« "And the truth is no one will ever know the truth." | Main | Need help writing a review of TDVC movie? »


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.


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).


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.


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.



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.


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).


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:


Dissertation Structure

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

The comments to this entry are closed.