Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
That's the whole point.
It's not that "the critics" are complaining about the veracity or liklihood of the events depicted in the book; everyone agrees it's fiction.
But what grates is the fact that so many people believe it and that the book purported to relate certain things as fact, when they are simply untrue.
So it's a combination of basic dishonesty (or remarkable ignorance) on the part of the author combined with breathtaking gullibility on the part of a vast number of readers.
Mr Mephisto
|
I just don't seem to understand why the big stink about this particular book? There are countless books filled to the brim with conspiracy theorys about...well, concerning just about everything and everyone. What makes this book different? Is it because we (the readers) have intensely focused on this book or rather we've been focused intensely on this book?
Yes, Dan Brown was certainly a bit dishonest about people, places, things, etc and there are certainly some gullible folks out there who are willing to believe just about everything. But the fact is there are hundreds of thousands of books that fall into the same category. Lots of books with lots of fans who believe that aliens are in the White House, a secret cabal or LBJ killed Kennedy, that the illuminati, the tri-lateral commission, the freemasons are all trying to shape the world to their own ends. What makes this book so different?
I think it's the focus that's been put on it. Critics are as much to blame for the "Da Vinci" maddness that they like turning their noses up at. I knew a ton about this book from other sources before I even picked up the book. Articles were everywhere, related material in Time and Newsweek and afterwards a couple of television shows "investigating" the claims made by Brown, one on prime time ABC, no less. You mention the gullibility of the "vast majority." How many millions of books did this guy sell? How many of his millions of readers carry round dog eared copies, threaten tour guides or write nasty letters to the Catholic church? Not many, I'd bet. He's sold millions of books and reached a very big audience. It stands to reason that his "nutball" percentage is going to be a bit higher, but the "vast majority?" I don't think so.
I think if the "critics" had left this book alone and simply treated it like every other piece of fiction that runs across their desks, it would've died out to it's cult following a long time ago. But they haven't and with a movie coming out their not likely to start ignoring the source material anytime soon.
By the way and completely off topic....I've yet to see a bad Tom Hanks film. It is certainly interesting that he was cast in the hero's role. It just seems an odd fit.