Posted on 03/08/2006 6:14:03 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Strawman Alert! Either that, or you can't possibly have read the article or post 1. As I said, Uncle Tom's Cabin was a novel, and people have known for 80 years or more that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was not true, but there are still folks who believe it and act on it. Should we just not worry about arguing against it?
Yeah, The DaVinci Load is a novel. And a lot of people think it's a novel based on real historical information, because that's how the author and his hangers-on have portrayed it.
Let's see if you really believe what you say. Let me give you this scenario: I'm a professional writer (true) and I write a novel. It describes how Charles Darwin and every other major proponent of evolution, all the way up to Stephen Jay Gould, were part of a vast conspiracy of Satanists bent on uniting all of human civilization in worship of the Devil, just so they could practice their favorite perversions unfettered. I've done a ton of research on the history of the last two centuries, and I weave an epic tale using many real historical events, places and people, but I distort them to support my "Darwin worships the Devil" premise. Along the way (just for starters!) I show how Darwin committed the Ripper murders, how Carl Sagan organized the JFK-RFK-MLK assassinations and how Stephen Jay Gould helped plan 9/11 from his death bed. Oh, and I'll be sure to put "All of this is fact" at the front of the book, and if people ask, I'll tell them it's a historical novel telling a true story using the novel form. Be afraid...
So...when the book sells millions of copies, and the first bus full of tourists shows up at Gould's apartment to see the room where he and Mohammed Atta sacrificed a Girl Scout to ask Satan to bless their plan, are you going to shrug and say it's just a novel, or are you going to raise a hand and object?
Isn't "fiction", by definition, a lie?
Thank you for posting.
Have run into a few lost souls who think this is the real deal. Mostly gnostics. Doubtless some buy into this, or would like others to in order to promote their gnostic, humanistic and/or outright satanic agendas.
Good idea to be able to point to factual fallacies.
"So...when the book sells millions of copies, and the first bus full of tourists shows up at Gould's apartment to see the room where he and Mohammed Atta sacrificed a Girl Scout to ask Satan to bless their plan, are you going to shrug and say it's just a novel, or are you going to raise a hand and object?"
Doesn't sound like a novel that will sell very well, but, yes, I'd say it's just a novel.
Brown's novel is fiction. It's based on a bunch of other books, the Gnostic gospels, and other sources. It's kind of a lousy detective story, frankly, but I read it, just like a whole bunch of other people did. Then I moved on to other books.
But, you see, I think that much of the New Testament is fiction, too, so what do I know?
Be careful! That kind
of reasonable thinking
doesn't fit the 'Net!
So why are all the "begats" in there?
-ccm
In the real world, you don't get to practice revisionism under any guise without actually engaging the debate. Mr. Brown has said, repeatedly and in many venues, that the novel fairly represents his historical thesis. If the writer says "it's fiction" then, fine, let's analyze him on the pages of the NYT book review. But if he says "it happened like this", HE HIMSELF has interjected a comment into a different conversation.
Fair enough, then he needs to debate church historians, not Larry King. That's all.
In the same vein and as an example (I hope) of fairness, I'm a christian who believes the universe I live in was intelligently designed, but creationists need to win that debate with university science faculties (and I don't think they are winning it, BTW) and not with, well, Larry King.
LoL leave it to an Arkie to cut to the heart of the matter. Of course, that leaves the easily panicked gasping in outrage.
I really have to say more because your attitude is just dressed-up flaccidity, whether you are atheist or believer.
Of course you "moved on", since you think the thing he re-wrote (the Christian kerygma) is itself fiction. So, for you, a re-fiction of a previous fiction can't be expected to be very significant.
But, here is the lazy logic of your view: you somehow expect EVERYONE to have the same reaction, even though they may not share the very premise which allows you to adopt your diffidence.
Your argument appears to be that EVERYONE should regard EVERY text labeled by ANYONE "fiction" just like you responded to this one, for no other reason than that you do it this way.
If that is not your argument, then the only alternative is be that there are SOME texts which, by their nature or author's expressed intent, enter other arenas, and should expect responses driven by all the energy in that other arena, and you must have in mind textual criteria for those legitimate cross-genre entries.
Or, perhaps you might argue that all of the critics are misunderstanding the text in question, that it really is intended by it's creator as fiction and that alone.
You see, you really haven't made any historical, literary, or genre arguments. All you've said is "I did x, because of MY premise y, therefore everyone should do x."
Beneath weak.
I would argue, rather, that all of intellectual history, sacred and secular, is the OPPOSITE of your view: you write something which is what it is. It is fair game for everyone to comment on. If it purports to revise, debunk, or add to what people feel strongly about, expect passionate argument.
You may disagree with those resultant arguments, but that they exist is not a pathology, but a sign of vitality.
Truth hides in lies. Jesus probably did have a child. Things do have meanings. What do you think the Washington Monument is?? Would you believe a missing "wee-wee."
The Da Vinci Code is about symbols and even if the story is fiction, there is truth in it because of the symbols. A lot of Christianity is committee work.
parsy, who sat in the broken chair.
No. It is our job to heap contempt and ridicule on the promoters and readers of trash pretending to be literature. That's all that's needed, no debates with philistines.
It is virtually impossible to debunk every false claim that comes along. How do you prove a negative. I cannot prove that Jesus wasn't married but I can speak the truth from the word of God.
Dialoguing with devils is a waist of time
See this column from Paul Proctor >
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=535
"The Da Vinci Code Tour"...
See the sights featured in Dan Browns best selling novels.
Vatican City - St Peter's Basilica, the Sistine chapel and the art of Leonardo da Vinci. Day trip to Castel Gandolfo the Papal Retreat in the Alban Hills
Milan - Leonardo's The Last Supper, in Santa Maria Delle Grazie Church, Castel Sforzesco, the Duomo and La Scala Opera House.
Paris - The Louvre, where Leonardo's Mona Lisa, St John the Baptist and The Virgin of the Rocks are displayed. St Sulpice and The Ritz.
Amboise - Chateau Du Clos Luce in Amboise. This is a must for those following the amazing life of Leonardo. This is where he spent the last years of his life under the patronage of the French King. This is a day trip by train to the beautiful Loire Valley.
Chartres - Day trip to the magnificent medieval Cathedral of Chartres.
London - Temple Church home of the Knights Templar and the National Art Gallery home of the second version of The Virgin of the Rocks.
Edinburgh - Mysterious Rosslyn Chapel in the village of Roslin
http://davincicodetours.co.nz/
bump
Brown lifted his plot directly from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" a non-fiction book which presented the overarching conspiracy as fact. It was debunked by scholars decades ago.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038534001X/sr=8-2/qid=1141838767/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-5229956-1960634?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.