Stitch on 24/5/2006 at 19:31
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
It's an alternate history, and plenty of other books have fictionalized history, look at Plot Against America, by Philip Roth.
Except it isn't an alternate history, and I think this is where the crux of our disagreement is. The DaVinci Code presents a version of history straight from several books which are filed in nonfiction. All that Brown does is pull it all together into an enjoyable read.
Were this merely Dan Brown's fictitious history of the church with a truth claim slapped on it, I wouldn't particularly care.
Additionally, I find church history somewhat interesting. The selection and exclusion of certain texts for inclusion in the bible, the decision made about how to present Jesus, and the doings of groups like the Knights Templar all strike me as fascinating topics. A book that purports to shed some light on these topics has taken the world by storm, and nobody should care?
Of course, by "care" I mean "discuss the issue" and not "go apeshit and protest." The moral outrage is ridiculous, although I wouldn't be too happy if I were a member of Opus Dei.
Edit: for whatever it's worth, I agree with everything ignatios just posted.
Rug Burn Junky on 24/5/2006 at 19:38
Quote Posted by Stitch
Except it isn't an alternate history, and I think this is where the crux of our disagreement is. The DaVinci Code presents a version of history straight from several books which are filed in nonfiction. All that Brown does is pull it all together into an enjoyable read.
He's pulling from crackpot sources, for the most part, and the sum total is still his work, and it's still a novel, and he's still getting all sorts of play from his "OMG it's all real" claims.
I could easily write a fictionalized account of 9/11, taking various sources that
all claim to be true non-fiction, put it together and cynically claim that it's "the truth" with a straight face, all while knowing I'm taking a big fat dump on reality. That doesn't make it true, and doesn't mean that anyone should take me at my word. Why anyone does with Brown, when, in my eyes, it's been patently obvious from the beginning that he's full of shit, is beyond me.
He's not writing as a historian, and any claims about the veracity of the book have to be viewed in that light.
Stitch on 24/5/2006 at 19:40
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
He's pulling from crackpot sources, for the most part
Is he?
Generally speaking, I think you underestimate the book, which is odd as up until now I didn't think that was possible. It's a sincere collection of theories that are close enough to reality to stick but distant enough to be controversial.
Surrounded by terrible writing and dodgy action sequences, of course.
Rug Burn Junky on 24/5/2006 at 20:22
Quote Posted by Stitch
Is he?
Crackpot may be a strong word, but many are dubious at least, by all trusted accounts.
And, the more important part, is that he is still responsible for the sum of the parts, and the presentation.
And maybe I am biased, just from the interviews I'd seen with him, I thought that the
insincerity was palpable.
But hey, I'm a cynic.
fett on 24/5/2006 at 20:28
Bah - too much to catch up on. I agree with ig and Stitch mostly.
Quote:
Originally posted by RBJI do know more than enough to realize that it's not just about the events of the bible, and it deals with the subsequent centuries of the church's actions.
That's the bone of contention with scholars both inside
and outside of the church bubble. The history of the last 1700 years is exactly the history of the church. Their actions have affected everything from literature, to government, to the very languages we speak. Anything that influences 20 million people's view of the church should be taken somewhat more seriously than Harry Potter or the new Star Wars film.
Rug Burn Junky on 24/5/2006 at 20:54
"Han Shoots First" has more of a direct effect on society than the misconceptions by retards in trailer parks about the Council of Nicea.
Scots Taffer on 24/5/2006 at 23:16
Just to kickstart that shitstorm again, I'm going to say that there is validity in the use of "I could care less" beyond vocal sarcasm, because when you say that "I couldn't care less" you've emotionally reached the point of no return, that's it, you honestly don't care anymore; the beauty of "I could care less" is that you could care less than you do (so presumably you are before the stage of "I couldn't care less") but, this topic matters so little and figures so minutely in your perspective, that you don't even give it the emotional energy to reach the stage of not caring less anymore.
Now to read the last page or so of this thread.
Fringe on 24/5/2006 at 23:21
The question you have to ask yourself then is -- "What are the odds that anybody who says Could Care Less actually thinks through that complex logical chain before they say it?"
Ulukai on 24/5/2006 at 23:27
OK, when you bum chums have quite finished did anyone else actually go and see the god damn movie? :cool:
Scots Taffer on 24/5/2006 at 23:36
Quote Posted by Fringe
The question you have to ask yourself then is -- "What are the odds that anybody who says Could Care Less actually thinks through that complex logical chain before they say it?"
Quoth RBJ:
Quote:
Won't somebody think of the retards?
And as for the argument that gobbled up page 6 like a cockhungry monster, I am somewhat in agreement with RBJ but also with Stitch. It should have been treated as beneath contempt by the Church for a number of reasons
a) it's in the fiction section of Barnes and Nobles, and
b) it is literally ass to the brim full of theories that have either been fully debunked or utterly exposed as fraudulent (Stitch, if you think the theories harvested from Holy Blood, Holy Grail are interesting then you should maybe look up the books that openly refute/dispute most of the facts/theories presented in them - I forget the names of them, but I have read summarised sources of various books and in the end, it's the chemical process of neutralisation).
