Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code, Catholicism

[KRC]

Thank you for the link. i am computer challenged so i am incapable of returning the favor except to direct you and others to a critique of the novel;

tektonics.org.......... the title is "Not Indavincible"

or google davinci Code for more than you would ever want to know

302931[/snapback]

 

Why would I care to read about any of this? You said that the author states this is non-fiction. I proved you wrong. End of story.

 

Fiction is fiction, regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise.

[VABills]

Why would I care to read about any of this? You said that the author states this is non-fiction. I proved you wrong. End of story.

 

Fiction is fiction, regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise.

302941[/snapback]

Not sure about Davinci Code, but at the beginning of Deception Point, Brown does state that the places, etc... are all true.

 

Well I worked in the NASA HQ for 4 years, and it looks nothing like he describes nor does the security work anything like he also puts forth. We actually get a kick out of it, at how inaccurate it is, considering the lobby area is open to the public and he is so wrong in even describing that.

[beausox]

When did I say I "accepted" the DaVinci Code "as truth"? You need to work on reading comprehension. I'll say this again... take as much time as you need reading it: the DaVinci Code is FICTION. The author says it's fiction. It's sold as fiction.

 

That Brown lists sources does not make the book non-fiction. It just means he relied on the works of others to write his fictional book.

 

Fiction is make-believe. It ain't real. The DaVinci Code is not real. Nowhere does it say otherwise.

 

Is the word "fiction" confusing you?

 

Who feeds you your thoughts? You may want to seriously consider whether or not it benefits you to say you reach your conclusions on your own. Maybe you should bite the bullet and admit a source for all this nonsense.

302935[/snapback]

 

Tsk. Tsk. Funny you should conjure reading comprehension for if you had read the post above you would have found out one of the many sources. Honest fiction writers spend years in research. They want their yarn to be plausible so they do research. Otherwise they do science fiction where they control the rules. Brown is sloppy at least and disingenuous at worst. Brown and I exist in the same world one in which some things are facts and changing them to fit your hope is wrong.

[beausox]

Why would I care to read about any of this? You said that the author states this is non-fiction. I proved you wrong. End of story.

 

Fiction is fiction, regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise.

302941[/snapback]

Then why respond? You proved merely that you said this or that. I am now certain that you are certain of your certitude.

[Campy]

Honest fiction writers spend years in research.

302946[/snapback]

Didn't you mean 'non-fiction' writers?

 

A friend of mine, a university professor, has had over 20 works of fiction published or produced (he writes novels and plays), and many many more that haven't. He's been encouraging me to consider writing historical semi-fiction, and in talking with him he says that there's surprisingly little time spent in research. He credits the internet for cutting down on the investment of time in fact-checking, and that in fiction, he "creates the world."

[beausox]

Didn't you mean 'non-fiction' writers?   

 

A friend of mine, a university professor, has had over 20 works of fiction published or produced (he writes novels and plays), and many many more that haven't.  He's been encouraging me to consider writing historical semi-fiction, and in talking with him he says that there's surprisingly little time spent in research.  He credits the internet for cutting down on the investment of time in fact-checking, and that in fiction, he "creates the world."

302959[/snapback]

 

If you , say, write a Civil war semi-fiction the issue of slavery the economic imperatives of continuing plantation culture are not of your whim to change. Fiction has to be believable . What is that they say about liars, that a bad memory gets them every time because every time is a different lie.

 

And yes I meant fiction. Yes you create "the world" as fiction writer but if your readers are in individual paralel universes sales will not be boffo.

[Campy]

If you , say, write a Civil war semi-fiction the issue of slavery  and the economic imperatives of continuing plantation culture are not of your whim to change.    fiction has to be believable . what is that they say about liars that a bad memory gets them every time because every time is a different lie.

302972[/snapback]

I disagree. I could offer an alternate history and change whatever I want to as a writer of fiction. That's where the whole suspension of reality that is inherent in works of fiction comes in to play. It's what makes works of fiction er... fictional.

[GG]

I disagree.  I could offer an alternate history and change whatever I want to as a writer of fiction.  That's where the whole suspension of reality that is inherent in works of fiction comes in to play.  It's what makes works of fiction er... fictional.

302977[/snapback]

 

 

You mean like this guy did?

 

(Oops, I lose the argument by bringing Nazis in)

[Campy]

You mean like this guy did?

 

(Oops, I lose the argument by bringing Nazis in)

303075[/snapback]

Yeah, a lot like that

What would have happened if, for example, the Germans captured the whole of the BEF at Dunkirk? Or if the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain? What if the U-Boats had strangled Britain with an impregnable blockade, if Rommel had been triumphant in North Africa, or the Germans had beaten the Red Army at Kursk? The authors, writing as if these and other world changing events had really happened, project realistic scenarios based on the true capabilities and circumstances of the opposing forces.

That actually sounds like a pretty interesting read. Have you read it?

[GG]

That actually sounds like a pretty interesting read.  Have you read it?

303079[/snapback]

 

I have not. I've heard about the book, and in my time of income need, it was the first link in www.google.com.

[beausox]

Yeah, a lot like that

 

That actually sounds like a pretty interesting read.  Have you read it?

303079[/snapback]

 

The book can not make Germany a pluralistic democracy and England replete with Fascists. Japan remains an aggresive nation in control in Asia. The Chinese Communist movement may or may not occur. There are certain truths that must be folllowed.A person of the enormously unfortunate talent like Mao has to be accounted for. It is a very interesting thought experiment to consider what how the world would have proceeded if England had signed a separate peace with Germany.

Whither Russia without a Western Front? Would we have found comfort in 3000 miles of ocean? Would we have beaten Germany in atomic sphere? Would we have even had a Manhattan project? It renders the Kennan memo meaningless? Plausible answers to those questions requires more research than and ink to consider the permutations of the individual and collective nations and interest. And that is why fiction requires research.

[GG]

And that is why fiction requires research.

303238[/snapback]

 

I'll jump on this fun merry-go-round.

 

Yes it does. And it requires the reader to recognize that the book is fiction.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I'll jump on this fun merry-go-round.

 

Yes it does.  And it requires the reader to recognize that the book is fiction.

303241[/snapback]

 

Or for the truly lazy... Which self you plucked it off of at your local library!

 

[John Adams]

blah blah blah And that is why fiction requires research.

303238[/snapback]

 

Actually, no. It doesn't. Fiction is make believe. I can start writing a book about the inner city in 1910 right now and never open a single reference. That's fiction. I can write the same story after doing 5 months of research. And it could still be fiction. Fiction is a wide umbrella.

 

Dan Brown wrote a book of make believe. You take it seriously, and even consider whether it's scholarship, which is amusing.

 

One time a boy named Holden Caulfield ran away from his boarding school and.... Here's another: a young white boy with a sense of adventure met a slave and travelled down the Mississippi. Those scholars should be ashamed of themselves, leading me to believe their stories are true.

 

You know, every time a bell rings, a fairy gets its wings, or at least so says another work of scholarship. One other work, the Bible, is full of inconsistencies. Oh the horror.

[KRC]

Then why respond?

302948[/snapback]

 

Because it is fun to see you get your panties in a bunch over fiction.

 

 

but...but...but...it is not true....but...but...but...he is not telling the truth in his work of fiction.

 

[beausox]

Actually, no. It doesn't. Fiction is make believe. I can start writing a book about the inner city in 1910 right now and never open a single reference. That's fiction. I can write the same story after doing 5 months of research. And it could still be fiction. Fiction is a wide umbrella.

 

Dan Brown wrote a book of make believe. You take it seriously, and even consider whether it's scholarship, which is amusing.

 

One time a boy named Holden Caulfield ran away from his boarding school and.... Here's another: a young white boy with a sense of adventure met a slave and travelled down the Mississippi. Those scholars should be ashamed of themselves, leading me to believe their stories are true.

 

You know, every time a bell rings, a fairy gets its wings, or at least so says another work of scholarship. One other work, the Bible, is full of inconsistencies. Oh the horror.

303319[/snapback]

 

"On the tv special (on the book) Brown confesses that he 'became a believer' in the theories that he weaves throughout The Davinci Code after allegedly trying to disprove them. This lends further credence to unsuspecting readers who aren't equipped to question the facts the world presents to them....Imagine if an author put {such claims that a particular race or gender was inferior} into a character cast as a trained anthropologist { as Langdon is donned historian} and prefaced the entire work with the statement that "All descriptions of cultures. biology' sociology and genetics in this novel are accurate". It is ONLY because Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is considered ' fair game' that such an outrage" is made into a movie

[John Adams]

This lends further credence to unsuspecting readers who aren't equipped to question the facts the world presents to them....

 

You mean, the 3 people (including you) who don't know this is a work of fiction?

 

It is ONLY because Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is considered ' fair game' that such an outrage" is made into a movie

303400[/snapback]

 

Actually, the reason it's made into a movie is because a zillion people - mostly Christian no doubt- bought, read, and enjoyed the book, and will also see the movie. And of the Catholics I've talked to, not one of them is stupid enough to think this is dangerous; they all know what you can't get: it's fiction.

[beausox]

You mean, the 3 people (including you) who don't know this is a work of fiction?

Actually, the reason it's made into a movie is because a zillion people - mostly Christian no doubt- bought, read, and enjoyed the book, and will also see the movie. And of the Catholics I've talked to, not one of them is stupid enough to think this is dangerous; they all know what you can't get: it's fiction.

303408[/snapback]

So even though the author of this work believes in its truth you, who has not read the work has done a study of the Catholics you know, and conclude that the author is wrong about his own conclusion?

The book is not factual. It is fiction. It is presented as FACT as stated on opening page.

[Campy]

So even though the author of this work  believes in its truth

303421[/snapback]

Orson Welles claimed that his breaking news wasn't a hoax and even had "reporters," "law enforcement," and "eye-witnesses" who helped him report the dire situation to the American people.

 

Do you think he really believed that little green men were attacking America?

[beausox]

Orson Welles claimed that his breaking news wasn't a hoax and even had "reporters," "law enforcement," and "eye-witnesses" who helped him report the dire situation to the American people.

 

Do you think he really believed that little green men were attacking America?

303449[/snapback]

 

Orson Welles broadcast of martian invasion caused a scare. The fear was real. The reason for the fear was false but the fear was real. Mr Welles presented his hoax as real( his brief disclaimer at beginning was only much later repeated and as previously mentioned authenticated events with reporters)and then admitted the obvious. Why one would think Welles and Browns hi-jinks are analogous is beyond comprehension. They are opposites. Both presented hoaxes. Welles admitted his hoax as hoax and the nation agreed; Brown presents a hoax as true and the nation agreed.