Simon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This has been discussed loads already here. He
> does everything he can to suggest that only the
> explicit plot and characters are fictional. Here
> are a few things I lifted from the FAQ section of
> his web site
> (http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.
> html) when we last discussed it;
>
>
> 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 fictional
> novel for entertainment.
***
Obviously given the subject matter.
>
>
> 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.
***
I disagree. I think all history should be considered suspect. That does not mean that all or even any history IS suspect.
>
>
> 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 ???
***
Use of the word "seem" implies to me conjecture/speculation.
>
>
> 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 ?
***
Can you give an instance of a "factual error" that, IYO, fits your statement above.
IOW, if Brown says painting X is in the Louvre museum in France but it's really at another museum, why do you think he would make that "simple" mistake?
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 ?
***
I then assume, that in his book, Brown doesn't bring up counter evidence or traditional views on this whole thing.
>
>
> 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 ?
***
Why name them? It's a fictional book. It seems an oxymoron.
>
> Again its not like he's allowing much room for the
> theories to be fictional in any way.
***
If Brown is trying to unfictionalize a true story, why write it under the guise of fiction? Seems to me he's smart enough to realize that related non-fiction books sell frightfully low compared to his total market.
>
>
> 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
***
I like it!
JL
>
>
>
> ----
>
>
> Simon
>
> InternalSpace
