Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code, Catholicism

[Grant]

Do I need to restate the quoted post in my own words? Would that make you happy? The person I quoted covered the bases pretty well - the basic point being that authors use fiction (or "make believe" if you need) to make points about the "real world," which Dan Brown does through the use of "make believe" - but I can break it into smaller words for you if necessary.

[GG]

But I bet a lot of people who are swayed easily will read it and take it as fact, again DaVinci does provide a lot of facts....but people will take the WHOLE book as fact.

320669[/snapback]

 

The public's general gullibility is not a factor in determining whether this book is fact or fiction. I'm sure there are many adults who still believe in Santa Claus.

[GG]

Quoted again for emphasis, because certain "board leaders" trying to be smartasses are looking pretty foolish, if you ask me.

320546[/snapback]

 

If anything, the book ignited a deeper appreciation of Rennaisance art among people who were never exposed to it. It also created a spontaneous mass of amateur expeditions to relive the book's adventures.

 

As to the worry of the Catholic Church over the book's contents to promote an anti-Catholic agenda, a 5 minute search on my site will clearly reveal the myths and fallacies of this wowrk of fiction. By doing this rudimentary research, a Catholic reader may find himself in a deeper bond with the faith, because a slanted work of fiction did a bad job of introducing doubt into the religion.

[John Adams]

Do I need to restate the quoted post in my own words? Would that make you happy? The person I quoted covered the bases pretty well - the basic point being that authors use fiction (or "make believe" if you need) to make points about the "real world," which Dan Brown does through the use of "make believe" - but I can break it into smaller words for you if necessary.

321099[/snapback]

 

We await your insight. I took the time to mock some of the post you're slobbering over.

 

You replied to me with "Wow."

 

Don't expect me to debate with you when your only response is an monosyllabic horizontally-reversible pallindrome, Grant.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm sure there are many adults who still believe in Santa Claus.

321107[/snapback]

 

Not a few in this thread, no doubt.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Wow.

 

And you people believe what you say.

321006[/snapback]

 

Us? You took beausox's inability to discern fiction and non-fiction, and turned it into some sort of weird amalgam of "Well...it's both, sorta-kinda-maybe, because the author has an agenda and you people are too stupid to understand that."

 

And the problem's with everyone else????

[Alaska Darin]

Us?  You took beausox's inability to discern fiction and non-fiction, and turned it into some sort of weird amalgam of "Well...it's both, sorta-kinda-maybe, because the author has an agenda and you people are too stupid to understand that."

 

And the problem's with everyone else????

321238[/snapback]

Well, he is Amazing.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Well, he is Amazing. 

321244[/snapback]

 

Amazing:

 

adjective:  surprising greatly

adjective:  inspiring awe or wonder

 

Well, yeah, I'm surprised and awestruck that he buys his own nonsense. And he certainly by now has us wondering why the hell we're bothering.

[beausox]

Well, yeah, I'm surprised and awestruck that he buys his own nonsense.  And he certainly by now has us wondering why the hell we're bothering.

321258[/snapback]

 

It does have its fun moments. I just cannot tell whether the "Know Nothing" attack dogs are abysmally stupid or anti-Catholic. I would bet both.

Of corse being anti-Catholic is so easy because its doctrine stands in stark relief of post-Modern bigots whose rant is shrill.

[John Adams]

It does have its fun moments. I just cannot tell whether the "Know Nothing" attack dogs are abysmally stupid or anti-Catholic. I would bet both.

Of corse being anti-Catholic is so easy because its doctrine stands in stark relief of post-Modern bigots whose rant is shrill.

324474[/snapback]

 

Very Catholic of you.

[beausox]

Very Catholic of you.

324553[/snapback]

Thank you very Catholicly.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It does have its fun moments. I just cannot tell whether the "Know Nothing" attack dogs are abysmally stupid or anti-Catholic. I would bet both.

Of corse being anti-Catholic is so easy because its doctrine stands in stark relief of post-Modern bigots whose rant is shrill.

324474[/snapback]

 

Yeah...the rest of us are abysmally stupid (hey, you used a polysyllabic word correctly!) because the two of you don't know make-believe from reality.

[GG]

It does have its fun moments. I just cannot tell whether the "Know Nothing" attack dogs are abysmally stupid or anti-Catholic. I would bet both.

Of corse being anti-Catholic is so easy because its doctrine stands in stark relief of post-Modern bigots whose rant is shrill.

324474[/snapback]

 

Sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding this leap of logic. I read the book and I liked it, understanding that it was a work of fiction. That connection is reason for me to think that Francois Mitterand is the agent of the devil because he commissioned IM Pei to build the Louvre pyramid to hold the fictional riddle?

 

Post-modern bigots? What in the world is that? Have to be a bit more clear to this neanderthal, but maybe it's some sort of a compliment. I think that Andy Warhol sucks.

 

Or shall we turn this discussion on Walter Gropius' hijacking of classical structures to compose utilitarian objects that transposed divinely inspired architecture into Godless slabs of vertical and horizontal shapes? Would that by extension be anti-Catholic because Gropius begat Mies Van Der Rohe who was the obious inspiration behind IM Pei's pyramid at the Louvre?

[beausox]

Sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding this leap of logic.  I read the book and I liked it, understanding that it was a work of fiction.  That connection is reason for me to think that Francois Mitterand is the agent of the devil because he commissioned IM Pei to build the Louvre pyramid to hold the fictional riddle? 

 

Post-modern bigots? What in the world is that? Have to be a bit more clear to this neanderthal, but maybe it's some sort of a compliment.  I think that Andy Warhol sucks. 

 

Or shall we turn this discussion on Walter Gropius' hijacking of classical structures to compose utilitarian objects that transposed divinely inspired architecture into Godless slabs of vertical and horizontal shapes?  Would that by extension be anti-Catholic because Gropius begat Mies Van Der Rohe who was the obious inspiration behind IM Pei's pyramid at the Louvre?

324654[/snapback]

 

It might have helped Brown's case had he correctly addressed the number of "panes" in the pyramid. He claimed accuracy re: Louvre. For the record there are 673 not 666 as he claimed. Gee wonder what Bauhusistas think about such an obvious mistake.

[beausox]

Yeah...the rest of us are abysmally stupid (hey, you used a polysyllabic word correctly!) because the two of you don't know make-believe from reality. 

324602[/snapback]

 

Admission of the problem is the first step to improvement. The road from abysmal stupidity is hard though. I'll keep you in my prayers!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Admission of the problem is the first step to improvement. The road from abysmal stupidity is hard though. I'll keep you in my prayers!

324702[/snapback]

 

What are you, stoned?

[Grant]

Us?  You took beausox's inability to discern fiction and non-fiction, and turned it into some sort of weird amalgam of "Well...it's both, sorta-kinda-maybe, because the author has an agenda and you people are too stupid to understand that."

 

And the problem's with everyone else????

321238[/snapback]

 

As you'll notice if you re-read the posts, I wasn't defending beausox - rather, I was pointing out that the bashing of the poster (which, while we're on the subject, was extraneous and, as I notice so often on PPP, doesn't know when to quit; how old are you guys?) was missing the point, as admittedly mangled as beausox made his own point (or what I thought was his point - I'm probably giving him too much credit).

 

In any case, more than one poster attempted to make fun of beausox's comments by dismissing Dan Brown's work as completely illegitimate because it's "fik-shun." Which, of course, is short sighted and ought to have been pointed out. Not only is it incorrect, but it discredits fiction as a legitimate form of commentary.

 

Furthermore, I didn't turn the argument into anything that it wasn't already, and certainly not a "sorta-kinda-maybe, because the author has an agenda and you people are too stupid to understand that" thing as you describe my thoughts (again misinterpreting what I was getting at). If anything, I brought the thread slightly more back on topic as opposed to the "omg lolz beausox is dUMBB WE R SMARRTTT" it had become.

[Grant]

We await your insight. I took the time to mock some of the post you're slobbering over.

 

You replied to me with "Wow."

 

Don't expect me to debate with you when your only response is an monosyllabic horizontally-reversible pallindrome, Grant.

321118[/snapback]

 

I didn't want to debate with you because, as I will show you, you either missed the point I was trying to make or you made a downright terrible argument against mine.

 

Here's the post in question broken down:

 

Uhhh yeah. No spit. That's why he had to fill the gaping holes between the facts with the crap he made up. Again. Fik-shun.

 

First of all, an author doesn't "have to fill the gaping holes between facts" because that's their objective in the first place. Similar to novels/films "based on a true story," it's that promise that this really happened that can initially draw a reader in to the story the author wants to tell. And why do we tell stories? It's to make a point. Dan Brown draws in the reader because the story is "based on true things" and, with the understanding that the novel is "fik-shun," he proceeds to tell the story he wants to tell to make the point he wanted to. Because the story is "fik-shun" that does not take away from his point.

 

Obviously, no one in their right mind would use Dan Brown's novel as a source of fact; I'm not disputing that, although I'm beginning to think you think I am.

 

Does he have an agenda? Probably. Do I care? Not really- doesn't everyone? Graham Greene, one of the greatest novelists of the 20th century- and a Catholic- had many agendas. I read his books because they are good, and I understand the agenda. And, like most people, I recognize that the books are fiction.

 

This was the meat of your post, the only time when you were coming close to articulating your thoughts. If I understand you correctly, you are essentially saying that "I don't care or I don't like what point Dan Brown was trying to make because everyone has beliefs that they want to advance. Graham Greene had points that he wanted to forward, but that is not why I enjoyed his work. I like them because they are "good" [by "good" I'm assuming you mean that the plot interested you (perhaps because you identified with his "agenda" but perhaps not) and the author used a compelling narrative]. Since their work was fiction, though, I knew that the books were absolutely meaningless and disposable (based on my earlier definition of 'fik-shun')."

 

First of all, we need to understand that there is a difference between a person's agenda and the specific point of an author's novel. The agenda is the peron's beliefs that they want to forward. The specific point is exactly that - whatever the purpose of the story is. You may know the specific point as "morals," if that makes it easier for you.

 

Your implication is that you dislike Dan Brown's work because you disagree with his point/moral, and you like Graham Greene's work because you agree with his point/moral, which is completely fine. However, the problem is with your final sentence of that stanze in which you dismiss both authors because they write fictional books. Would you have been able to better accept the argument/point/moral that the author was trying to convey had it been written as a nonfictional essay? Why do the fictional elements detract from the author's argument/point/moral?

 

 

You know what else sells well? The Cat in the Hat.

 

That book mocks us all- tries to use facts to convince us that cats can talk. But it *is* based on reality. Cats are real. Hats are real. Cats IN hats are possible. Dr. Suess conspiracists unite. Are there really Whos in Whoville? Anyone seen a Sneetch? Where is my moss covered three handled family credenza anyway?

 

And when I read this, I realized you had no grasp of any of the concepts we were arguing about. Hopefully you can read my comments above and understand why I don't need to repeat myself again here.

 

But, what the hell, I'll just do it briefly. Even the Cat in the Hat is not without merit, because - again - like every work, the author has a purpose. The point/moral of The Cat in the Hat is that children do not need to go outside to have fun, they can do it inside - so long as they don't make a mess. Seuss uses the fictional elements (the Cat in the Hat, his cohorts, etc) to make this point. But since cats cannot talk, does that mean Seuss's point is less credible than if he had written an essay about how children can have fun indoors?

 

I think that the basic problem is that you (and others) view fiction as something that is meant merely to entertain and nothing more, when that is sadly inaccurate. It is important to distinguish that fiction is not fact, but that does not mean that fiction can't be just as powerful as nonfiction in conveying arguments.

[John Adams]

Here's the post in question broken down:

First of all, an author doesn't "have to fill the gaping holes between facts" because that's their objective in the first place. Similar to novels/films "based on a true story," it's that promise that this really happened that can initially draw a reader in to the story the author wants to tell. And why do we tell stories? It's to make a point. Dan Brown draws in the reader because the story is "based on true things" and, with the understanding that the novel is "fik-shun," he proceeds to tell the story he wants to tell to make the point he wanted to. Because the story is "fik-shun" that does not take away from his point.

 

Agreed so far.

 

Obviously, no one in their right mind would use Dan Brown's novel as a source of fact; I'm not disputing that, although I'm beginning to think you think I am.

 

You gave me no reason to think otherwise until this post. Moving on...

 

If I understand you correctly, you are essentially saying that "I don't care or I don't like what point Dan Brown was trying to make because everyone has beliefs that they want to advance. Graham Greene had points that he wanted to forward, but that is not why I enjoyed his work. I like them because they are "good" [by "good" I'm assuming you mean that the plot interested you (perhaps because you identified with his "agenda" but perhaps not) and the author used a compelling narrative]. Since their work was fiction, though, I knew that the books were absolutely meaningless and disposable (based on my earlier definition of 'fik-shun')."

 

I am with you pretty much until the bolded part. I understand both Brown and Greene's points. I didn't like the DaVinci Code's point that much, and Brown's writing is horrific, but I did think he weaved several facts together into a creative story. His book, to me, read like a first draft of what could have been a much better book.

 

I do not think that books of fiction are meaningless and disposable.

 

(As an aside outside the bounds of this topic, I abhor that I used Greene and Brown in the same context, but chose Greene because of the Catholic ties. Brown couldn't hold Greene's jock.)

 

Your implication is that you dislike Dan Brown's work because you disagree with his point/moral, and you like Graham Greene's work because you agree with his point/moral, which is completely fine. However, the problem is with your final sentence of that stanze in which you dismiss both authors because they write fictional books.

 

I do not dismiss them because they write fiction. I dismiss people who overstate what Dan Brown's book means- its danger or whatever. It's pure pulp fiction. To the extent it got people interested in Church bashing or Church reforms, it was not all that successful in its point. I work with a load of Catholics. They all read it. They all liked it. They all still go to Mass and dismiss it as a good story at best.

 

I doubt it succeeded in making people believe that an Order of Catholics protects the true bloodline of Jesus Christ. If it did, those people are idiots.

 

 

Would you have been able to better accept the argument/point/moral that the author was trying to convey had it been written as a nonfictional essay? Why do the fictional elements detract from the author's argument/point/moral?

 

No. Such was the point of The Life of Pi. Fictional stories, such as the Bible, are the most effective way to make a point. The DaVinci Code is a long ways from being as influential as the Bible, because it was a piece of fiction with only the most meager of points.

 

Beauxsox's issue with the DC was somehow that its inaccuracies undermined its point, or something like that. Which was foolish, because the inaccuracies are either intentional (the book is fiction) or they are not (and again, who cares- it's fiction). Your point is a different one, and despite the fact that you're obnoxious, I think we agree for the most part.

[Grant]

I do not dismiss them because they write fiction. I dismiss people who overstate what Dan Brown's book means- its danger or whatever. It's pure pulp fiction. To the extent it got people interested in Church bashing or Church reforms, it was not all that successful in its point. I work with a load of Catholics. They all read it. They all liked it. They all still go to Mass and dismiss it as a good story at best.

 

I doubt it succeeded in making people believe that an Order of Catholics protects the true bloodline of Jesus Christ. If it did, those people are idiots.

No. Such was the point of The Life of Pi. Fictional stories, such as the Bible, are the most effective way to make a point. The DaVinci Code is a long ways from being as influential as the Bible, because it was a piece of fiction with only the most meager of points.

 

Oh, of course. Whether or not Dan Brown's objective (and what exactly his objective actually is is debatable) was realized or not is irrelevent, really. But you're correct in your statement although we don't exactly see eye to eye.

 

Beauxsox's issue with the DC was somehow that its inaccuracies undermined its point, or something like that. Which was foolish, because the inaccuracies are either intentional (the book is fiction) or they are not (and again, who cares- it's fiction). Your point is a different one, and despite the fact that you're obnoxious, I think we agree for the most part.

326011[/snapback]

 

First - the statement in bold is the sort of thing that prompted this debate. Just FYI.

 

Second - the statement in italics: I don't try to be any more obnoxious than posters were already being in this thread (this includes you, but is definitely not exclusive to you) before I came. But yeah, we're a bit closer on the subject than it appeared initially.