|
Post by PyleansDontLeaveMe on May 11, 2006 15:06:47 GMT -5
And on a related note - Am I the only one that thinks the whole current christian knee-jerk furore over The Davinci Code is almost indistinguishable from the muslim knee-jerk furore over the Satanic Verses?
The christians (currently) have a slight edge in the comparison, as they haven't as of yet OPENLY called for Dan Brown to be executed.
They've merely hinted that they would be ok with it if he was.
|
|
|
Post by tjaman on May 11, 2006 15:18:32 GMT -5
Well, I personally like the suggestion that Christ and Mary Magdalene were more than just friends. It might be apocryphal, but that's just a result of some decision-making 300 years after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Insane Troll Logic on May 11, 2006 15:21:07 GMT -5
Ah, the Council of Nicea. What have they done?
|
|
|
Post by PyleansDontLeaveMe on May 11, 2006 15:33:09 GMT -5
[Sticking fingers in ears]LA La LA la LA I can't hear you The bible dropped from the sky complete and exactly as it appears today word for word despite the fact that the language we currently read it in didn't technically exist for fifteen hundred years after the fact lalalalalalalalalalalala[/Sticking fingers in ears]
|
|
|
Post by tjaman on May 11, 2006 15:41:22 GMT -5
Ah, the Council of Nicea. What have they done? What haven't they? Beyond stripping all the good sex scenes out of the Bible, their parties were the stuff of legend.
People were talking about the scandalous disagreement between homoenusis and homoerotica for centuries after.
I hope everyone knows I'm really, really kidding.
|
|
|
Post by PyleansDontLeaveMe on May 11, 2006 15:55:44 GMT -5
Your what hurts, now?
|
|
|
Post by Aunt Arlene on May 11, 2006 15:56:59 GMT -5
Do you know where that's been?
|
|
|
Post by Bango on May 11, 2006 19:00:03 GMT -5
I'd question the statement that the book is full of lies and trying to mislead people. Because, quite frankly, it's never pretended to be anything other than a work of fiction built around a few interesting premises. The opening contains a Fact/Fiction remark...basically according to Brown, the names are the only thing that's fiction. Not to mention Dan Brown saying the same thing on national television.
|
|
|
Post by Aunt Arlene on May 11, 2006 19:19:25 GMT -5
I'd question the statement that the book is full of lies and trying to mislead people. Because, quite frankly, it's never pretended to be anything other than a work of fiction built around a few interesting premises. The opening contains a Fact/Fiction remark...basically according to Brown, the names are the only thing that's fiction. Not to mention Dan Brown saying the same thing on national television. Are you sure you mean fiction? I don't have the book with me, but he names a couple of things that are factual. The rest he says is fiction.
|
|
|
Post by Charisma69 on May 11, 2006 22:44:13 GMT -5
I'd question the statement that the book is full of lies and trying to mislead people. Because, quite frankly, it's never pretended to be anything other than a work of fiction built around a few interesting premises. The opening contains a Fact/Fiction remark...basically according to Brown, the names are the only thing that's fiction. Not to mention Dan Brown saying the same thing on national television.
The only things he says are fact are:
The Priory of Scion is a real secret society and numerous members include: Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
The Opus Dei is a real organization and he lists their headquarters address.
And all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate.
That's just saying he used real research to write a fictional novel - not that everything in the book is fact.
|
|
|
Post by Bango on May 11, 2006 23:20:39 GMT -5
The only things he says are fact are:
The Priory of Scion is a real secret society and numerous members include: Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
The Opus Dei is a real organization and he lists their headquarters address.
And all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate.
That's just saying he used real research to write a fictional novel - not that everything in the book is fact. I understand that, but sadly there are those that don't see it that way. They go on believing that since it's real places and events, then it must be true. There are actual people who believe that--and it's sad because those organizations and events and a lot of what Brown writes, did not happen the way he says it did, yet those people won't know the true facts. That's why Christian leaders have spoken out about the book and upcoming movie--so that there won't be any misleading. A better disclaimer would've been telling the readers that while places and events are true, the way they're portayed, and the ideas given in the novel, are false.
|
|
|
Post by TheMasterGeek on May 11, 2006 23:25:57 GMT -5
I maybe the only person earth to not read The Da Vinci Code.
I may eventually, but not now.
|
|
|
Post by GreatMuppetyNick on May 12, 2006 0:39:37 GMT -5
You're missing nothing Kev. It's not that great a read, IMHO.
The only reason why it's in such a big spotlight right now is because of the controversy it causes.
|
|
|
Post by quantumcat on May 12, 2006 0:54:38 GMT -5
It's sad when people assume that because a few names,places and events in a book correspond to documented reality that the whole thing is unbiased and historically accurate.
You have to be scrupulous about what you believe.
YES,a cute church mouse named Amos was the uncredited source for many of Benjamin Franklin's greatest achievements.
NO, Richard the Third's nephews were not slain because they had been brought across by centuries old undead aliens.
Both of these notions have been mentioned in books that used truth as a spice to add piquancy to the authors' inventions.
Ideally,such seasoning prompts the readers to investigate the source material and see what merits the facts have when unaccompanied by artistic embellishment.
But sometimes the public is driven to erroneous conclusions by folks who flunked the written AND vision exams before they got their poetic license.
Until we as a society make greater use of discernment,we should require that fact,fiction and conjecture be clearly labelled along with independent proofs of authenticity.
Our leaders need to chastise those who would exploit the gullible even as they demand that we learn how to think for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Charisma69 on May 12, 2006 1:11:16 GMT -5
The only things he says are fact are:
The Priory of Scion is a real secret society and numerous members include: Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
The Opus Dei is a real organization and he lists their headquarters address.
And all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate.
That's just saying he used real research to write a fictional novel - not that everything in the book is fact. I understand that, but sadly there are those that don't see it that way. They go on believing that since it's real places and events, then it must be true. There are actual people who believe that--and it's sad because those organizations and events and a lot of what Brown writes, did not happen the way he says it did, yet those people won't know the true facts. That's why Christian leaders have spoken out about the book and upcoming movie--so that there won't be any misleading. A better disclaimer would've been telling the readers that while places and events are true, the way they're portayed, and the ideas given in the novel, are false.
Um ... see that's not what you said in your earlier post. You said that the author claims everything in the book is fact except the character names and that's not what it says.
There is a difference. A huge difference. People who are dumb enough to take a fiction book as fact should not have any thoughts of their own. They aren't qualified to have them.
|
|