Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SecretMethod70 · 05-22-2006, 09:17 PM

Well I agree with you Lady Sage, but it is a significant point that Dan Brown, the author of the work of fiction, persistently claims that it is based on fact which is not fact. It is *that* which people are getting all worked up about. It's not like this si the first book - or first successful book even - which paints a negative picture of Christianity. The difference here is that the author is claiming things as fact which are not. And it's not just a marketing ploy either. Part of the reason the lawsuit between Dan Brown and the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail was such an easy lawsuit for Dan Brown to win is because both authors claim that their work is based on facts (which are easily disproven by any moderately educated person). But, since neither made claims that the basis of their books were entirely fictitious, there was no real case for plaigerism.

There are most certainly people capitalizing on the success of The Da Vinci Code on both ends of the spectrum, but I don't think it's fair to paint all "truth behind The Da Vinci Code" events as capitalization. Quite a lot of them are responding to Dan Brown's assertions of fact which are simply not true. And this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the bible is factual either. Like I mentioned previously, historians such as Bart Ehrman take issue with The Da Vinci Code precisely because what it claims as fact is not the historical truth. It is telling that another of Ehrman's books is titled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. His criticism of The Da Vinci Code has nothing to do with defending the bible and everything to do with preventing the spread of historical misinformation because a fictional author insists that his writing is based on fact. You and I may be smart enough to recognize that it is "just a book," but unfortunately that is not something that many people are doing, as I've already pointed out. And a big part of the reason is that Dan Brown himself persistently asserts that his book is based on historical fact that is patently false, and in that way he is spreading disinformation to anyone that doesn't take the time to actually learn that even that which he says is fact is not.

I wish it were a perfect world and everyone was smart enough to realize that the author of a work of fiction claiming something as fact doesn't make him qualified to make such a statement, but it's not. And I have seen *FAR* too many examples both in real life and in reports from other people (such as the situations that initially occured in museums) of people taking Dan Brown for his word. It's a depressing picture of the intelligence of the general populace, but it is what it is.

05-22-2006, 09:17 PM	#49 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Well I agree with you Lady Sage, but it is a significant point that Dan Brown, the author of the work of fiction, persistently claims that it is based on fact which is not fact. It is that which people are getting all worked up about. It's not like this si the first book - or first successful book even - which paints a negative picture of Christianity. The difference here is that the author is claiming things as fact which are not. And it's not just a marketing ploy either. Part of the reason the lawsuit between Dan Brown and the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail was such an easy lawsuit for Dan Brown to win is because both authors claim that their work is based on facts (which are easily disproven by any moderately educated person). But, since neither made claims that the basis of their books were entirely fictitious, there was no real case for plaigerism. There are most certainly people capitalizing on the success of The Da Vinci Code on both ends of the spectrum, but I don't think it's fair to paint all "truth behind The Da Vinci Code" events as capitalization. Quite a lot of them are responding to Dan Brown's assertions of fact which are simply not true. And this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the bible is factual either. Like I mentioned previously, historians such as Bart Ehrman take issue with The Da Vinci Code precisely because what it claims as fact is not the historical truth. It is telling that another of Ehrman's books is titled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. His criticism of The Da Vinci Code has nothing to do with defending the bible and everything to do with preventing the spread of historical misinformation because a fictional author insists that his writing is based on fact. You and I may be smart enough to recognize that it is "just a book," but unfortunately that is not something that many people are doing, as I've already pointed out. And a big part of the reason is that Dan Brown himself persistently asserts that his book is based on historical fact that is patently false, and in that way he is spreading disinformation to anyone that doesn't take the time to actually learn that even that which he says is fact is not. I wish it were a perfect world and everyone was smart enough to realize that the author of a work of fiction claiming something as fact doesn't make him qualified to make such a statement, but it's not. And I have seen FAR too many examples both in real life and in reports from other people (such as the situations that initially occured in museums) of people taking Dan Brown for his word. It's a depressing picture of the intelligence of the general populace, but it is what it is. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 05-22-2006 at 09:20 PM..