Da Vinci Code

[dgan]

1. It is a free country. You can write lies for whatever reason you want. (Brown)
2. It is a free country. You can be angry and despise someone who writes lies with total disregard as to the impact his/her writing may have on the public. (Calixar)
3. It is a free country. You can personally enjoy the work for the fiction it is, and simply ignore all the idiots who think they're reading the Bible, Part II. (Dinadan)

I agree with both of you. I am disappointed that Brown has no regard of how his work has affected the general public. I would like to see him insist publicly that his work is fiction, but I am not surprised he allows the insanity to run rampant - it is all about revenue, after all.

At the same time, it is his right to write whatever he wants and call it whatever he wants - it just proves how sad we are as a society. People cannot recognize truth from fiction. Ultimately, it is always the reader's responsibility to determine the truth of all media. For that reason, I'm not inclined to blame Brown entirely for the stupidity of society.

[dinadan]

Calixar said:

No, no, no... read the introduction again! You're not paying attention.

This is the actual text of it:

FACT:
The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975, the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci. The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

If not for that last sentence, what you are saying about a fictional world would be true. He tells a deliberate lie here, saying that the way he has depicted the world is FACT.
By his own words, he is not changing things... when in fact he is.
This is why I call his book "lies" and not "fiction."

Clearly, we are arguing past one another. I am not disputing that the above words are there, plain as day, in the book; I'm saying by virtue of the fact that they are in a book, sold in the fiction section (not history or religion or otherwise), then the truth or untruth of those words no longer matter. All fiction is a lie, when you get right down to it. We just don't mind as much when we know we're being lied too--sometimes we like to enjoy the depth and complexity of the lie, the untruth, the unreality.

Now, should Dan Brown come out and say "Yes, this is a work of fiction, please treat it as such"--maybe he should. Then again, maybe he really believes the stuff he writes; but even if he does, that doesn't mean you are being forced to believe it. You can still read and appreciate it as a work of fiction; incidentally, I enjoy reading David Icke's books for that very reason. He really believes in the giant, world-wide conspiracy that he writes about in The Biggest Secret, and actively supports that his writing is fact; and there are people that believe that it is. However, I enjoy reading the complexity and depth of his delusions, because I find it fascinating that someone could connect all the dots he does (even of those connections are spurious at best, and down right insane at worst). Icke still tells a good story--even though he swears its true. Brown isn't even swearing his is true; he's remarkably silent on the matter--and under our system of jurisprudence he's innocent until proven guilty (again, the possibility of something's existence is not proof--so while it is possible that he may believe his work is true does not necessarily entail that he does).

Finally, one of the great tools of metafiction is the creation of a sense of verisimilitude in the work; to do that, an author draws from reality, establishing a complex, full world against which backdrop he/she tells their story. Dan Brown's introduction is nothing more than a metafictional tool--he's telling you the rules of the world that he's writing about. You have to believe that

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

or else you will not be able to immerse yourself in the story. It's called a willing suspension of disbelief--that's what you do when you read something that you know is a lie (that is, every time you read any piece of fiction), and yet are able to enjoy the story being told to you. You suspend that part of your brain that says "This is false" in order to enjoy the tale. It is not unreasonable for Dan Brown to expect his readers to do that--and that doesn't make his book a "book of lies" any more than it makes Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle a book of lies. That intro just establishes the parameters of the story--it's not subtly done, granted, but it works. That's all it is. People have read way, way too much into it, I think.

So, I'm not saying that you're wrong--yeah, it's a lie. But, I'm asking you to think about the book, as a work of fiction, critically. Why should we expect Dan Brown not to employ an accepted writer's trick? Just because he's writing about religion/heresy? I don't think that's a good standard to employ--because once you start censoring something becase the "everyman" can't think critically enough to separate fact from fiction, that sets a dangerous precedent.

[calixar]

I have already said that I enjoyed it, as a novel.

However, it does not change the fact that it was extremely irresponsible of him to include that introduction. Remove that, and the majority of my ill feeling toward it go away. With it, he is leading people to believe falsehoods.

The introduction is part of the book, it is not, however, part of the novel.

Now, before you say that's untrue, let me point you to another parts of the book that is not part of the novel.

PUBLISHED BY DOUBLEDAY
a division of Random House, Inc.
1745 Broadway, New York, New York

... and so on...

Can I disregard the information on this page as fiction, and therefore make all the copies I want?

No.

The introduction comes before the novel. It calls itself a page of FACT.

True, in the past, novelists often had an introduction (often written by a character in the book) that furthered the fantasy of the story. The vast majority of those books (Edgar Rice Burroughs comes to mind) were impossible to mistake for truth by a sane person. Dan Brown's books are not. They are in a world that follows the same basic rules as ours. Apes don't talk. Men don't transport themselves across space with only a thought.

A well-informed person may easily spots the nonsense in it, but you have to consider that we live in a world of people who feel knowledge is best left to the elite.

I'm sure Brown knew that most of the readers would be of the type who get their knowledge from mass media.

Again, I read the book, enjoyed the story to the extent that it was fast-paced and all... I spotted a couple placed where he contradicted himself, but wasn't especially bothered. The cheif complaint I have is the introduction. It is designed to mislead people.

Readers come away from this book thinking they've learned things. Maybe they say, "Well, okay, I don't believe any of the heretical stuff, but did you know Da Vinci put a woman in 'The Last Supper?' Wow, the Olympic Games were to honor Venus! Hopi Indians were Mother Goddess worshippers! Opus Dei torture and murder people! Early Jews practised ritual sex in the Temple and believed in an adrogynous God! Constantine was involved in the putting together of what we call 'the Bible.' The Council of Nicea voted on the Divinity of Christ. The Dead Sea Scrolls mention Jesus. Five million women were killed by the Inquisition!"

Every one of those statements (and countless others in the book) are untrue. A few are downright slanderous.

All lies are fiction, but not all fiction is lies.

lie
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

fiction
n.
1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.

[dinadan]

Ok, Calixar, there's no point in continuing the argument since it is clear that neither side is giving ground.

[calixar]

dinadan said:

Ok, Calixar, there's no point in continuing the argument since it is clear that neither side is giving ground.

Not wanting to beat a dead horse... but I think I haven't expressed my thoughts here well and you don't see what I'm thinking... let me try another tack and then I'll drop it.

Say I'm writing a novel... and in it I have a character with your name... who lives in your town... works at your job... and I even describe his home nearly identically to yours. One major difference... he's the head of an international child pornography ring, a guy who abuses and exploits children for profit.

Would you be able to brush that off by saying, "Well, it's a fictional world he created"?

Even after people start making judgements about you based on my novel would you be able to say, "... one of the great tools of metafiction is the creation of a sense of verisimilitude in the work; to do that, an author draws from reality, establishing a complex, full world against which backdrop he/she tells their story... so it's okay that people think I'm scum now"?

Of course not! You would, very rightly, have the grounds to sue me into poverty.

[dinadan]

As long as your book also is explictly sold as fiction, then yes, your scenario is perfectly legit. What would be suspect is the reaon why you did it, but not your right to do so. And, hell, if it's a good story, I might even enjoy it. Do I get busted by Batman--because I think that'd be an incredible twist.

However, the problem with the comparison you are trying to make is that there is a living, historical me; once I'm dead, I'm sure I wouldn't care at all what you said about me. So, saying Jesus had children (and before we get into a theological "Living God" situation, let's just qualify it by saying that Christ no longer has material existence in this sublunary realm) is different because, once into non-being, he has no character to defame. And, from the Arian point of view (which dominates not only Dan Brown's work and worldview, but is probably the most popular heresy in the world at the moment), where Christ's nature was entirely human, you can't even say that it would be lible.

[calixar]

However, Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, Opus Dei, the Hopi Indians, the Jews, and all those other people he defames in the book do exist right now.

I would not be within my rights to defame you in a story, living or dead. It's illegal, and leaves me open to lawsuit by you or those who make up your "estate" when you're gone.

If you're hundreds of years dead... like Shakespeare... there will likely not be anyone who cares enough to defend you. I believe, however, that all people, living or dead, have an inherent right to justice.

[dinadan]

I'm not sure that explicit fiction is considered lible. I'll have to ask one of my friends in law school.

[calixar]

That's exactly why the disclaimer shows up on the legal page. To protect the author and publisher.