Da Vinci Code full trailer

Tools    





Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
Here is exactly what that article says, and I believe, looked at objectively, you'll see exactly my point:
"Brown has encouraged this confusion by insisting upon the book’s historical accuracy. Asked in an interview how much of the novel is based on fact, he replied: “All of it.” "

The book IS based on fact. The fault in that exchange is in the question. It's simply a stupid question for an interviewer to ask. He didn't base it on fiction - no part of it - so it's based on fact.
Come on. It's a fictional book that makes historical claims that have little or no evidence to support them. How does that make it "based" in fact? Wouldn't that make every novel taking place in our univerise, no matter how outrageous, "based" in fact? There's no way he should have answered that question that way.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
Brown didn't (at least in the three words quoted) explain in detail or point out that a book can be mostly fictional and be based on fact. And then his three words are used to illustrate his alleged attempts to mislead people. At worst, he's allowing the buzz to grow, despite it being based on misunderstanding of the bent of his work.
At worst, he's actively encouraging disinformation to make a profit. And that's got to be condemned, even if done in the name of PR. I'm not convinced that it's all a marketing ploy, however. It's hard to determine exactly what he believes, but seeing as how Gnoticism, though a bit out there, is an actual ideology, there's really no reason to rule out the possibility that he actually believes the general premise of what he's writing.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
On this, I have to sort of agree. If he wanted to assert something, there are more respectable ways to go about it. I don't necessarily believe that making those assertions was his point, though. I think his point, actually, was that people should question what they're told. Again, I think the bottom line is, if people choose not to question Brown, they're dumb. If they choose not to question the church though, I think they're just as dumb. The church has been a political power for centuries. It's leaders are men and men are corruptable. ::is burned at the stake::
Sure. But we can do better than this. We don't have to tolerate untruths, half-truths, or flat-out nonsense to make points like that. It's high time we stopped letting people be so damned casual about the truth just because we think their vague, overall point has some merit. We need to stop letting people off the hook for making serious, sloppy accusations just because one of them may have kinda sorta grazed the truth.



Originally Posted by OG-
Out comes the heretic in me - and to preempt a possible response, I agree to draw any comparison between the two works is absurd - but conceptually I see no difference between how this arguement applies to Dan Brown's book and how it should also apply to the Bible. Both are 'based on fact' and the supporters of either ideology would readily try to convince people of said facts, but if brought under serious analytical scrutiny, both camps claim that while based on fact, it is all a matter of interpretation. Do you disagree?
Yes, I do disagree. There is reasonable debate as to how much of The Bible is symbolic, and how much is literal. There really isn't any serious debate, however, about whether or not Jesus Christ fathered children with Mary Magdalene and that their descendents possess some inward self-knowledge that makes them superior to others, which is the (admittedly half-caricaturized version) premise of Gnosticism, as well as The Da Vinci Code.

If you want to get technical, I suppose any belief can be treated as being of equal validity, but if we start getting into actual evidence, there's not much comparison. Saying there's no difference, conceptually, is like saying there's no conceptual difference between the Statue of Liberty and one of the figurines you can buy in its gift shop.

Originally Posted by OG-
Looping back to your original dismay at what passes as literature these days, it seems ultimately your problem isn't even with the run-of-the-mill style, but the issue of facts presented without question. I agree that it is silly for someone to read any book that is found in the fiction section of Barnes and Noble and be convinced of its historical accuracy, but that arguement is a mobius strip and it includes too many works that you (or I) would not find err with and I thus find it to be an invalid one.
My complaint's a bit different. It would indeed be silly of me to be upset with Brown simply because some people had taken his book seriously. God knows there's someone somewhere who's searching for raptors on Isla Nubar. My problem is that Brown appears to believe what he's saying, and whether he does or not, is actively encouraging the idea that it's true. I would think we'd all agree that that's inexcusable.


Originally Posted by OG-
Don't take the bible reference the wrong way, I'm not the bible-bashing person I used to be, I just feel the logic you're wielding is double edged.
Nah, don't worry, I didn't take it that way.



Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing
Originally Posted by Yoda
Come on. It's a fictional book that makes historical claims that have little or no evidence to support them. How does that make it "based" in fact? Wouldn't that make every novel taking place in our univerise, no matter how outrageous, "based" in fact? There's no way he should have answered that question that way.
Come on, y'self. The book takes real organizations, places and historical facts and weaves a work of fiction. The secret society he mentions exists. The artwork exists, as he describes it. And the history of the Catholic church is not... exactly... immaculate.

At worst, he's actively encouraging disinformation to make a profit. And that's got to be condemned, even if done in the name of PR. I'm not convinced that it's all a marketing ploy, however. It's hard to determine exactly what he believes, but seeing as how Gnoticism, though a bit out there, is an actual ideology, there's really no reason to rule out the possibility that he actually believes the general premise of what he's writing.
True. There's no reason to believe Dean Koontz is suspicious of the US government, either, but he's not being villified for writing "Dark Rivers of the Heart", in which cops plant evidence on a guy so they can silence his political observations. Which, come to think of it, is more similar than not to Brown's story.

It's the work of the artist to raise questions.

Sure. But we can do better than this. We don't have to tolerate untruths, half-truths, or flat-out nonsense to make points like that. It's high time we stopped letting people be so damned casual about the truth just because we think their vague, overall point has some merit. We need to stop letting people off the hook for making serious, sloppy accusations just because one of them may have kinda sorta grazed the truth.
It's up to the public to find out what is the truth. It's up to the writer of fiction to entertain. Again: Brown's books are found in the fiction sections of bookstores - they are not sold as fact.
__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10



Originally Posted by Sleezy
It doesn't, but that's how people respond: as if Dan Brown and others have betrayed history, and have thus, betrayed them.
I don't know that I'd use the word "betray," but even if I did, I don't see what's wrong with that. A lie doesn't always have to be about me to get me upset about it. Falsehoods are upsetting for their own sake; they don't have to be personal attacks to merit condemnation.


Originally Posted by Sleezy
Like Sammie said, Dan Brown has merely written a clearly fictional story, presented it as based on true events (nothing more), and - for better or worse - hid behind the semantics to get people interested. He's used history as a resource, and presented his story no differently than Truman Capote's In Cold Blood or Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried - because he understands that story books and films are not meant to be reliable, accurate history lessons.
I don't think you and Dan Brown are on the same page. It is technically presented as fiction, though Brown's own words and implications suggest (and sometimes outright say) otherwise. If not for the claims that it's actually true, I'd agree with you, but Brown is not taking the stance you're ascribing to him.


Originally Posted by Sleezy
Even stories that try to be history lessons in some degree or another always fall short, because 100% historical truth is an unrealistic, impossible goal. And people so quickly forget that, in Dan Brown's case, historical accuracy isn't the point of his novel.
How do we know that, exactly; How do we know it's meant as a lighthearted fictional romp, and not serious historical fiction? Brown claims it is, so what reason do we have to believe otherwise, other than the fact that we find it in the Fiction section?


Originally Posted by Sleezy
Historical exploitation, maybe; but in that respect, I'd argue that any form of expression - art, music, film, theater, poetry, prose - is an "exploitation" of real life.
For that to be true, I think you'd have to be using a rather flexible definition of the word "exploitation." To me, it implies that one is taking advantage. All art reflects real life, but it does not have to "exploit" it. And the artist should not have to exploit people's ignorance to sell his art, either.



Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing
Originally Posted by Yoda
How do we know that, exactly; How do we know it's meant as a lighthearted fictional romp, and not serious historical fiction? Brown claims it is, so what reason do we have to believe otherwise, other than the fact that we find it in the Fiction section?
We have the tone of the book itself, which is pure Indiana Jones.
Have you read it?



Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
Come on, y'self. The book takes real organizations, places and historical facts and weaves a work of fiction. The secret society he mentions exists. The artwork exists, as he describes it. And the history of the Catholic church is not... exactly... immaculate.
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.

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.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
True. There's no reason to believe Dean Koontz is suspicious of the US government, either, but he's not being villified for writing "Dark Rivers of the Heart", in which cops plant evidence on a guy so they can silence his political observations. Which, come to think of it, is more similar than not to Brown's story.
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.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
It's up to the public to find out what is the truth.
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.

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?

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?


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
It's up to the writer of fiction to entertain. Again: Brown's books are found in the fiction sections of bookstores - they are not sold as 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. Borders can stick it in the cooking section and it still wouldn't change that.



Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
We have the tone of the book itself, which is pure Indiana Jones.
We're putting Brown's own words against "the tone"?

Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
Have you read it?
Part of it. We had a few copies lying around, but I didn't share in everyone else's fascination with the writing. Not that anything I've said has been at all contingent on even having looked at the cover.



A little more research reveals some more specific quotes on Brown's beliefs (emphasis added):
Was Magdalene, as portrayed in centuries of art and literature, the penitent prostitute, the devoted follower, the woman with the alabaster jar? Or, as "The Da Vinci Code" suggests, was she Jesus' wife, partner, confidante, beloved disciple, the "apostle to the apostles"? All this and more, says "Code" author Dan Brown.

"I was skeptical, but after a year and a half of research, I became a believer," says Brown. "As soon as people understand that the few Gospels included in the Bible are not the only version of the Christ story, they begin to sense contradictions. Magdalene is most obvious." Her role, he says, was deliberately distorted, a smear campaign by the early church fathers -- as one of his characters declares, "the greatest cover-up in human history."

Does Brown believe Jesus was actually married to Magdalene? "I do," he says.



You ready? You look ready.
Geez Yodas. Triple posting. Tisk tisk.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing
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.



Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
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.
I don't see the relevance. The characters are silly and some of the adventures are over the top, so therefore it's okay that he claims historical accuracy that isn't there? If he were a better writer, you'd feel otherwise?


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
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.
Again, I don't see the relevance. No one is disputing that the book contains facts. I'm disputing that it's all based on fact, though if you're going to get hung up on the "all," I'd be content to take issue with the accuracy of what is the books, you know, central claim. In a complete coincidence, this claim lines up directly with Gnostic beliefs. But of course, it's all just fiction. Brown just decided to write a fictional book revolving around his stated ideology. But we're not meant to take it as true! Even though he says it is. That's what you're asking me to believe.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
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.
Again, the presence of facts does not make the book factual. I'm sure you're able to comprehend the nuance between "containing facts" and being genuinely "factual."


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
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.
Great. I've already pre-emptively answered, this, though, in pointing out that we actually have reason to believe that may be true. Gnosticism, on the other hand, is pretty much unsupported. The comparison is only a good one if you're prepared to support Gnosticism as a reasonable belief supported by evidence.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
See above for the facts that you're saying don't exist.
See above for the distinction between a work containing some facts and a genuinely factual work.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
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.
He's writing books which describe and purport the ideology of Gnosticism -- of which he is a professed believer. An ideology which is predicated on the claim that the entire Catholic Church is the result of a lie and subsequent cover-up. Yeah, silly me, thinking this is serious or something.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
It doesn't matter if I think the claims are true.
Sure it does. If it's not true, and not particularly reasonable to think it's true, then Brown has acted irresponsibily for suggesting otherwise, especially while simultaneously selling the book as fiction. Either way, I'm asking you. You're under no obligation to answer, but I don't know why you wouldn't.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
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.
They "could" be in the sense that anything "could" be true. Realistically, the notion is pretty well-regarded as unsupported, however.

Sorry, but I don't think getting people curious about an unsupported ideology is such an unmitigated good that it grants a pardon to someone playing fast and loose with the truth to spark a discussion. We shouldn't have to choose between the interesting and the honest, and it's unfortunate that so many people are not only willing to make that choice, but willing to choose the former over the latter.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
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.
And I already explained that using such a broad definition of being "based on" fact is meaningless, as it includes anything that even takes place in a copy of the real world. Unless you think "based on fact" means exactly the same thing as "containing some facts."


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
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.
Find me a quote from Ronald Dahl saying he actually believes a boy named James flew on a giant peach, and then find me a religion based around the idea.

I refuse to believe you are incapable of grasping the differences here. A book is not being genuinely presented as fiction if a) it's central claim is based on an actual ideology, b) it's author is a believer in that ideology, c) a great deal of emphasis is placed on its historical accuracy, and d) its author is on record as stating that "all" of it is based on fact.

Suggesting that this is just like any other work of fiction is intellectually dishonest. There are significant mitigating factors here that are utterly glaring to anyone who can get past which category Amazon lists the book in.


Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah
Hey now. What kind of talk is that?! Crazy talk, that's what.
I think it far crazier to dismiss the existence of Gnosticism and Brown's admitted belief in it, as well as its depiction in the book, just because of where the book is placed on a shelf.



there's a frog in my snake oil
On a side note, he allegedly got some of his facty facts wrong. He claims that 5m witches or so were burnt in Europe. Apparently the evidence points to the number being far less, and almost all of 'em were hung.

(The 'fact-based' program i saw this on also claimed that the majority of people tried as witches in the UK were let off. Yay, we liked witches )
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



In the Beginning...
Part of this dispute lies with the many interpretations of "based on fact." Let's not begin to assume we know what Brown meant when he said that. He could have meant that every word of it is true, but that doesn't mean he did. He could have equally meant that "based on fact" means "containing" accepted facts (in that Leonardo Da Vinci was real, and that there really is a sealed vault beneath a chapel in Great Britain, etc).

In some ways, the book IS based on fact. In other ways, it isn't. But just because he says it is "based on fact" doesn't mean that every word of it is fact. That's a pretty unfair generalization. You can cover one side of a hotdog in mustard, and rightly say that it has mustard on it (even though there are some parts of the hot dog not covered in mustard).

"Basis" denotes roots, and it applies to The Da Vinci Code just the same. It's entirely possible that Dan Brown wrote a fictional, hypothetical "what-if" adventure story using historical elements as his back drop, for the sake of merely telling a good story. And in nearly the same manner as The Blair Witch Project, it is possible that he has presented his story with a degree of ambiguity of truth to generate interest and sales.

I've been reading the point about Dan Brown's "research" quite a bit in this thread, and I think there's something to be said. Don't assume so easily that Brown conducted his research for the purpose of proving something and publishing his findings. Many writers - fiction writers especially - conduct research in order to write a story with a certain degree of believability. If you're going to write a story set in Chicago, you do research about Chicago: you read books, watch films, look at photographs; and if you can, you go to the damn place. If, in your fictional story, Ronald McDonald is running Chicago in the 1930s, that doesn't mean your story is making the claim that this was true, and that your research was conducted to prove it. And again, if you claimed the story about Ronald McDonald running 1930s Chicago was "based on fact," you'd be right: Chicago is real, and the 1930s were real. Ronald McDonald doesn't exist, obiously, and we could easily disprove the notion that he ever ran Chicago - but like I said, it doesn't have to be all fact to be "based on fact" (or else it wouldn't be FICTION).

It's the chicken and the egg. I don't buy the idea that Dan Brown is using fiction to mask his so-called "claims of truth" to avoid refutation. It's precisely because he's writing a work of fiction that proves he's NOT making claims of truth. He never said that his book is making a credible argument, because it isn't. He is claiming that his book does use historical facts to explore potential truths. If he wanted to convince people that these potential truths exist, he'd have written an article (which would most likely have been torn to shreds). But because he can't prove them, he wrote a FICTIONAL story exploring the possibility (and probably knowing full well the evidence against that possibility which, in the fictional world, doesn't matter).

The film From Hell explores the possibility that the surgeon (played by Ian Holm) was the true identity of Jack the Ripper. It's an unproven theory, and there is evidence for and against. Regardless, it makes for an interesting "what if" story, and never pretends to claim that anything that isn't accepted generally accepted as true is true (BECAUSE it is FICTION).



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Sleezy
The film From Hell explores the possibility that the surgeon (played by Ian Holm) was the true identity of Jack the Ripper. It's an unproven theory, and there is evidence for and against. Regardless, it makes for an interesting "what if" story, and never pretends to claim that anything that isn't accepted generally accepted as true is true (BECAUSE it is FICTION).
I think there are two distinctions in this case (altho i've not read the book )

I doubt From Hell is advocating prostitute-culling as a belief system, whereas Code seems to explore 'what if' ideas that support the belief-system of Gnosticism. (at least, everyone here seems to have concurred on this point). That's a slightly different use of 'what if' ponderings.

Also, Code is a 'conspiracy' story, so it's actually based around the idea of 'things that aren't generally accepted being true'.



In the Beginning...
Originally Posted by Golgot
I doubt From Hell is advocating prostitute-culling as a belief system, whereas Code seems to explore 'what if' ideas that support the belief-system of Gnosticism. (at least, everyone here seems to have concurred on this point). That's a slightly different use of 'what if' ponderings.
But you missed my point. Because The Da Vinci Code is fiction, I'm arguing that it isn't "advocating" Gnosticism. It may very well be exploring the "what if" scenario if the Gnostic beliefs and theories were true, but it isn't trying to change people's minds or prove anything. It's a work of fiction.

Originally Posted by Golgot
Also, Code is a 'conspiracy' story, so it's actually based around the idea of 'things that aren't generally accepted being true'.
I'll agree: that's a distinction. But the premise is still the same. The book is fiction, and it's merely exploring possibilities for story's sake. It's fun to think "what if," and they make for interesting stories (which, in the end, is all they are). They operate inside the realm of fiction, where the "generally accepted" truths of the outside world don't matter.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Sleezy
It may very well be exploring the "what if" scenario if the Gnostic beliefs and theories were true, but it isn't trying to change people's minds or prove anything. It's a work of fiction.
How do you know? People get their minds changed by fiction, or their beliefs 'reaffirmed', and authors can seek to achieve this aim with their work.

Michael Crichton's State of Fear provides an example of this. He believes the argument he put forward that global-warming is being overstated - and he bases his story around 'facts' (the most dubious of which he drew from sceptic-books, or created through his own rather arrogant estimations. He sides with these facts over those in peer-reviewed publications and the findings of the IPCC!)

Despite this inherent dubiousness, he was recently called to give testimoney at the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works by a senator, and fellow 'believer'.

Thankfully, even his fans disliked the story (because it was poorly told), so it's less likely to change any hearts and minds . (So why the hell am i giving him more press? Dyamn )



In the Beginning...
Originally Posted by Golgot
How do you know? People get their minds changed by fiction, or their beliefs 'reaffirmed', and authors can seek to achieve this aim with their work.
Agreed, but I must reiterate that the story doesn't seem to be making any claims. It's using unproven theories to tell a story, but it doesn't seem to reflect some hidden agenda. It's just, like Sam said, "pure Indiana Jones." (Or at least, that's what it looks like to me.)

Originally Posted by Golgot
Michael Crichton's State of Fear provides an example of this. He believes the argument he put forward that global-warming is being overstated - and he bases his story around 'facts' (the most dubious of which he drew from sceptic-books, or created through his own rather arrogant estimations. He sides with these facts over those in peer-reviewed publications and the findings of the IPCC!)
Yeah, that's pretty irresponsible of him. But in Dan Brown's case, he isn't trying to defend the validity of the Gnostic theories outside (or even within) The Da Vinci Code. He's just presenting them, and writing a fictional story about them. I think sometimes people have a hard time separating the points of view and events in a work of fiction from its author.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Ok, cool. The 'Indiana' thing i get. I was mainly disagreeing with the general idea that fiction (especially 'fact-based' fiction) can't be used to try and advance certain claims/ideas.



Originally Posted by Golgot
I think there are two distinctions in this case (altho i've not read the book )

I doubt From Hell is advocating prostitute-culling as a belief system, whereas Code seems to explore 'what if' ideas that support the belief-system of Gnosticism. (at least, everyone here seems to have concurred on this point). That's a slightly different use of 'what if' ponderings.

Also, Code is a 'conspiracy' story, so it's actually based around the idea of 'things that aren't generally accepted being true'.
I haven't seen the movie but have read the book, and from what I recall, it is quite ideologically loaded, to say nothing of the whole evil Freemason conspiracy, and the convoluted plot of the crown to cover up scandal by unleashing a psychopath on blackmailing prostitutes. Somehow I doubt that made it into the movie version though.



In the Beginning...
Originally Posted by Golgot
Ok, cool. The 'Indiana' thing i get. I was mainly disagreeing with the general idea that fiction (especially 'fact-based' fiction) can't be used to try and advance certain claims/ideas.
And I agree. Which is why I think, if Dan Brown really wanted to make people believe his facts, he wouldn't have written a novel to do it.

Originally Posted by Golgot
I haven't seen the movie but have read the book, and from what I recall, it is quite ideologically loaded, to say nothing of the whole evil Freemason conspiracy, and the convoluted plot of the crown to cover up scandal by unleashing a psychopath on blackmailing prostitutes. Somehow I doubt that made it into the movie version though.
I seemed to remember a degree of that myself (from the film, at least). I tried reading the graphic novel, but didn't have the time. Alan Moore being the author, I really should make time.