Why most newspaper articles about the Coded Craziness drive me...crazy

News Today is a large English newspaper in southern India. Today it published an article that perfectly demonstrates how lazy, incorrect, and clueless some articles about The Da Vinci Code can be -- and often are. A couple of examples:

Author of the book and its upcoming big-screen adaptation from Columbia Pictures, Dan Brown, in his website, categorically explained that The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist, like the Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings.

Uh, yeah. But why not also note that the novel's "FACT" page states that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"? And that that statement is not accurate? And that when a novelist describes historical figures and events and insists that his descriptions are accurate, he is the one who has set the bar?

Brown says that the real elements in the book have been interpreted and debated by fictional characters and each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations.

Ah, I think I understand: just because the novel's hero, Robert Langdon, makes bold assertions (including some that have been repeated by Brown in non-fictional interviews) that are clearly meant to be received sympathetically by readers, we shouldn't understand that to be an endorsement of those views. Even though Brown has admitted that Langdon was created, in large part, by drawing upon the persona and outlook of one of Brown's heroes, Joseph Campbell.

  His hope was for the novel to serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

Yes,  probably similar to how the author(s) of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" wanted that text to provide a springboard for people to discuss important ideas, such as "Are Jews controlling the world" and "What's so bad about anti-Semitism?" This particular line of "reasoning" is incredibly disingenuous because it's quite obvious that Brown is not a serious student of history, theology, or artwork. If anything, he's a student of whacky conspiracy theories rooted in unabashed anti-Catholicism.

        'Anti-Christian, it is not', says Brown, in his website, stressing that it is not anti-anything in anyway. It is important to remember that a reader does not have to agree with every word in the novel to use the book as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.

Let's say I wrote a novel about how Judaism was founded for purely political purposes, that Abraham, Moses, and David weren't actually Hebrews/Jews, that Judaism oppresses women, and that orthodox Jewish beliefs about God are both outdated and superstitious. Let's say I crowed about how well-researched my book was. Let's say I went on national television and said that if I had to write the book as a work of non-fiction, I wouldn't change a thing. Would that provide, say, Jewish readers with a "positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of [their] faith"?

   According to one critic, a historian named James Hitchcock, as quoted in the book, 'The Da Vinci Hoax', by Olson and Miesel, 'The Da Vinci Code' can be viewed as an ephemeral artifact of popular culture, but its immense sales ensure that it will have influence on people who never read serious books. Brown has found a formula for becoming rich: sensationalism, feminism, and the occult'.

Finally, something of substance! And don't pass over the FACT that Dr. James Hitchcock is an actual historian and scholar who has published numerous scholarly essays and books on matters of history. Hey, he might know what he's talking about, right? But the author of this "news piece" has a trick up the sleeve:

        The fact is Brown's book is fiction. He himself says so.

Wow! Amazing! It's just fiction! Really? Well, I suppose that's why the writer just penned these words a couple of paragraphs earlier: Brown's "hope was for the novel to serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history." But it's just fiction! But, wait, there's more: "Brown and film director Ron Howard maintain that they are simply encouraging a review of early church history and the roots of the Christian faith." But it's just fiction!

This is the sort of stupidity that makes MTV look thoughtful and People magazine read like Proust. Is this crude charade really so hard to see through? Apparently so.

Oh, by the way, this blog is fiction. I've simply eliminated the characters and plot because no one care about them anyhow.

Comments

[A Gaggle of DeerTM]

News reporting is becoming a lost art, I would say. To be fair, however, strictly reporting what Dan Brown's website claims is completely legitimate, and if someone were to be reporting something... such as a rumor, and that rumor turned out to be false, let's say, would it be fair to claim negligence and stupidity for the author of that report? No, I think not. Where the Indian reporter went wrong perhaps, was neglecting to qualify what Brown says as just that... What Brown says. It has become extremely problematic when the news is reporting on one man's perception of truth- because whether "shielded by the category of fiction" or not, it is important to place that perception where it stands in a greater debate. The question, as I see it is whether or not we should consider opinion as news worthy.

You mention "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," Carl. I would also mention "The Turner Diaries" whose pages detailed a bombing like the Oklahoma City bombing. And yet we publish these opinions, these beliefs, these philosophies. Why? What purpose does it serve? The nearest I come to an answer is agreeing with Dan Brown's Website's assessment. That we don't have to agree, but that we should use these as opportunities to open a public forum, a public discussion.

But to compare Dan Brown's work to a work of a hard-line believer is much different. Without coming from a firm belief in what his work suggests about the Catholic Church and Christianity, the subject of Dan Brown's work is little more than opportunistic. If he felt that what he was writing was truth, he wouldn't fall back on the "it's just a fiction" defense. He would have written on his Fact Page: "Fact: I, Dan Brown, wrote this book because I believe the truth of what I'm writing."

Perhaps this too is where reporters on the subject have failed. They report Dan Brown's book as his belief. When in truth they are reporting on a man's book which reports on other mens beliefs.

Nowadays, it seems quite difficult to separate people from their cause/beliefs - a fact which may make interpreting Dan Brown's reasons for writing unclear to many in what is becoming a more visibly polarized philosophical climate.

And so, do we feel, I wonder, that someone is trying to invalidate our opinion by reporting on a conflicting opinion? How have we come to feel so challenged in our faith by differing opinions and philosophies? Do we feel alone in our beliefs? Have we moved our houses off of the rock and into the sand?

[A Gaggle of DeerTM]

And on a side note about People reading like Proust... People magazine has a particular memory-jarring effect, which brings me back to my youth - Where scattered about the downstairs bathroom of my childhood home were numerous copies of National Geographic and the occational People Magazine. I would glance through the pages of those magazines upon every visit. The smell of the inked glossy pages, the images of the world beyond the bathroom, and the images of people that, not unlike Equatorial Guinea, I may never see in person. So in that way People reads like Proust.

But... I understood what you actually meant by that.

[matey]

Anyone with a brain please: The Bible was written by Divine Inspiration. The "Duh" Vinci Code was written by an idiot.
Duh Vinci was a homosexual. What do you expect from a homosexual? And what can you expect from anyone who seeks "wisdum" (not a spolling mistake) in a painting done a few hundred years ago, by a gay painter? That person must be an...........(fill as appropriate).

[matey]

Anyone with a brain please: The Bible was written by Divine Inspiration. The "Duh" Vinci Code was written by an idiot.
Duh Vinci was a homosexual. What do you expect from a homosexual? And what can you expect from anyone who seeks "wisdum" (not a spolling mistake) in a painting done a few hundred years ago, by a gay painter? That person must be an...........(fill as appropriate).

[El Perro Patron]

Ahoy, Matey!!

You're doing a fine job at representing the anti-DVC hysteria crowd. Keep up the good work!

You must be a member of Opus Duh

[David Titus]

Dearest Matey:

To rephrase El Perro Patron here:

It does no good to accuse those you disagree with of mental deficiencies and certain sexual orientations. Because they, just as you, have strong views. By treating their opinion as inferior and invalid, you have not forwarded your cause or made your opinion valid in their eyes.

If your heart and mind are in the right place, you still may not change their minds... however, they won't just ignore your opinion as ignorant, intolerant, and "crazy radical."

I guess you might take a few debate pointers from the big guy, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[Dancer]

What I love is all the people who take this FICTIONAL BOOK as a direct attack on them personally and their religion. Especially when our OWN PRESIDENT is attacking other countries for their beliefs. I'm not saying I agree with other countries, but think about it. (Please. Some thought would be nice.) Every religion comes under scrutiny in its time. Ancient religions are right now what Christianity will be in the future: mere mythology. I know "the church" is fighting against this, but we can all research the similarities in all religions. Religion and belief changes name and ideals over time to appeal to new generations and eras. The Da Vinci Code is simply fiction, so relax. Christianity's time to be outdated isn't upon us yet.

[don]

Carl,

Do you honestly think fiction can't encourage discussion? One wonders why Jesus told parables then...

[Cristina A. Montes]

Don: Fiction does encourage discussion. The problem is, many people claim that TDVC is good because it provokes a discussion, but when the discussion of TDVC turns to the factual inaccuracies and the anti-Catholic biases in the book, the same people who want TDVC to provoke a discussion turn around and say, "Hey, it's just fiction." Yes, fiction encourages discussion, and such discussion is actually healthy. But a discussion is an exchange of views, and a real discussion on TDVC must welcome views about what's flawed or what's harmful about the novel.

Carl is not saying that fiction can't encourage a discussion. In fact, he is saying that it SHOULD encourage a discussion even if it's "just fiction", and he is actively participating in that discussion.

[may]

Agree Fiction should encourage discussion.

However, most cannot distinguish what they see from what is real.

Perception becomes reality. If you show a generation a show that describes so convincingly that we all have purple brains and green bones, especially if it is so well blended with real life pictures of real people and real investigators investigating this "fact"...
then .....we'll all get to believe we REALLY have purple brains and green bones.

We need a generation of thinkers, probers, those that search beyond the apparent.

Unfortunately, most do not tend to do that. Like me, when i watch a soap opera. I live it, breathe it, and act it. Finally, I believe it.

That's why Christians are protesting.

[Eric High]

The facts are that the entire truth of anything from that era is obscured at best by man's inability to agree on anything over a long period of time. The Da Vinci Code is fiction and much like the Vatican the author is laughing all the way to the bank. Of course, Catholicism is one of the finest examples of fiction becoming reality over time. Though, unlike the Vatican the author will probably never be able to OWN his own bank or corporations. How Christ-like the papal system has become over time. Really, with a history like that of Catholicism's it is no wonder they are loathed in many parts of the world. Their ritualism and zionistic narcisism ("we're the ONE TRUE religion") has doomed them over time. They will die out or fracture into many smaller annoyances. They spit in the face of human inteligence and ask their followers to ignore common sense and logic. When will mankind evolve above this base need for blind faith? If there is a God IT not HE (I would not dare to humanize something so powerful) is too inteligent and beyond anything we could ever imagine as to delegate authority to something as vile as organized religion has proven to be (especially catholicism).

[timothy]

India-born entrepreneurs empower US voters

Shukoor Ahmed ran for a seat in the Maryland House of Delegates in 1998, after coming to America a decade earlier from Hyderabad, India. Campaigning door-to-door, he was surprised so many voters did not know who represented them!

After his race ended slightly short of victory, he took advantage of his Master’s degree in Computer Technology and Political Science to build StateDemocracy.org, a website he launched in 2001 to connect citizens and lawmakers. His website’s motto encapsulated its mission:



http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14788279

[Dissertation Structure]

Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!