Hi Barbara
If I'm making a big fuss over nothing, then why do so many people who read it come away with the impression that Dan Brown claims as fact an organisation that has existed for nearly a thousand years with the specific intention of hiding a secret about Mary Magdelane and Jesus. Why do they believe Newton and DaVinci where members of this organisation ? Why do they consider Dan Browns statement at the beginning implies that "Les Dossier Secret parchments" are genuine ?
You could say thats their fault for being gullible and reading too much into a novel, and that this is nothing to do with Dan Brown's intentions. On the first part okay fair point, but it is a good reason for people - including the vatican who ends up in their minds as the big bad ogre trying to hide the real truth from everyone - to come out and state clearly what is fact and what is pure fiction. Surely.
On the latter point I've just visited Dan Brown's web site and he continues the exact same thing of careful language legalistically, with an intention to leave the gullible in error;
1)
"My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history. "
So its not as if he was just writing a novel for entertainment.
2)
"SOME OF THE HISTORY IN THIS NOVEL CONTRADICTS WHAT I LEARNED IN SCHOOL. WHAT SHOULD I BELIEVE?
Since the beginning of recorded time, history has been written by the "winners" (those societies and belief systems that conquered and survived). Despite an obvious bias in this accounting method, we still measure the "historical accuracy" of a given concept by examining how well it concurs with our existing historical record. Many historians now believe (as do I) that in gauging the historical accuracy of a given concept, we should first ask ourselves a far deeper question: How historically accurate is history itself?"
This is what all the pseudo historians do as well. Say that all history is suspect so it doesn't really matter what I say, or what historians say. Its all equally credible at the end of the day.
3)
"THE COVER OF YOUR BOOK MENTIONS "THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY OF THE PAST 2000 YEARS." WHAT IS THIS CONSPIRACY?
Revealing that secret would rob readers of all the fun, but I will say that it relates to one of the most famous histories of all time…a legend familiar to all of us. Rumors of this conspiracy have been whispered for centuries in countless languages, including the languages of art, music, and literature. Some of the most dramatic evidence can be found in the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci, which seem to overflow with mystifying symbolism, anomalies, and codes. Art historians agree that Da Vinci's paintings contain hidden levels of meaning that go well beneath the surface of the paint. Many scholars believe his work intentionally provides clues to a powerful secret…a secret that remains protected to this day by a clandestine brotherhood of which Da Vinci was a member."
So does that seem like he is suggesting that the actual theories proposed by the characters in the book are supposed to be taken as fictional ???
4)
"I spent a year doing research before writing The Da Vinci Code."
So all the factual errors where
despite a years research before he started writing it ? And in a year of research he did not even come across the fact historians consider the majority of what he framed it on to be completely wrong for very good reasons ?
5)
"HOW DID YOU GET ALL THE INSIDE INFORMATION FOR THIS BOOK?
Most of the information is not as "inside" as it seems. The secret described in the novel has been chronicled for centuries, so there are thousands of sources to draw from. In addition, I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me. One academic told me her enthusiasm for The Da Vinci Code was based in part on her hope that "this ancient mystery would be unveiled to a wider audience.""
Ahh so he consulted historians ? Can he name them ? What is their subject ?
Again its not like he's allowing much room for the theories to be fictional in any way.
6)
"WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Hardly. In fact, I'm quite the opposite--more of a skeptic. I see no truth whatsoever in stories of extraterrestrial visitors,..."
LOL
All from here -> [
www.danbrown.com]
Anyway I agreed with Merc I would drop out as we've gone around this cricle anough times now. The facts of the matter at the end of the day are;
- that a large number of people who read this book take Browns initial statement of fact to mean more than could means in a strictly legalistic way (and even on this limited subsection of what people believe it is factually incorrect).
- many of the things it claims falsely in the story that are taken as fact by the readers are against the very foundation of the Catholic Church. As such it has a right to put the facts on the table.
- Brown himself does everything he can to propogate as much belief in the theories in the book as he can. The comments he make in public leave the casual reader in no doubt that he believes the background story to the book and sees no reason why anyone should not take it as seriously as any other history book (minus the characters)
THE END
Simon
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2005 03:54PM by Simon.