missing for most of us. . . . Beyond the
scandal and the sensation and the heavy-handed fiction, it is this
assumption of our shared sense of spiritual fraud and the assumption
that we're willing to think heretically in order to escape that fraud
that makes Brown's deepest appeal to his readers.
Reader "Sue" had stated that she failed "to understand what all the
controversy is about." Here is what the controversy is all about, ably
expressed by Curtis White, who is not only a fan of the novel, but
laments that Brown doesn't have the courage to go further. He writes
that the Code
first holds out the possibility of a vast reimagining only in order to
betray it in the end through a re-establishment of the familiar (in
this case, the jaded world of the bourgeois scandal/commodity). In
short, it suggests redemption without ever having the courage to
destroy anything.
Does it sound as though White thinks this is "just fiction"? And do you
think that Dan Brown thinks his novel is "just fiction"?
The Brown Ambition
I suppose the response to this might be: "C'mon! Dan Brown simply wrote
a work of entertaining fiction. That's it. It's not his fault if some
readers take it too seriously." Or, as Sue wrote, "Now, if The Da Vinci
Code were touted as FACT I could understand."
The Code is, in fact, touted as FACT. When readers open up the novel,
they find that it contains a very prominent page titled "FACT". The
page states that "the Priory of Sion-a European secret society
founded in 1099-is a real organization" and makes statements about
the Les Dossiers Secrets and Opus Dei. It concludes by stating: "All
descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in
this novel are accurate". So Brown is saying that all descriptions of
the Bible, the Gnostic "gospels," the artwork of Leonardo da Vinci,
Gothic architecture, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jewish Temple, and much,
much more are accurate. It is a confident, bold claim.
Some fans have tried to explain that this just a fun literary device
(wink, wink!) or that Brown does actually provide accurate descriptions
of "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals," so critics
should lighten up and stop reading too much into the "FACT" page. But
critics don't need to put words into Brown's mouth-he has done it
himself.
In a June 9, 2003, interview on The Today Show, host Matt Lauer said to
Brown, "You ask the reader to-to challenge certain long-held beliefs
or truths about religion." Brown answered, "Yes." He then went on to
say that while some readers have found the Code to be "a little bit
shocking," the majority of readers "love it." The "shocking" ideas
found in the novel include a number of radical feminist notions about
the so-called "sacred feminine" and ancient goddess worship.
A major theme of Brown's novel is a call for the recovery of the
"sacred feminine" and a revitalized worship of a goddess or goddesses.
Brown stated in another interview:
Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses.
Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have
been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions
of how and why this shift occurred...and on what lessons we might learn
from it regarding our future.
In a July 17, 2003 interview with CNN, Brown emphasized this point more
than once, stating, "In the early days . . . we lived in a world of
gods and goddesses. . . . Every Mars had an Athena. The god of war had
the goddess of beauty; in the Egyptian tradition, Osiris and Isis. ...
And now we live in a world solely of gods. The female counterpart has
been erased."
He continued: "It's interesting to note that the word 'god'
conjures power and awe, while the word 'goddess' sounds imaginary".
Then, revealing his understanding of how his novel might affect
"traditional" Christians, he remarked, "There are some people in the
church for whom this book is a little bit shocking. But the reaction
from the vast majority of clergy and Christian scholars has been
positive". He added: "Nuns, in particular, are exceptionally excited
about the strong feminist message of the book."
It might be argued that Brown is just saying all of this as a way of
keeping up appearances; that is, there is a wink and sly grin behind
this heavy talk of alternative spiritualities and goddess worship. But
on May 18, 2004, Brown made a rare public appearance, giving a talk at
the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, New Hampshire (Brown lives
in New Hampshire). He again preached the gospel of the sacred feminine.
Eagle Tribune, the local newspaper, reported:
Brown described his book as an exploration of why the world has left
women behind in religion, going from worshipping gods and goddesses to
only gods, and how that shift affected culture. "I simply explored a
story about how and why the shift occurred, how it shaped our past and
more importantly, how it may shape our future," he said. "In the major
religions of the world, women remain second-class citizens. Why is this
a problem?"
Interviewed in 2004 for a National Geographic Channel documentary,
Unlocking Da Vinci's Code: The Full Story, Brown did not waver in his
beliefs. "I began as a skeptic," Brown said, "As I started researching
The Da Vinci Code, I really thought I would disprove a lot of this
theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a
believer."
So Brown frankly admits what his critics (and many of his fans) already
knew: his novel wasn't ultimately about Robert Langdon and Sophie
Neveu, but about being a "believer" and embarking on an "exploration"
of religious and cultural beliefs. The fiction writer clearly doesn't
think his novel is "just fiction."
MSM and the Ivory Tower
Many in the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media and the world of
academia also believe that the Code is much more than "just fiction."
Part of the proof is in the critical pudding.
The novel was described by New York Times as a "riddle-filled,
code-breaking, exhilaratingly brainy thriller" and has garnered
effusive praise from numerous reviewers. The Library Journal raved,
"This masterpiece should be mandatory reading"; the Chicago Tribune
stated that the book contained "several doctorates' worth of
fascinating history and learned speculation"; Salon magazine described
the novel as "an ingenious mixture of paranoid thriller, art history
lesson, chase story, religious symbology lecture and anti-clerical
screed."
Wired magazine marveled: "The Da Vinci Code shines-brilliantly-in
its exploration of cryptology, particularly the encoding methods
developed by Leonardo Da Vinci, whose art and manuscripts are packed
with mystifying symbolism and quirky codes." Numerous critics opine
about how "smart", "intelligent", and well-researched the novel
appeared to be. "His research is impeccable," stated New York Daily
News and The Mystery Reader noted that the "smart suspense novel . . .
incorporat[ed] massive amounts of historical and academic information."
Just fiction? Not on your life-the Code is as a textbook for hip,
smart people looking for answers to ancient, troublesome questions.
Considering its controversial nature and politically-correct themes,
it's no surprise that the novel now appears on the syllabi of various
colleges and universities. Students attending the University of
Arizona, for example, can take a class, "Women Mystics and Preachers in
Western Tradition," that requires a complete reading of the novel
alongside Gnostic texts and the works of female mystics. Hartford
Seminary in Connecticut offers a course, "Spirituality as a Source of
Hope," that includes required texts by controversial theologian Marcus
Borg, New Age guru Matthew Fox, and . . . novelist Dan Brown.
An online course called "The Da Vinci Code Demystified: A Scholarly
Perspective," is offered by Alllearn/Alliance for Lifelong Learning,
and is taught by three professors from Yale, including Harold W.
Attridge, Dean of Yale University Divinity School. Classes at many
other schools also feature the novel, almost always in courses on
theological or metaphysical subject matter.
The Nature and Meaning of Fiction
Very few, if any, college or university English courses utilize the
novel-perhaps because it is so poorly written, as has been pointed
out by some intrepid literary snobs. Regardless, those who hold to the
"It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine play a perilous game. They betray, even
if due to impatience, a failure to appreciate the value, influence, and
nature of fiction.
I suspect that many fans of the Code think that fiction is simply
another form of entertainment. Period. There's little doubt that many
people view fiction in that way. Fewer and fewer people read fiction,
and many reading it go for light fiction, not dusty works by Dickens,
James, or Hardy. For many Americans, fiction is what you read on
planes, in trains, and on lunch break. Fair enough. The point is not to
disparage light fiction, but to point out a lacking appreciation of
fiction.
Simply put, there is not such thing as "just fiction." Whether light or
heavy, pulp or classic, short or long, there is really only good
fiction and bad fiction. Good fiction shows us something about the
human condition; it reveals something about human nature. "Human life,"
wrote Eudora Welty, "is fiction's only theme." Edmund Fuller, in Man In
Modern Fiction, argued that "all fiction is a comment upon the life and
nature of man-though not necessarily consciously so. . . . The writer
cannot be wholly coherent, as artist, unless he possesses a wholly
coherent view of man to inform, illuminate, and integrate his work."
Fuller then noted: "Explicitly or implicitly, every novel reflects an
opinion about the nature of man, even if the author hadn't know he had
one." This is why there is no such thing as "just fiction"-all
fiction says something about man, the human condition, and the purpose
of living. But good fiction reveals; it doesn't lecture, hector,
evangelize, or bully the reader. Good fiction is truthful, but it
doesn't lay out facts and make arguments as an academic thesis or op-ed
might. G.K. Chesterton remarked:
People wonder why the novel is the most popular form of literature;
people wonder why it is read more than books of science or books of
metaphysics. The reason is very simple; it is merely that the novel is
more true than they are. Life may sometimes legitimately appear as a
book of science. Life may sometimes appear, and with a much greater
legitimacy, as a book of metaphysics. But life is always a novel. Our
existence may cease to be a song; it may cease even to be a beautiful
lament. Our existence may not be an intelligible justice, or even a
recognizable wrong. But our existence is still a story. (Heretics, ch
14)
In Mystery and Manners, her classic collection of essays on writing,
Flannery O'Connor wrote, "It is true, I think, that there are times
when the financial rewards for sorry writing are much greater than
those for good writing." I think The Da Vinci Code proves this point
with change to spare. But regardless of its literary quality, the Code
does say something. The very fact that it is a work of fiction means
that it communicates a perspective, an attitude, a belief system-as
every novel does. And a large part of that perspective, as The Da Vinci
Hoax shows in great detail, is ideological: anti-Christian, pro-"sacred
feminine," and relativistic. It does this not despite being fiction,
but because that is the intellectual and philosophical basis that
Brown, I think, knowingly built the novel upon.
There is another problem. If the Code, as "just fiction," is merely
entertaining, we should ask: How and why do people find it
entertaining? In what way, for example, is it entertaining to think
that Jesus was married and that the Catholic Church is a violent,
nasty, woman-hating institution? If it's because you enjoy the
possibility of that being the case, we are back to the question of
historical and theological truth. If it's because you enjoy asking
"What if?", we are again back to the question of historical and
theological truth.
It is, then, a matter of truth. Is truth revealed or defiled in the
Code? Since these questions are so important and since twenty-five
million copies of the Code have been sold, is it not reasonable to
examine the historical and theological claims, questions, and issues
contained within the Code? Is it really so ridiculous, or unfair, or
unprecedented to critique the style and substance of a novel that makes
bold claims-and has so obviously influence many readers?
A quick glance at the reaction to another best-selling work of fiction
might be helpful here. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the
publication of the first Left Behind novel. There are now thirteen
books in the Left Behind series, with some sixty million copies sold.
Tim LaHaye. the creator and co-author of that series, has been candid
about the purpose of the books: to use a fictional format to convey a
particular interpretation of "biblical prophecy" and explanation of the
impending end of the world.
Rather than brush the novels off as "just fiction," a number of critics
have written serious critiques of them. Titles include: Skipping
Towards Armageddon: The Politics and Propaganda of the Left Behind
Novels and the LaHaye Empire by Michael Standaert, Marks Of The Beast:
The Left Behind Novels And The Struggle For Evangelical Identity by
Glenn W. Shuck, Rapture Culture: Left Behind in Evangelical America by
Amy Johnson Frykholm, and Rapture, Revelation, and the End Times:
Exploring the Left Behind Series by Bruce David Forbes. Each of these
books examines the various claims and themes found in the Left Behind
series, the apparent agenda and beliefs of the authors, and the impact
the novels are having on popular American culture. In other words, they
are doing exactly what we do in The Da Vinci Hoax.
Code-breaking lit crit
This brings me to my final argument against the validity of the "It's
Just Fiction!" Doctrine: if you apply it one work of fiction, you need
to apply to every work of fiction. If you say that The Da Vinci Code is
just fiction, you need to say it about Hamlet and Uncle Tom's Cabin and
The Jungle and Oliver Twist. Each is a work of fiction-and yet
dozens, even hundreds, of essays, article, theses, and books have been
written about them. Such is the world of literature and literary
criticism. This is part of the work of literature departments at
colleges and universities: to study and critique fiction. Does anyone
think that the tens of thousands of teachers and professors who
dedicate their lives to such work think that they wasting their time
and energy on "just fiction"?
There are countless books written about fiction. Some focus on style,
others on themes, and others on structure and development. Some
criticize authors for their misuse of facts and others examine a novel
or story in the larger historical and cultural contexts. Most ask, in
one way or another, "Why was this written? Why does it succeed? Why
does it influence? What did the author intend it to say?" In The Da
Vinci Hoax we ask many of these same questions about Dan Brown's novel.
We take the Code, its claims, and its influence very seriously-and we
think that others should as well.
So, when asked, "Why write a book about fiction?", perhaps it's best to
ask in return: "Why read a book if it is 'just fiction'"?
Related links:
· DaVinciHoax.com - Information about The Da Vinci Hoax.
· Interviews with Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel about The Da Vinci
Code.
· Other articles by Carl Olson about the Coded Craziness.
Carl E. Olson is the editor of IgnatiusInsight.com.
He is the co-author of The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da
Vinci Code and author of Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?
He resides in a top secret location in the Northwest somewhere between
Portland, Oregon and Sacramento, California. Visit his personal web
site at www.carl-olson.com .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
05 Jan 2006 08:51:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:53:47 -0500, "Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net>
wrote:
Interesting article but...
I suspect that many fans of the Code think that fiction is simply
another form of entertainment. Period. There's little doubt that many
people view fiction in that way. Fewer and fewer people read fiction,
and many reading it go for light fiction, not dusty works by Dickens,
James, or Hardy. For many Americans, fiction is what you read on
planes, in trains, and on lunch break. Fair enough. The point is not to
disparage light fiction, but to point out a lacking appreciation of
fiction.
Simply put, there is not such thing as "just fiction."
I think that's taking the phrase slightly out of context. It's used as
a response to the idea that 'The Da Vinci Code' is a non-fictional,
factual historical work. The same accusation is not levelled at books
which do not have that claim made for them by delusional whackos.
If someone tried to tell me that 'Lord of the Rings' was actually a
true representation of human history, I'd have no hesitation in
telling them it was 'just fiction' even though I'm a hippy and regard
it as being one of the greatest books ever written.
It's a response and not a judgement in itself.
There is another problem. If the Code, as "just fiction," is merely
entertaining, we should ask: How and why do people find it
entertaining? In what way, for example, is it entertaining to think
that Jesus was married and that the Catholic Church is a violent,
nasty, woman-hating institution? If it's because you enjoy the
possibility of that being the case, we are back to the question of
historical and theological truth. If it's because you enjoy asking
"What if?", we are again back to the question of historical and
theological truth.
Grail myths have always been popular. In the minds of many Brits at
least, they are inextricably linked with Arthurian myths. The link is
entirely a fictional one, but it is a link to past heroes. Nowadays we
don't have any particularly heroic figures to look up to. I think
people miss the wild freedom of the 6th century. That again is
probably based largely on a romanticised version of it, but the
fascination is there and probably always will be.
When you mention the word 'grail' you immediately drag up the
Arthurian myths - the former was part of the latter. It has never
existed outside fiction, yet there are hints that Arthur may have
existed which lend credibility to the mythological additions.
Brown also taps into other well-known fascinations that people have.
The whole Rennes le Chateau thing is part of the same Jesus mythology.
If you look long and hard at it all, the various claims disappear in a
puff of logic and you're left with a priest who's swindling his
parishioners out of money to make himself rich (a fine European
Christian tradition). 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' uses the same fictional
elements as Brown's book but presents them as fact. I've had books
like that pushed at me countless times by otherwise skeptical people
and none of them stand up to serious investigation. They still sell by
the truckload though.
Brown's book has become problematic for some simply because it has
been presented as a factual work (like 'Holy Blood') even though it
was intended as fiction.
<hack>
This brings me to my final argument against the validity of the "It's
Just Fiction!" Doctrine: if you apply it one work of fiction, you need
to apply to every work of fiction. If you say that The Da Vinci Code is
just fiction, you need to say it about Hamlet and Uncle Tom's Cabin and
The Jungle and Oliver Twist. Each is a work of fiction-and yet
dozens, even hundreds, of essays, article, theses, and books have been
written about them.
It's not the same thing because we do not have hoardes of batty people
claiming that Oliver Twist is anything *but* a work of fiction. The
word 'only' is not being used as a judgement, but as a response.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
05 Jan 2006 05:19:30 PM |
|
|
Clearly someone doesn't understand the principle of Ignore It And It
Will Go Away, Pay Serious Attention To It And It May Be With Us
FOREVER.
Mark
author of:
THE SECANTIS SEQUENCE
REMAINS
www.marktiedemann.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
05 Jan 2006 08:18:30 PM |
|
|
In <1136498708.739227.197300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "words of
truth" <truth760@lycos.com> wrote:
"Why write a book about fiction?"
Because you have serious problems telling fiction from reality?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "DrGong" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
06 Jan 2006 08:00:01 AM |
|
|
If the Illuminatus! trilogy had aged better (it is very good, but it
dates itself in a few spots), It would be a good seller.
Though my dad, who each few weeks has a East coast USA -> China and
back flights, has started to pick up all of Dan Brown Novels, and is
enjoying them. Which is surpising, as my dad is not a hardcore reader,
unlike myself. (I picked up the De Vinci code, read the first half,
and while fast paced and not bad, I put it down so that I can finally
finish a game of thrones, which for me is a cursed book, each time I
pick it up, something happens which requires my attention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
07 Jan 2006 03:55:19 AM |
|
|
DrGong wrote:
If the Illuminatus! trilogy had aged better (it is very good, but it
dates itself in a few spots), It would be a good seller.
Though my dad, who each few weeks has a East coast USA -> China and
back flights, has started to pick up all of Dan Brown Novels, and is
enjoying them. Which is surpising, as my dad is not a hardcore reader,
unlike myself.
Well, the fact that he's not a hardcore reader makes it LESS surprising
to me that he enjoys Dan Brown, not more surprising. Leaving aside the
rights and wrongs of the mumbo jumbo in them (I find it impossible to
take sides in such a ludicrous argument), they are appallingly badly
written. They are actually shocking. When I finished the Da Vinci code,
I actually picked up a different copy the next time I was in a bookshop
to make sure that the copy I got was genuine, and not some
terribly-written replacement. I sometimes think that not being a
hardcore reader surely must be a prerequisite to liking this muck.
(I picked up the De Vinci code, read the first half,
and while fast paced and not bad, I put it down so that I can finally
finish a game of thrones, which for me is a cursed book, each time I
pick it up, something happens which requires my attention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
07 Jan 2006 05:09:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
...Leaving aside the
rights and wrongs of the mumbo jumbo in them (I find it impossible to
take sides in such a ludicrous argument), they are appallingly badly
written. They are actually shocking....
I'd love to see some examples of the bad writing in TDVC. So many
people have told me it's "shocking...appalling," that it's unlikely to
ever make my TBR list.
--
Walker Moore
http://arty.me.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
07 Jan 2006 10:59:28 AM |
|
|
"Walker" <walker.moore@gmail.com> wrote
I'd love to see some examples of the bad writing in TDVC. So many people
have told me it's "shocking...appalling," that it's unlikely to ever make
my TBR list.
The hero gets held up at gunpoint about five times in the course of the
book. Each time he swaps smart backchat with the abductor, whilst finding a
way out of the situation.
No one behaves like that outside of a B movie or potboiler.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
07 Jan 2006 11:10:12 AM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dpos1f$e0$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Walker" <walker.moore@gmail.com> wrote
I'd love to see some examples of the bad writing in TDVC. So many people
have told me it's "shocking...appalling," that it's unlikely to ever make
my TBR list.
The hero gets held up at gunpoint about five times in the course of the
book. Each time he swaps smart backchat with the abductor, whilst finding
a way out of the situation.
No one behaves like that outside of a B movie or potboiler.
Miles does, in _The Vor Game_.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
07 Jan 2006 10:58:12 AM |
|
|
In <-_SdnZ2jZp7mPCLeRVnyvw@pipex.net>, Walker <walker.moore@gmail.com>
wrote:
cavello@yahoo.com wrote:
...Leaving aside the
rights and wrongs of the mumbo jumbo in them (I find it impossible to
take sides in such a ludicrous argument), they are appallingly badly
written. They are actually shocking....
I'd love to see some examples of the bad writing in TDVC. So many people
have told me it's "shocking...appalling," that it's unlikely to ever make
my TBR list.
Well, it's a lot like watching TV. Which may explain its popularity.
I read it when I was sick or something like that, when I wasn't up to
anything that took much attention or thought. Even then, it was sometimes
like one of those "pop-up" gimmicks on TV.
"This is a clue!"
"Look, plot complication!"
"Time for the bad guys!"
"It's been 42 pages, time for a shocking twist!"
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
08 Jan 2006 10:35:01 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <-_SdnZ2jZp7mPCLeRVnyvw@pipex.net>, Walker <walker.moore@gmail.com>
wrote:
cavello@yahoo.com wrote:
...Leaving aside the
rights and wrongs of the mumbo jumbo in them (I find it impossible to
take sides in such a ludicrous argument), they are appallingly badly
written. They are actually shocking....
I'd love to see some examples of the bad writing in TDVC. So many people
have told me it's "shocking...appalling," that it's unlikely to ever make
my TBR list.
Well, it's a lot like watching TV. Which may explain its popularity.
I read it when I was sick or something like that, when I wasn't up to
anything that took much attention or thought. Even then, it was sometimes
like one of those "pop-up" gimmicks on TV.
"This is a clue!"
"Look, plot complication!"
"Time for the bad guys!"
"It's been 42 pages, time for a shocking twist!"
Personally, I suspect that it was developed from a discarded "Murder
She Wrote" script.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
09 Jan 2006 09:20:49 AM |
|
|
In <1136738101.661281.305750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
cavello@yahoo.com wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <-_SdnZ2jZp7mPCLeRVnyvw@pipex.net>, Walker <walker.moore@gmail.com>
wrote:
cavello@yahoo.com wrote:
...Leaving aside the
rights and wrongs of the mumbo jumbo in them (I find it impossible to
take sides in such a ludicrous argument), they are appallingly badly
written. They are actually shocking....
I'd love to see some examples of the bad writing in TDVC. So many
people have told me it's "shocking...appalling," that it's unlikely to
ever make my TBR list.
Well, it's a lot like watching TV. Which may explain its popularity.
I read it when I was sick or something like that, when I wasn't up to
anything that took much attention or thought. Even then, it was
sometimes like one of those "pop-up" gimmicks on TV.
"This is a clue!"
"Look, plot complication!"
"Time for the bad guys!"
"It's been 42 pages, time for a shocking twist!"
Personally, I suspect that it was developed from a discarded "Murder She
Wrote" script.
Ouch!
<G>
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
07 Jan 2006 07:07:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 11:09:48 +0000, Walker <walker.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
cavello@yahoo.com wrote:
...Leaving aside the
rights and wrongs of the mumbo jumbo in them (I find it impossible to
take sides in such a ludicrous argument), they are appallingly badly
written. They are actually shocking....
I'd love to see some examples of the bad writing in TDVC. So many
people have told me it's "shocking...appalling," that it's unlikely to
ever make my TBR list.
While I wouldn't call it "shocking", the style is not particularly good, but
one doesn't mind that in a pot-boiler novel, as long as the plot moves on.
One of the plot devices is the scattering of clues from art, literature etc,
which the characters and the reasder is supposed to guess. Thwe protagonists
are supposed to be experts in their fields, but in the book seem temarkably
dense, and unable to spot some of the most elementary clues. "The Bourne
identity" is way better than this.
As a pot boiler it never really gets better than lukewarm.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabby" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
07 Jan 2006 07:24:40 AM |
|
|
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btevr1d9gkf5l9t22k7jlligbc4hj1vlff@4ax.com...
One of the plot devices is the scattering of clues from art, literature
etc,
which the characters and the reasder is supposed to guess. Thwe
protagonists
are supposed to be experts in their fields, but in the book seem
temarkably
dense, and unable to spot some of the most elementary clues.
No kidding! I reached for a mirror immediately -- it took the "expert" how
long to figure it out??? The plot kept me reading, but the characters made
me shake my head.
Gabby
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Da Vinci Code: Just A Harmless Fiction? |
08 Jan 2006 09:50:40 PM |
|
|
Gabby wrote:
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btevr1d9gkf5l9t22k7jlligbc4hj1vlff@4ax.com...
One of the plot devices is the scattering of clues from art, literature
etc,
which the characters and the reasder is supposed to guess. Thwe
protagonists
are supposed to be experts in their fields, but in the book seem
temarkably
dense, and unable to spot some of the most elementary clues.
No kidding! I reached for a mirror immediately -- it took the "expert" how
long to figure it out??? The plot kept me reading, but the characters made
me shake my head.
If you've read _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_, you've seen
a mirror held up for inspection.
.
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
