Originally Posted by Yoda
The fact that the Catholic Church's history is checkered does not consitute an open invitation to hurl accusations at it devoid of solid evidence. Brown's book describes an actual ideology; Gnosticism. What little information we have about his own beliefs suggest he subscribes to that ideology, and he's claimed that his book is factual.
Had you read the book, you'd know how silly this statement looks. It's an adventure story. The main characters are clearly fictional, and rather two-dimensional and archetypical, in fact.
What Brown claims is that his book is based on facts. From
his own website, here are the facts he's claiming:
The Secret Life of Leonardo da Vinci
A prankster and genius, Leonardo da Vinci is widely believed to have hidden secret messages within much of his artwork. Most scholars agree that even Da Vinci's most famous pieces—works like The Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, and Madonna of the Rocks—contain startling anomalies that all seem to be whispering the same cryptic message…a message that hints at a shocking historical secret which allegedly has been guarded since 1099 by a European secret society known as the Priory of Sion. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothčque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, Botticelli, and Leonardo da Vinci. French President, Francois Mitterrand, is rumored to have been a member, although there exists no proof of this.
An Unbroken Code
There exists a chapel in Great Britain that contains a ceiling from which hundreds of stone blocks protrude, jutting down to form a bizarre multi-faceted surface. Each block is carved with a symbol, seemingly at random, creating a cipher of unfathomable proportion. Modern cryptographers have never been able to break this code, and a generous reward is offered to anyone who can decipher the baffling message. In recent years, geological ultrasounds have revealed the startling presence of an enormous subterranean vault hidden beneath the chapel. This vault appears to have no entrance and no exit. To this day, the curators of the chapel have permitted no excavation.
243 Lexington Avenue, New York
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has become controversial recently due to allegations of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has recently completed construction of a $47 million, 133,000-square-foot American Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
Someone is watching you...or are they?
The Louvre Museum in Paris is one of the longest buildings on earth. Walking around the entire perimeter of this horseshoe-shaped edifice is a three-mile journey. Even so, the Louvre's collection of art is so vast that only a fraction of its works can be displayed on the walls. Inside the galleries, a multitude of security cameras watch over visitors. The number of cameras is so great that a staff of several hundred wardens would be required to monitor all of them. In fact, most of the cameras are fake.
Da Vinci's slap on the wrist.
Da Vinci's original commission for his famous Madonna of the Rocks came from an organization known as the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception, which needed a painting for the centerpiece of an altar triptych in their church of San Francesco Grand in Milan. The nuns gave Leonardo specific dimensions and a desired theme—the Virgin Mary, baby John The Baptist, Uriel, and Baby Jesus sheltering in a cave. Although Da Vinci did as they requested, when he delivered the work, the group reacted with horror. The painting contained several disturbing "un-Christian" anomalies, which seemed to convey a hidden message and alternative meaning. Da Vinci eventually mollified the confraternity by painting them a second version of Madonna of the Rocks, which now hangs in London's National Gallery under the name Virgin of the Rocks. Da Vinci's original hangs at the Louvre in Paris.
I can't write a book about a giant purple cucumber and have it take place at the Lourve and say it's "based" in fact because it happens at an actual place. That definition of "based in fact" includes every fictional work which takes place anywhere in his universe, which I'm pretty sure makes it a meaningless definition that encompasses virtually all fiction, even if it is clearly not "based" in fact in any meaningful way.
Nor did Brown. He wrote about extant and famous works of art, subversive symbology in it which is clearly visible, societies which do indeed exist. You'd have to have some photos of your giant purple cucumber, at the least, for your story to fly.
If you've got Koontz on record suggesting that it's really true, then we'll talk. Also, it's not unreasonable to think the US government has, with all its incarnations and administrations over the years, at some point planted evidence on someone. The claims of the book, and Gnosticism in general, however, have essentially nothing to support them.
The forward to Koontz's book does in fact state that he believes that people need to question their government, that events similar to those in his book have happened. This is a very good parallel to Brown's claims.
That's us. We're the public. And I'm here telling you that Dan Brown says his book is based in fact, and that it actually isn't.
See above for the facts that you're saying don't exist.
I'll ask again: why have such low standards? Are we so damned starved for debate that we'll take any question, no matter how littered with half-truths (or outright falsehoods) it is? When exactly did it become good just to ask, no matter how inane or leading the question is? And if it's good to ask questions, why am I getting vague dismissals about the Fiction section when I try to ask questions about Dan Brown?
Because you're continuing to mischaracterise his books. He's not writing historical books. He's not "hurling accusations" - you have the tone way off and it's causing the statements you're making to be... funny.
And why are we spending so much time in the abstract? Simply put, do you think the claims in the book are true? If not, should Brown be constantly hinting at (and sometimes outright saying that) it's based in fact? Should he have said that "all of it" is based in fact when asked?
It doesn't matter if I think the claims are true. What matters is actually that it COULD be true, and that is an intriguing possibility and that the book is a really fun read. I haven't heard of mass-apostasy following the release of this book. I have heard of mass-curiousity about that really is the truth, and I think that's cool. And yes, he should have said that "all of it" is based on fact, as I already explained upthread that it is
b a s e d on... you know... fact.
The fact that Dan Brown has written a fictional story does not immediately release him from the kinds of rules that govern all people. The reason fiction is okay is because it is presented as such, but when you go out of your way to suggest that your work of fiction is true, you've essentially reneged on your end of the deal.
It's just not honest to use the "fiction" escape hatch. When you tout your research and claim your work is based in fact, you invite criticism of that research and of those claims.
This book IS presented as fiction. As I said before, and somehow irritated you by pointint out: it's for sale in the fiction section. And as fiction, it actually does release him from the rules that govern all people, as does all other fiction. Otherwise, you have to go into a tizzy over everything from the proportions of James' giant peach to the fact that Princess Leia would have died of hypothermia in that gold bikini. If you want to launch into that, have fun, but if you aren't, then you need to cut the same break to all writers of fiction, even if they are basing their fiction on a handfull of facts and real theories.
Borders can stick it in the cooking section and it still wouldn't change that.
Hey now. What kind of talk is that?! Crazy talk, that's what.