• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

So I've finally started the Da Vinci code (possible spoilers)

Enforcer said:
I thought it was a fun, fast-paced read. The printed version of a decent action/thriller movie. The controversy can be best summed up by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show: "IT'S IN THE FICTION SECTION!!!"

That defense doesn't sit well with me. I, at least, can tell the difference between an author trying to cleverly cite fictional sources to back his fictional claim and an author pushing his own conspiracy theories and doing just enough "But it's all just fiction... isn't it?" winking to defend against charges of slander. Brown is doing the latter, both in the "here's where I justify my bull" exposition parts and in the little foreward note where (no book in front of me) he essentially says that the story itself is fake but makes a vague but implicating statement saying that the organizations and much of the stuff he cites is real.

It's the difference between me writing a story in which a guy with the ENWorld Handle "Enforcer" turns out to be a child-abusing terrorist in the Chicago area who slips poison into birth control pills and firebombs churches in order to spark a war between the pro-life and pro-choice activists and then finishing that story by writing, "Hey, in real life, Enforcer is a great guy. I just used the name. Really, all this stuff is made up, and Enforcer doesn't do anything like this at all," and me writing the exact same story and then noting, "There have been several instances of birth-control-pill-related poisonings and church-bombings in the Chicago area, and a user with the handle 'Enforcer' and a listed location of Chicago does frequent the ENWorld website and make comments related to violent activity, but he has not yet been factually tied to these crimes as he was in this fictional reconstruction of the events."

Both statements are, technically, disclaimers that say that the events in the story are fictional, but the average reader is going to have a slightly different opinion after reading the latter "disclaimer" -- as will the person or organization serving as the big bad enemy in the fictional story. Or do the two disclaimers seem completely the same to you?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

takyris said:
If I wrote a romance novel, I'd better not have the heroine end up in a dysfunctional, quasi-abusive relationship just for the sake of realism and a twist ending.)
In college, I had a crush on this girl in my class, and she had a crush on the guy in the class who was my best friend. In typical fashion, the three of us went to see As Good as it Gets, a movie about an absurd and doomed romantic triangle.

God, how I wanted that movie to end with Jack Nicholson drunk and passed out in a pool of his own vomit, and have that be the moment referred to by the movie's title. How happy I would've been!

But of course it didn't. I'm still waiting for the perfect romantic comedy.

Moderator's Notes:
I don't think anything wrong has happened in this thread so far, but I just want to strike a pre-emptive blow by reminding folks that, whatever else Dan Brown has said, this book appears on the fiction shelf, and 'round these parts we may only discuss it as fiction. The book is something of a religious hot-topic, but its religious hot-topicality is not fair game for an enworld thread.

Me, I've never read it, and based on what I've read about it, I probably never will: it sounds wayyy down on the list of books I'm likely to enjoy.

Daniel
 

Enforcer said:
I thought it was a fun, fast-paced read. The printed version of a decent action/thriller movie. The controversy can be best summed up by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show: "IT'S IN THE FICTION SECTION!!!"
Which is fine, except that the forward of the book basically states that the Da Vinci Code is fiction grounded in fact (which it isn't).
 

Dark Jezter said:
Which is fine, except that the forward of the book basically states that the Da Vinci Code is fiction grounded in fact (which it isn't).

This type of tactic is as old as the hills though. Authors claiming that a fictional work has a basis in reality goes back as far as the beginnings of the novel, if not further. Think Richardson's Pamela, Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, Anon's Go Ask Alice, Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter etc. We just like to think we're more sophisticated than earlier generations. Could we fall for another Wellesian War of the Worlds hoax? Under the right circumstances, and Tom Cruise notwithstanding, I think so.
 

Renton said:
We just like to think we're more sophisticated than earlier generations. Could we fall for another Wellesian War of the Worlds hoax? Under the right circumstances, and Tom Cruise notwithstanding, I think so.

The difficulty in triggering another Wellesian WotW panic (it wasn't a hoax - that's a deliberate deception), would be the peculiar circumstances of the broadcast. Radio was a fairly new thing on the market place and there hadn't really been anything like it previously, where news and entertainment could simultainiously reach very large groups of people in essentially real time. The rise of telephone networks, also let the panic spread more widely since the information could be spread over an area much more quickly.

While radio was used for entertainment, there had been nothing like the WotW broadcast before, in which a fantastic story had attempted to seem realistic. It was structured as a series of "Special News" reports that broke into a typical musical entertainment program, eventually replacing the musical program entirely. While it was made clear at the start of the program that it was simply a radio play, many listeners didn't tune in until after the program had started. There was another more popular program that was on at the same time, but they put on a bad singer who wasn't very popular. So it became one of the first major examples of channel surfing as people decided to go check out what else was on and then stumbled across this riveting tale of a major disaster unfolding.

There also wasn't the mental filter between news and entertainment programing that people take for granted today. There's a lot more little cues that people use today to help determine if a program is fiction or news today, the time of the programing, the channel, if it's on multiple sources, who's involved actors or news personalities, are there being comercials broadcast, etc... All of these sorts of clues were either non-existant or blurry at best.

People had far fewer sources of news back then and only Radio was anything like a real time information source. News sources were also taken much more at their word. People simply weren't as suspicious or distrustful of information reported on the radio, especially if it was a "Special Report". In a sense it was also much more plausible that something like an alien invasion could take place, knowledge of the planets and their conditions was pretty limited among the population and what was "known" and what was "possible" had changed drasically in people's lifetime. It wasn't that long before the broadcast that it was "impossible" for a man to fly.

Finally, Orson Wells was really good at what he did. He had a great radio voice and a terrific imagination.

Panics like this happened before, only it generally took the form of a rumor and a mob forming. Information just didn't spread quicly enough to trigger it over an area. They've happened since, only the form has changed. The scare of the "cancer causing" ability of a pestcide Alar in the late eighties is a more recent example. Sales of Apples and Cider plummited overnight because people were told it could cause "cancer". That you would have had to drink thousands of gallons a year to increase your risk 5% just didn't get out to people.

Mad Cow disease is another even more recent example. There are something like 130 people who MAY have contracted the disease from eating beef. It is not definitely estabilshed that they did in fact contract it through eating meat. Though it is the most likely vector for them having contracted it. So despite the fact that more people die in a week from food poisoning than that, mad cow disease has a scary name "MAD COW DISEASE". It has horrible consequences and kills you in a particularly nasty way. Plus the media can show scary footage of cows stumbling and x-rays of cow brains with lots of holes in them.

People panic over things they are afraid of, especially if it involves things they don't understand.
 
Last edited:

Dark Jezter said:
I doubt Dan Brown would agree with me, considering that he's probably made a mint off sales of his book.

Well... He made the Forbes 100... 76.5 million.

I read it, I liked it, I'm Catholic (well, ostensibly), I wasn't offended. I was going to wait for the paperback version as well, but found a nice hardback version at BJ's for $20 that was illustrated in full color with pictures of all the places, architecture, artwork, etc. Nice copy.

I don't recall the Church warning against reading it. (Perhaps if I attended Church...) I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that the Church seems far more likely to me to start with the Jon Stewart approach. The Catholic Church doesn't "ban" ideas very often; meeting them head-on to discuss and debunk them seems the usual approach.

Wulf
 

There was a brochour going around where I work, about a year ago debunking the Da Vinci Code, it was put out by a local orthadox church group. I read the book durring my breaks at work and one morning this little brochour was left on work table. I got a chuckle out of it. They were bashing Dan Brown himself more than work. And when they did attack the book all they basicly said was he had no proof, which you can turn around and use on their arguments.
 

It's a potboiler. Not a terribly great book as a piece of literature, but enjoyable in a fluffy marshmallow-y kind of way. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I love conspiracy books and anything to do with the Templars.

Brown claims in the foreword that the Priory of Scion is a real organization (that's up for debate) and that the "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals" depicted are described accurately. He makes no claims in regards to the central premise of the book.
 

I'll probably get some heat for this but a lot of the posts in this thread sound like sour grapes. Regardless if the book is poorly written, the best literary work in history, historically accurate, or completely fictional, people seem upset just because Dan Brown has made millions on the book.

Face it, Dan Brown has found a winning formula. Combine equal parts conspiracy theory with a volatile, water-cooler topic of discussion and an easy-to-read, movie script writing style and you have a winner. People who never read are picking up TDVC. That's an impressive feat for any writer.

I was fairly familiar with a lot of the content before reading it (and being a Catholic) and while Brown definitely took some poetic license with some historical points, I really enjoyed the questions he raised during the book. The impression I got from reading the book was not that he was telling you "this is what really happened" but rather that he was giving another possible explanation. The stuff on the grail was kind of out there but a lot of his research on the origins of the Catholic church was right-on (and many of the reasons why I don't agree with some aspects of organized religion....but that's not a discussion for EN World).
 

The sour grapes criticism may be true for some, but certainly not for me. I'm glad that Dan Brown had great success with it, and am thrilled that so many people are enjoying it.

I just think, as a literary work that I might enjoy, the book sucks. Why does that need to be sour grapes?
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top