Da Vinci Code Protests

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think that's a bit of streach. He said as DESCRIPTIONS of artwork, not interpretations of artwork. He's trying to say "The Last Supper" is a real work of art.

Brown is not laying these things out in the book as interpretations of artwork.

He is claiming things like the Mona Lisa is androgynous and that Leonardo named it the Mona Lisa as a clever anagram to represent the union of male and female. Leonardo didn't even name the painting. He is also claiming that the person to the right of Jesus is Magdalene and not John. He makes the claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls included lost gospels and they did no such thing. There are literally hundreds of inaccuracies and half-truths in the book even down to simple things that can be easily verified like the height of a painting.

Yes, these claims are being made through the characters in the book but none of them are being presented as interpretations otherwise why include the statement that all descriptions of artwork, documents etc are accurate? Why not say that this is a work of fiction and everything portrayed is how the characters in the book assume them to be or interpret them to be? Why say anything about accuracy at all? Brown is the one who comes right out of the gate about how all of this is accurate and I think that statement makes the entire book fair game to be pointed out for its numerous inaccuracies.

He's not trying to say the Last Supper is a real work of art - the purpose of his story is to show that Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail and that she was Jesus wife and they had a child together not to say that the Last Supper painting exists.

[ISiddiqui]

Why say anything about accuracy at all?

Because I'm sure some people will say oh, you just made X up, when there may actually be such a document, or oh, Opus Dei doesn't put a 'barbed wire thing' on their leg, when they do. He wants people to know that not everything in fictionalized and there are documents and artwork in the book that actually do exist in the real world.

That's what the statement sounded like to me. When I read the post that says Brown says all this is fact and then I saw that sentance in the excerpt on his own website, I thought there must be something else, but that statement really doesn't make me think that he's actually saying "The Last Supper" has Mary in it and that's a fact.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because I'm sure some people will say oh, you just made X up

Well isn't that what a work of fiction is? When an author writes a book of fiction about the flying spaghetti monster attacking a trout pond I'm assuming he made stuff up even if he calls the trout pond Lake Michigan.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He wants people to know that not everything in fictionalized and there are documents and artwork in the book that actually do exist in the real world.

People don't know the Mona Lisa and Last Supper are real paintings? I highly doubt that Brown sat around and just innocently decided to write a book which claims that Jesus was not considered to be divine until a vote was taken at Nicene and that Jesus actually was married to Magdalene and fathered a child through her.

I think Brown made that intial statement on purpose to get the reader in the state of mind that what he or she is about to read is truth or even that its a very plausible conspiracy theory because of factual events a,b,c,d.... Without that statement I think its much easier to simply dismiss the events as a reader as being just some wild story Brown contrived but by having things that he claims as facts (yet are wildly inaccurate on the whole) he creates an aura to make the reader lend credence to his work of fiction.

[Neon_Chaos]

Philippine censors approved an adult rating for the movie but stopped short of rating it "X" because "it does not constitute a clear, express or direct attack on the Catholic church or religion" and does not libel or defame any person.

The movie-review panel's chairwoman, Marissa Laguardia, told The Associated Press that the movie would be a "test of faith" for many people in the predominantly Roman Catholic Philippines.

THEY'RE ALL IDIOTS. ALL OF THEM. (I'm talking about the MTRCB - the movie censors here in the philippines)

Everything's a "TEST OF FAITH" for them. DOH. Fucking right-wing moralists.

But really, the only protests out here in the Philippines that have had some serious issues with the release of the movie is the ever-growing Opus Dei... and it's relatively small. Other than that, noone really cares much.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

He is claiming things like the Mona Lisa is androgynous and that Leonardo named it the Mona Lisa as a clever anagram to represent the union of male and female. Leonardo didn't even name the painting. He is also claiming that the person to the right of Jesus is Magdalene and not John. He makes the claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls included lost gospels and they did no such thing. There are literally hundreds of inaccuracies and half-truths in the book even down to simple things that can be easily verified like the height of a painting.

I don't think its accurate to say he's "claiming" these things - I'm sure Dan Brown could care less one way or another. Sure, he's trying to involve the reader, make everything feel more "real" - but how is that any different than the entire genre of historical fiction? If someone writes a Civil War novel where General Lee is a cross-dressing alchoholic, and it's written in a way where such a thing is theoretically plausible, that author isn't making a factual claim. He's writing a book he hopes people will buy, and if he can make the reader think, "hey, maybe General Lee WAS a cross-dresser" then great, they're immersed in the book.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Brown is not laying these things out in the book as interpretations of artwork.

He is claiming things like the Mona Lisa is androgynous and that Leonardo named it the Mona Lisa as a clever anagram to represent the union of male and female. Leonardo didn't even name the painting. He is also claiming that the person to the right of Jesus is Magdalene and not John. He makes the claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls included lost gospels and they did no such thing. There are literally hundreds of inaccuracies and half-truths in the book even down to simple things that can be easily verified like the height of a painting.

Yes, these claims are being made through the characters in the book but none of them are being presented as interpretations otherwise why include the statement that all descriptions of artwork, documents etc are accurate? Why not say that this is a work of fiction and everything portrayed is how the characters in the book assume them to be or interpret them to be? Why say anything about accuracy at all? Brown is the one who comes right out of the gate about how all of this is accurate and I think that statement makes the entire book fair game to be pointed out for its numerous inaccuracies.

He's not trying to say the Last Supper is a real work of art - the purpose of his story is to show that Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail and that she was Jesus wife and they had a child together not to say that the Last Supper painting exists.

I kind of agree with ISiddiqui on this one. I interpret it as he's saying the paintings things like the picture of the lady in the last supper are real, but the whole Holy Grail stuff he's not claiming as real. But I would concede that the way he states this can be misleading to a reader.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by moriarty

I kind of agree with ISiddiqui on this one. I interpret it as he's saying the paintings things like the picture of the lady in the last supper are real, but the whole Holy Grail stuff he's not claiming as real. But I would concede that the way he states this can be misleading to a reader.

Never read the book, but that's the way I interpret it as well. I also agree the way it's written can be misleading and I'm sure that's on purpose.

[Glengoyne]

I'm actually glad the mass protests and calls for banning the movie aren't happening here in the US. I'm sure some whako group here in the US will protest, but they're probably just taking time off from protesting Dungeons and Dragons, so no one will care.

As for viciously offensive. I'm not comfortable with the vicious assertion. I think the offensive part is pretty close to appropriate, especially where the concepts from the book are given new life and even assumed to be accurate depictions of history, because Dan Brown said they were. I kept in mind that it is just a book, and the concepts driving the story were essentially fiction. It was just a book after all.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Bee

Never read the book, but that's the way I interpret it as well. I also agree the way it's written can be misleading and I'm sure that's on purpose.

Exactly. Get some folks to think it's real and/or get the church in an uproar and sit back and wash the cash come in.

Didn't work so well for Soloman Rushdie, but at least he got to sell a lot of books.

[Anthony]

this is the way it is:

brown makes the "FACT" assertion as a way to show that not everything in the fictional story you're about to read is made up. as in his novel "Angels and Demons", there really is a world science organization called CERN. illustrating what actually is a fact helps to blur myth from reality. that's what makes the story as "believable" or thought-provoking as it is, since it melds both a fictional story using real, tangible elements. hard to see where fact (The Last Supper is an actual painting) stops and interpretation/storytelling begins (John is really Mary Magdelline in the painting).

he is not saying his story is fact. yes, people will be idiots, but don't try to create a controversy where there isn't one. if this book was placed in the non-fiction section religious groups would have an arguement.

[JS19]

Who's to say the whole book isn't true?

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by moriarty

But I would concede that the way he states this can be misleading to a reader.

This is my problem with the book. By prefacing his story with the line that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." he is basically telling the reader - look, I finally put all the pieces together of this great mystic puzzle and now you can know the truth. That is what the whole story is - the opening of dumb Sophie's eyes. How she has lived in the world with all of these things just sticking out in paintings and documents (which he claims are accurate) and that they all have been covered up by the Catholic Church in an effort to maintain the divinity of Jesus and disregard women.

Brown didn't write a fairy tale about the flying spaghetti monster - he took religious beliefs and real world things and twisted and inaccurately portrayed them under the guise of them being truthful clues in uncovering the mystery of mysteries - the search for the Holy Grail.

Has Brown ever come forth and said that he made the whole thing up and that there is no way Jesus was married and that Jesus didn't have children? Do you think that Brown merely wrote a story of fiction or that he really wants people to question whether or not Jesus was married and had children? Did Brown write a story to entertain or did he write the story because he wants the core beliefs of the Catholic Church questioned? This is the problem to me and to me it looks like Brown is trying to hide under the cloak of "it's just fiction" yet wrote the book from the perspective of being an accurate account of historical works and events.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

he is basically telling the reader - look, I finally put all the pieces together of this great mystic puzzle and now you can know the truth

And I think that's a streach. I agree with HA here entirely (I don't think I've ever said that, btw). Its to let the reader know that not everything is made up. Opus Dei members do 'punish' themselves, for example.

Brown didn't write a fairy tale about the flying spaghetti monster - he took religious beliefs and real world things and twisted and inaccurately portrayed them under the guise of them being truthful clues in uncovering the mystery of mysteries - the search for the Holy Grail.

Because a book about the FSM won't sell, or at least not nearly as much as a book about a conspiracy in the Catholic Church involving Jesus.

Has Brown ever come forth and said that he made the whole thing up and that there is no way Jesus was married and that Jesus didn't have children?

Why should he say there is "no way"? It is certain plausible that Jesus could have been married and have a child and perhaps he did. I don't think there is any reason why he'd have to say that it is impossible for that to be the case at all.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I agree with HA here entirely

admitting it is the first step.

i'd just like to go on record to say that "I agree with HA" (or some variant of that theme) is the most used phrase in FOFC history. seriously. i wish we could do a test so i could make this official.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

admitting it is the first step.

i'd just like to go on record to say that "I agree with HA" (or some variant of that theme) is the most used phrase in FOFC history. seriously. i wish we could do a test so i could make this official.

I don't agree with HA on this point, but his other points in this thread are fine.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I won't see the movie. Then again, I haven't been to a movie since 1992.

Was it one of these?

Gross          Movie 
$217,350,219   Aladdin (1992) 
$173,585,516   Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992) 
$162,831,698   Batman Returns (1992) 
$144,731,527   Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) 
$141,340,178   A Few Good Men (1992) 
$139,610,000   Sister Act (1992) 
$121,945,720   The Bodyguard (1992) 
$121,697,350   Wayne's World (1992) 
$117,727,000   Basic Instinct (1992) 
$107,458,785   A League of Their Own (1992)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Has Brown ever come forth and said that he made the whole thing up and that there is no way Jesus was married and that Jesus didn't have children?

so you want Brown to essentially say "do not buy this book because even though i tried to write it convincingly in order to spur conversation and debate it's all based on false information and half-truths"? does JK Rowling have to issue a disclaimer upon the release of every Harry Potter novel?

it's a book of fiction. uses some actual, researchable elements (the various organizations, paintings, locations, etc) in order to help paint a more realistic story. movies use real world locations in order to help the audience identify with the plot/story - are they intentionally trying to be evil here?

again, it's sold in the fiction section. if you're easily misled or are that gullible that a convincing story can cause that much self-doubt then you know the rest of that arguement.

and even if the story was true - wouldn't you want to know the truth? or do you want to take the blue pill and go back to Wonderland (using a Matrix analogy here)? but anyway that's for a different discussion. all this nonsense just helps Brown sell more books and tickets. it was a nice story and i finished that book quicker than i normally do since it was exciting. when i woke up the next day the sun still rose and gravity still kept everything from floating, so crisis averted.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I think that's a streach. I agree with HA here entirely (I don't think I've ever said that, btw). Its to let the reader know that not everything is made up. Opus Dei members do 'punish' themselves, for example.

I'm going to jump on Gary's side on this one. I don't agree with the strength and disappointment he shows in his posts, but I do think the whole purpose of the book and the fact disclaimer was to completely erase the line between fact and fiction. He starts his story with some pretty reasonable facts and then slowly brings in all the rest of his theories. It is very unclear where he is shifting from fact to fiction and I think the point of that is to get people to think that it all (or mostly) true. There wouldn't be nearly as much buzz about the book if people didn't think it could be true. There also wouldn't be nearly as many "explaining the Da Vinci Code" books if it didn't make so many people think it was all true.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Its to let the reader know that not everything is made up.

Like I said, my problem is that he says everything is accurate and that is a flat out lie. I brought up the height of a painting before. He gets details like that wrong. He gets dates wrong. The very first thing he says about the Priory of Sion - the first thing after the word FACT - is wrong.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because a book about the FSM won't sell, or at least not nearly as much as a book about a conspiracy in the Catholic Church involving Jesus.

Yeah, you're dead on the money on that one. I just question his motive in his writing. Did he write it simply because he knew it would be a controversy and to sell books or did he write it as an attempt to attack the Church?

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why should he say there is "no way"? It is certain plausible that Jesus could have been married and have a child and perhaps he did. I don't think there is any reason why he'd have to say that it is impossible for that to be the case at all.

Because that goes to my question of what is the purpose of the book. Is it simply a wildly made up story to be entertaining to read and sell books or is he trying to distort historical facts to attack the Church? He wrote the book in a style that tries to put the reader as Sophie, the one who is missing all of these historical clue around them to the truth of the Catholic Church and had he not done such a good job of that the book would not be as popular and not be nearly the controversy it is. He may claim the book is fiction but is it simply a fictious story or is it an attempt to attack the Church and just like everything else with him that, to me, is very unclear.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Has Brown ever come forth and said that he made the whole thing up and that there is no way Jesus was married and that Jesus didn't have children?

No, in fact, he credits other authors for proposing and supporting that idea in a work of non-fiction. Those authors have already sued him/Sony and lost in Britain.

Those are who should be being protested, not Brown and Sony. Its amazing people blasting Brown for coming up with this heretical idea, when a bit of simple research reveals he didn't.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

so you want Brown to essentially say "do not buy this book because even though i tried to write it convincingly in order to spur conversation and debate it's all based on false information and half-truths"?

Nothing of the sort - I don't want the book banned or for him to attempt to stop selling it. I just want him to clarify is it just a story that he twisted factual events and things to fit or is it an attempt to undermine the beliefs of millions of Catholics. And if you don't think a powerful speaker or writer is capable of starting to undermine someone's beliefs by casting a tiny shadow of doubt I don't know what to say and that is why this book is such a problem with the Church.

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

and even if the story was true - wouldn't you want to know the truth? or do you want to take the blue pill and go back to Wonderland (using a Matrix analogy here)?

Sure, but I already believe I know the truth in regards to my faith. I looked at what Brown had to say, did research, listened to people speak for and against the book and came to the conclusion that its nothing more than a story with a lot of inaccurate statements. I just don't like that in my opinion he's presenting fiction in a not so fictious manner.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Like I said, my problem is that he says everything is accurate and that is a flat out lie. I brought up the height of a painting before. He gets details like that wrong. He gets dates wrong. The very first thing he says about the Priory of Sion - the first thing after the word FACT - is wrong.

So this means he has sinister motives in saying some things in this book are based on fact? He made factual mistakes on the height of a painting or some details... and it turns into a fedral case because?

Yeah, you're dead on the money on that one. I just question his motive in his writing. Did he write it simply because he knew it would be a controversy and to sell books or did he write it as an attempt to attack the Church?

If he wrote it as an attempt to attack the Church why doesn't he just come out and say, yes, I think Jesus was married and had a son and the Catholic Church is covering it up, and the rest of the novel is a fictional gloss on finding that out? But he has never come out and said that. The fact is that the story of Jesus' life is unclear and many people HAVE asked whether Jesus married Mary Magdalene (it isn't something Brown came up with, as said before in this thread). "The Last Temptation of Christ" is something which does similar. Of course Brown's work is more of a mystery novel, so you have to have a conspiracy to make it work, to make it a page turner.

I mean Hell, Brown's next book is one about the Freemasons! I think that in itself shows that Brown's only goal is to spin a mystery yarn about secret organizations and conspiracies, which will sell books.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Was it one of these?

Gross          Movie 
$217,350,219   Aladdin (1992) 
$173,585,516   Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992) 
$162,831,698   Batman Returns (1992) 
$144,731,527   Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) 
>>> $141,340,178   A Few Good Men (1992) <<<
$139,610,000   Sister Act (1992) 
$121,945,720   The Bodyguard (1992) 
$121,697,350   Wayne's World (1992) 
$117,727,000   Basic Instinct (1992) 
$107,458,785   A League of Their Own (1992)

Yes. Not all that memorable in and of itself.

On the Brown disclaimer. Yes, there's the standard "work of fiction" disclaimer in the boilerplate. No scholar is going to mistake this for non-fiction. I wish the Bible had a similar disclaimer, but that's for a different discussion.

And then he has the quoted piece where he shows off his supposed research. I understand the complaint. He should have placed this disclaimer in the back of the book (to avoid spoiling the plot) and extended it to differentiate between fact and conjecture. He was not precise and I understand why some are taking offense.

There is a standard in research, even in fiction, and if he's going to use facts as a jumping-off point in order to gain an aura of authenticity, he needs to be explicit as to the location of the jumping-off point. Either that or not mention his research at all.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If he wrote it as an attempt to attack the Church why doesn't he just come out and say, yes, I think Jesus was married and had a son and the Catholic Church is covering it up, and the rest of the novel is a fictional gloss on finding that out?

Because of the repurcussions of doing so. There are people upset with the book now but if he were to do that he would totally lose any middle ground with the book. Books would be burned, banned, etc, etc...the fact of the matter is that there are alot of people who are Catholic - and there have been many of those people who have bought or read the book and some of whom love the book. Right now Brown's just the innocent storyteller - if he were to proclaim that its just an attempt to attack the Church it would be diasterous for his career (maybe not with this book since its already bought but for anything in the future).

Like I said, I don't want the book banned or the movie banned nor have I told anyone they shouldnt read the book etc... I just question his motives behind the book based on how its presented. To me, its not presented as simply telling some fantastic story. To me he presents it as a "wake up and see the truth that's been staring at you all these years" type of deal thinly veiled behind three fictional characters.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There is a standard in research, even in fiction, and if he's going to use facts as a jumping-off point in order to gain an aura of authenticity, he needs to be explicit as to the location of the jumping-off point. Either that or not mention his research at all.

I think not mentioning the research at all would have been a reasonable idea. All of the "facts" clearly were facts. People are familiar with the paintings and can easily look them up to see what he is talking about in the books. After reading the book I was left with the impression that much more of the book was true than may have been intended. After doing a bit of research, I found out just how much of a stretch some parts of the book were.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think not mentioning the research at all would have been a reasonable idea. All of the "facts" clearly were facts. People are familiar with the paintings and can easily look them up to see what he is talking about in the books. After reading the book I was left with the impression that much more of the book was true than may have been intended. After doing a bit of research, I found out just how much of a stretch some parts of the book were.

I think Brian has maybe put it better here than I have - Brian and myself and others have done the research or read others research and realized how much twisting and stretching he did. There's a lot of other people who will put this down and say wow, I had no idea those things happened and the things I thought all along are not true. And that's just not in relation to Jesus - things like the Mona Lisa not being a woman and Leonardo being commissioned to do hundreds of works for the Church (when he was commissioned to do just one).

In one aspect that's a testament to the writing style of Brown that he is able to hook readers in like that. On the other hand its dangerous because of the subject matter and the conclusion he draws in the book.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think not mentioning the research at all would have been a reasonable idea. All of the "facts" clearly were facts. People are familiar with the paintings and can easily look them up to see what he is talking about in the books. After reading the book I was left with the impression that much more of the book was true than may have been intended. After doing a bit of research, I found out just how much of a stretch some parts of the book were.

Look on the brightside, how many millions of peole like yourself were intrigued by the ideas did some research ... read one of the millions of books debunking the theories and came away with a new appreciation for the church/bible.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I just question his motives behind the book based on how its presented. To me, its not presented as simply telling some fantastic story. To me he presents it as a "wake up and see the truth that's been staring at you all these years" type of deal thinly veiled behind three fictional characters.

Then you'd have to come to the conclusion that he's a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist because his next book "The Soloman Key" is a mystery about the Freemasons and "Angels and Demons" was a mystery about the Illuminati.

Some people just think its fun to write about conspiracy theories, as a lot of people like to read about them (or play computer games with them as Deus Ex showed).

[stevew]

Somewhere the other day someone forwarded me some sort of "Dan Brown Novel Generator." I'll see if i can find it again, it was pretty funny.

[stevew]

dola

I'm suprised this movie is getting panned on quality, the story seemed easy enough so that a retard could have made a good movie out of it.

Fuckin Opie.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Sure, ok, they're totally out of line objecting to vicious propaganda being pushed all over the world slandering their belief system - they should just ignore it and go work in the soup kitchen. I totally agree.

I hardly think the Church is in a position to object to someone pushing propaganda all over the world.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Look on the brightside, how many millions of peole like yourself were intrigued by the ideas did some research ... read one of the millions of books debunking the theories and came away with a new appreciation for the church/bible.

Actually I came away a bit disappointed since Brown's version of events seemed cooler...even if untrue.

Interestingly, I found myself getting very annoyed with the books countering Brown's claims. They all seemed to take such a tone of offense and ridicule toward anyone that might question things that I was completely put off. The art of unpationate intellectual debate really does seem to be lost...though understandably religion is a touchy subject.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yes. Not all that memorable in and of itself.

On the Brown disclaimer. Yes, there's the standard "work of fiction" disclaimer in the boilerplate. No scholar is going to mistake this for non-fiction. I wish the Bible had a similar disclaimer, but that's for a different discussion.

And then he has the quoted piece where he shows off his supposed research. I understand the complaint. He should have placed this disclaimer in the back of the book (to avoid spoiling the plot) and extended it to differentiate between fact and conjecture. He was not precise and I understand why some are taking offense.

There is a standard in research, even in fiction, and if he's going to use facts as a jumping-off point in order to gain an aura of authenticity, he needs to be explicit as to the location of the jumping-off point. Either that or not mention his research at all.

Strange that the last movie you saw probably was most memorable for

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

which is somewhat applicable to this thread in that we don't know what the truth is and if the book is true, then people can't handle it. Small world.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Then you'd have to come to the conclusion that he's a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist because his next book "The Soloman Key" is a mystery about the Freemasons and "Angels and Demons" was a mystery about the Illuminati.

Some people just think its fun to write about conspiracy theories, as a lot of people like to read about them (or play computer games with them as Deus Ex showed).

Maybe he is - to be honest I don't know what he is. I just don't like how its presented because to me, its presented like fact and not a bunch of what ifs. The characters in the story aren't telling Sophie "what if this is really a picture of John the Baptist blessing Jesus" - they're telling her that she and everyone else has been lied to all these years and that it is John the Baptist blessing Jesus etc...I realize it makes for good storytelling but he purposely blurs the line between fact and fiction in order to confuse the reader while telling this story and I'm not familiar with his past or upcoming work - is this his MO when writing?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'd just like to go on record to say that "I agree with HA" (or some variant of that theme) is the most used phrase in FOFC history. seriously. i wish we could do a test so i could make this official.

I ran a search. It's actually third, behind only "Tom Brady is the dreamiest" and "Nice picture, Pumpy".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

The characters in the story aren't telling Sophie "what if this is really a picture of John the Baptist blessing Jesus" - they're telling her that she and everyone else has been lied to all these years and that it is John the Baptist blessing Jesus etc...

How else are you going to write a conspiracy theory book? You always have to have the 'kook' who has been warning people for ages, but no one listens to him until the protagonist realizes the truth. "You've been lied to!" is a well established cliche in this type of fiction.

I realize it makes for good storytelling but he purposely blurs the line between fact and fiction in order to confuse the reader while telling this story and I'm not familiar with his past or upcoming work - is this his MO when writing?

Did you miss the post above where someone was saying they had a link somewhere to a "Dan Brown novel generator". Apparently "Angels and Demons" was exactly the same.

[Bonegavel]

Dan Brown 1
FOFC 0

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by stevew

dola

I'm suprised this movie is getting panned on quality, the story seemed easy enough so that a retard could have made a good movie out of it.

Fuckin Opie.

It may suck, but I wouldn't base my opinion on a bunch of Cannes critics. Now if Leonard Maltin were there...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

On the Brown disclaimer. Yes, there's the standard "work of fiction" disclaimer in the boilerplate. No scholar is going to mistake this for non-fiction. I wish the Bible had a similar disclaimer, but that's for a different discussion.

And then he has the quoted piece where he shows off his supposed research. I understand the complaint. He should have placed this disclaimer in the back of the book (to avoid spoiling the plot) and extended it to differentiate between fact and conjecture. He was not precise and I understand why some are taking offense.

There is a standard in research, even in fiction, and if he's going to use facts as a jumping-off point in order to gain an aura of authenticity, he needs to be explicit as to the location of the jumping-off point. Either that or not mention his research at all.

Yup. The problem is him adding his extra disclaimer. People rip Michael Crichton's latest, but at least he made clear what was fact by footnoting it. Brown tried to pawn off far more of his book as fact than really was, and that's the problem here. And yes, based on the interview bits I've seen with him, I believe it was either intentional OR that he just didn't do his research. For example, I think he sure sounds like someone who didn't dig deep enough into the "Priory of Scion" to find out it was a complete hoax...

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Was it one of these?

Gross          Movie 
$217,350,219   Aladdin (1992) 
$173,585,516   Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992) 
$162,831,698   Batman Returns (1992) 
$144,731,527   Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) 
>>> $141,340,178   A Few Good Men (1992) <<<
$139,610,000   Sister Act (1992) 
$121,945,720   The Bodyguard (1992) 
$121,697,350   Wayne's World (1992) 
$117,727,000   Basic Instinct (1992) 
$107,458,785   A League of Their Own (1992)

ehh, I had Jim pegged as a Basic Instinct guy. Oh well, at least it wasn't Home Alone 2.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

For example, I think he sure sounds like someone who didn't dig deep enough into the "Priory of Scion" to find out it was a complete hoax...

What was the story behind this again? I seem to remember a couple of guys made up the Priory of Scion for some purpose, but I forget what it was. Were they running some kind of scam?

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by BrianD

What was the story behind this again? I seem to remember a couple of guys made up the Priory of Scion for some purpose, but I forget what it was. Were they running some kind of scam?

That's what the Vatican wants you to think at least.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by BrianD

What was the story behind this again? I seem to remember a couple of guys made up the Priory of Scion for some purpose, but I forget what it was. Were they running some kind of scam?

It may or may not have had something to do with a Nigerian prince and a bank account

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by BrianD

What was the story behind this again? I seem to remember a couple of guys made up the Priory of Scion for some purpose, but I forget what it was. Were they running some kind of scam?

Basically. Been a while since I saw the Discovery documentary on it. Had something to do with proving a bloodline so one guy could claim aristocracy or that he had a claim to a chunk of land or somesuch. The key was all the documents he presented to prove it turned out to be forgeries.

[BrianD]

I was really hoping someone would remember the Priory of Scion story so I wouldn't have to look it up myself. Google brings up so much crap related to the Brown book that it is hard to find real information. I remember seeing a documentary talking about the "secrets" in the book and they did a section on this book. As I think about it more, I don't believe it was a scam, and I don't think the people who created the group expected people to take them seriously. It just seemed like an amazingly weak story for Brown to fall into. I'll have to see if I can find the story again.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by moriarty

ehh, I had Jim pegged as a Basic Instinct guy. Oh well, at least it wasn't Home Alone 2.

It was a date. Not coincidentally, the one I always use when people ask for my "worst date story."

I've seen a couple of the others here on cable - Basic Instinct, which was blah except for one scene, and A League of Their Own, which I think is one of the better sports movies out there.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It was a date. Not coincidentally, the one I always use when people ask for my "worst date story."

I've seen a couple of the others here on cable - Basic Instinct, which was blah except for one scene, and A League of Their Own, which I think is one of the better sports movies out there.

See if you had seen Basic Instinct on a date it might have qualified as the 'best date' story. I know it certainly got things 'moving' for my date when we saw it.

[moriarty]

Dola, I feel kind dirty now for mixing Basic Instinct and religion in the same thread.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Dola, I feel kind dirty now for mixing Basic Instinct and religion in the same thread.

Why? Both of them are about getting screwed .

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Dola, I feel kind dirty now for mixing Basic Instinct and religion in the same thread.

Although both movies in question were protested by groups who thought they were being portrayed in a bad light...