Right, so why don't people realize that the Da Vinci Code claims to contain Facts?

[The Last Conformist]

Many don't believe that the some of the religions upon which Christianity was based did, in fact, believe that either Jesus was the Messiah and of the divinity of the Messiah figure. In fact the only people capable of having such a belief were those that knew what a 'Messiah' is! A definition of 'Messiah' is needed here.

No it isn't, because the Qumran community did not accord any religious significance to Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Speedo]

That is actually plausable at those times and well written, which the Da Vinci code is none of them and is actualy slanderous, so the comparisions are not quite corect for you to even mention Tom Clancy with the name of Dan Brown. Clancy is a fine writer whereas Brown is not.

Plausibility is irrelevant to the topic. Both books/writer present fairly fantastical events as facts, with no supporting [factual] evidence.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I can't recall Clancy hitting anywhere outside the narrative that his stories have any factual basis. Has he?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Why don't people realize that this is what you call "good fiction"?
Tom Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October" also "claims" that it's events of a superman named Jack Ryan helping the US gov't steal a Soviet missile sub "actually happened", but I don't see people out protesting it. Or the thousands of other books written in the same manner.

We all know the answer Speedo, it's called Religious Intolerance

 

[Abaddon]

Its quite simple, some fundies are idiots.

 

[Perfection]

So, because the book is broadly 'fiction' and full of lies, its claims to truth should be ignored rather than disproved? Seems awfully cynical of you to suggest ignoring liars that way.

Ignoring known liars is a rather logical thing in my view. That's why I don't bother disproving the nationl enquirer. I already know its probobly wrong, so I leave it at that and move on.

 

[IglooDame]

Why don't people realize that this is what you call "good fiction"?

Tom Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October" also "claims" that it's events of a superman named Jack Ryan helping the US gov't steal a Soviet missile sub "actually happened", but I don't see people out protesting it. Or the thousands of other books written in the same manner.

That was my first thought as well - and the note that "according to the US and Soviet governments, the following never happened" was pretty clever (and, factual to boot). Or am I confusing the book with the movie?

Anyway, Hunt for Red October was derived from a Soviet destroyer that "defected" and nearly made it to Sweden, so in that sense Clancy's book is not entirely fantasy either.

 

[Mathilda]

Yes, I am annoyed at people in the other thread not reading what I posted several times.

Anybody who says "it's fiction" as an argument for Brown's being allowed to lie will be reported to the moderators. You must have missed both what Dan Brown wrote and what I wrote, and I won't have that sort of spam here.

I believe I was one one of those people annoying you.
The reason?
When I picked up the book I knew it was fiction.
Unfortunately I don't have the book here now, so I can't check why it was, but after having read the first page I was still under the impression that I was reading fiction. I have a vague memory that after the often quoted sentence it says something about this and that is fiction. I was even left under the impression that the stuff about Opus Dei was his imagination. That there is such an organisation, but what he tells about them is not based on fact.
Maybe I just imagined this. Maybe someone who actually has the book at hand could check what does it actually say on that first page. Apart from the truth claim.
When I finished reading the book I was left with annoyance about some details, but overall I thought it was a decent story.

 

[Markus6]

Why don't people realize that this is what you call "good fiction"?

We all know the answer Speedo, it's called Religious Intolerance

Or there's the other option: it isn't good fiction, it's poorly written, uses other people's conspiracy theories with a couple of 'puzzles' that might keep a 5 year old entertained (while the expert cryptologist is stumped for pages).

 

[.Shane.]

Now all we need is a thread titled: " Right, so why don't people realize that the Da Vinci Code SUCKS?"

 

[Truronian]

This reminds me of the Asian woman who believed the 'based story is true story' message at the beginning of Fargo and went searching for the buried treasure in Minnesota (although I think this anecdote may have been debunked).

 

[Red Stranger]

Why does it matter? Every fiction book contains some facts.

 

[luiz]

The great problem of the "Da Vince Code" is that it is crappy literature. Dan Brown is onle lousy author.

Why did it sell so much? Well, people just love religion-related topics and conspiracies. He combined the two, in one unholy and extremely popular piece of sh**

 

[Phlegmak]

Anybody who says "it's fiction" as an argument for Brown's being allowed to lie will be reported to the moderators. You must have missed both what Dan Brown wrote and what I wrote, and I won't have that sort of spam here.

Calm down! This website is WAY overmoderated.

 

[Kozmos]

The media tell the people what to believe and I tell the media what to believe. Its really quite simple.

 

[VoodooAce]

Now all we need is a thread titled: " Right, so why don't people realize that the Da Vinci Code SUCKS?"

Or 'Right, so why do people care if a movie based on a fictitious book that is, itself, based on a fictitious book is completely accurate, or not'.

When I read 'the code' I knew that it was going to be largely fiction because the bible is largely fiction.

If you had no problems with 'the passion' then you should probably shut up about this movie. And vice versa.

Its all just entertainment to me.

 

[Markus6]

Or 'Right, so why do people care if a movie based on a fictitious book that is, itself, based on a fictitious book is completely accurate, or not'.

I assume the book your saying the Da Vinci code was based on is 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

This is a lie. Many of his descriptions are also fiction.

It bears repeating because nobody seemed to notice it on the other thread...

Yes, I am annoyed at people in the other thread not reading what I posted several times.

Anybody who says "it's fiction" as an argument for Brown's being allowed to lie will be reported to the moderators. You must have missed both what Dan Brown wrote and what I wrote, and I won't have that sort of spam here.

Claiming that the text of a work of fiction is wholly or in part factual is a common literary device that is present in countless books. To take anything in a fictional book seriously without fact checking it first is extremely foolish. It is not the responsibility of authors, even mediocre ones like Dan Brown, to hold your hand and tell you its all a lie. They reasonably assume that when you find their book in the FICTION section you will not be taking the contents of the book as truth regardless of whatever "Facts" it may claim therein.

 

[Urederra]

Claiming that the text of a work of fiction is wholly or in part factual is a common literary device that is present in countless books. To take anything in a fictional book seriously without fact checking it first is extremely foolish.

I have yet to find somebody who really believes that everything in the book is true. That is not the point. The point is that some lies Brown wrote hurt. And I am talking about the practices the Opus Dei members perform in the book, like Opus Dei monks using cilices to wash out their sins. First of all Opus Dei has not monks, albino or not. Second they don't indulge in self-mutilation. So, ImHO, I can understand that some members of this organization might be upset because of the calumnies directed to them. specially when the book has a prologue entitled FACT: stating that the 'secret rituals' described in the book are accurate.

You might think they are overreacting, but put yourself in their situation. Suppose there is a book where the group you belong to kills and eats immigrants. Lets say, for example, that you are from Andorra and there is a book where all people form Andorra are depicted as cannibals, and although it is known that is a fiction book, it states in the prologue that the cannibalistic acts described in the book are for real. Wouldn't you be upset?

It is not the responsibility of authors, even mediocre ones like Dan Brown, to hold your hand and tell you its all a lie.

I would be happy if he wouldn't have told me that is all facts.

They reasonably assume that when you find their book in the FICTION section you will not be taking the contents of the book as truth regardless of whatever "Facts" it may claim therein.

A friend of mine gave me the book as a present.

 

[Rhymes]

What the hell is the matter with that issue? It's a novel, such controversy is only a marketing tactic.
Its just like WWF (aka WWE) Everybody knows its fake and lives with it very well, but you'll still find some idiots whnning and arguing about wrestling being fake.