The Da Vinci Load...
...of crap
Just had to publish this.
First, the backstory:
Brian Briggs' trailer review for The Da Vinci Code on BBspot.com. While I have an agreement rate of only 25%-50% with him, I still find his reviews funny. Something's funny about basing your entire opinion of a movie on the trailer only.
Second, my response:
--
Hi,
Somehow I missed this trailer review until I came across the link to it in the last mailbag. While reading, I noticed this line from the review in particular:
"...the people who think this is a 'controversial' film. You know who you are, and you don't read BBspot."
I would like to point out three things:
1) I think The Da Vinci Code is controversial,
2) I know who I am, and
3) I read BBspot, regularly in fact.
So perhaps the line should have read: "the people who think this is a 'controversial' film. You know who you are, and at least one of you reads BBspot." Although, now that I write that, I think your line is funnier, if less factual. Again, I guess that's why you're the humor writer and I'm not.
I guess you can feel free to mock me in your next mailbag, or do whatever it is you prefer to do with e-mails from people who take religion seriously.
-Joe B.
--
Brian actually published it in his mailbag. It can be seen here.
Third, a reader responds to my e-mail, which Brian is kind enough to forward to me:
--
I would like to reply to this reader if you don’t mind. My rant begins here:
As a person who takes religion seriously enough to be a pastor, I still don’t understand why anyone would see this movie or the book as, in any way, controversial. The key to this not being controversial is to realize that these are works of fiction. The story is told in a compelling manner, but raises no issue that has not been thoroughly discredited both in centuries past and present.
As a pastor, I love it when Hollywood does this kind of stuff. Anything that gets people to thinking about faith, religion, and its place in life is not a bad thing to me.
I have learned that having better answers is not as important as asking better questions. So here goes: Why is this book/film so controversial to you? What can you do to address the controversy that this book/movie raises in you?
Gil
--
Now, my response. I actually thought about posting a similar article earlier, in response to a PvP comic strip published on May 18th, but decided not to, filing it under the "preaching to the converted" category. But this has prompted me to write out my formal objection to this argument and post it.
--
"No one should take offense to The Da Vinci Code because it is a work of fiction, and as such should not be taken seriously."
Recently I've heard this line of reasoning expressed by a few other people, in response to anyone who takes offense at The Da Vinci Code. The general reasoning here, it seems, is that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, an claimed to be so by the author, so thusly nothing it says should stir up any reaction from anyone because you should not be taking it seriously.
Oh, how I love this argument. The implication of this is that I can say whatever I want, just so long as I make clear that what I'm saying is fiction, and if you get upset about it, you're creating the controversy, not me. With fiction, I can make any claims I want, posit any theories, and defame any person. But since it is fiction, it's all OK.
On that note, I think I'll write a book about how all black people are serial rapists and Jews sacrifice babies as part of their daily worship. Oh, but no need to take offense; it'll be entirely fictitious.
Or have I crossed the line?
Obviously, one would argue that this hypothetical book is offensive because, even though the characters and events are fictitious, it has a very racist premise that is either trying to offend those it shows bigotry towards, or stir up hatred in those who are open to the offensive ideas posited by the book.
But The Da Vinci Code is different, right? Dan Brown is not trying to posit any anti-Christian theories is he? No, of course it isn't supposed to be taken seriously. It's just a cracking good mystery/thriller, right? After all, who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory? And for conspiracy theories, nothing beats the Catholic Church. It's so easy to believe such an ancient organization must have more than its share of secret sects to act for its preservation and more than its share of skeletons in the closet from the works of those secret sects. How can that not make for good fiction?
So here we embark on the conspiracy that for thousands of years a giant conspiracy has existed to hide the truth about Jesus. Sounds like a great read!
But let's take a step back here. In order for fiction to be enjoyable as such, the reader must open himself to the work's premise and believe it to be true, if only temporarily. And with The Da Vinci Code, what is this premise? That the Catholic Church and most of the rest of Christianity exist to repress women and strip them of any spiritual power. In the author's own words (taken from his website):
"Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred... and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future."
So according to Dan Brown himself, over the last two millenia, women have been denigrated and stripped of spiritual power, and his novel puts forth the theory, for the reader's consideration, that this is primarily the fault of Christianity.
I don't know about you, but the idea that Christianity exists to supress women seems a little "controversial" to me.
I suppose I should be thanking those people who keep telling me and others that we shouldn't be upset with The Da Vinci Code because it's only fiction. After all, they're only confirming what we're trying to say, that the book is completely false, right?
Well, I try to be thankful that they're making my point for me, but I can't shake one nagging feeling: that the insistance that this is merely fiction and is OK for anyone to read may actually be harmful to those who are not well grounded in their faith in Christ. It seems to me that the insidious nature of the book comes from the fact that one would pick it up, believing it to be only fiction, then walking away taking the themes of the book to heart.
While The Da Vinci Code may be fiction, the sources and inspirations it is based on are not written as such. Within his text, Brown actually cites some of these non-fiction works: The Gnostic Gospels; The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ; and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, to name a few. With these works, it is obvious and upfront what the agenda of the author is. A Christian reader knows what to expect. But with The Da Vinci Code, what Brown has done is taken the anti-Christian themes and theories of these other works and wrapped them in an intriguing, easily swallowed package, such that one who doesn't know what to expect and is not well grounded or knowledgable of Christian faith may begin to think there is something to Brown's ideas.
And perhaps this is exactly what Brown wants. Again, to quote him from his website:
"My sincere hope is that The Da Vinci Code, in addition to entertaining people, will serve as an open door for readers to begin their own explorations."
So Brown himself says he wishes readers to use his book as a starting point to begin their own spiritual journeys. But is it really wise to start such a journey from a point that is in such opposition to the Truth?
You say that anything that gets people to thinking about faith, religion, and its place in life is not a bad thing to you. Another line I've also heard is "good fiction makes you think and thinking is never bad." I'm afraid I can only agree with this if the thought process that is encouraged is one that urges the thinker on in a positive manner towards the truth of Christ and His Church. Something that leads people astray from Christ cannot be good.
Again, you ask me "What can you do to address the controversy that this book/movie raises in you?" Make no mistake, there is no controversy within me over this book and movie. I am fortunate enough to have been brought up solidly grounded in my Christian faith. I thank God every day for this and it will take more than a book full of false-hoods like The Da Vinci Code to raise doubt in my mind about Christ's divinity and sacrifice for mankind.
However, not everyone is as fortunate as I am. For those who do not have a firm, strong belief in Christ, this book can be disasterous in their spiritual journey towards God. Make no mistake, people are losing their faith and falling away from God because of this. In an article about the problems of The Da Vinci Code, a Catholic magazine printed some letters from readers:
"I own a Catholic bookstore. We are getting bombarded daily by people who are buying into the garbage in this book. You cannot believe how many people have been exposed to this book. . . . We even had an elderly aunt talking about Opus Dei tonight and yelling at us that the book is true or it couldn't be printed."
They even received a letter from a former Lutheran who was having a crisis of faith:
"Honestly, [reading the book] shook my whole faith. I realize that the book is fiction, but much of what he wrote about seemed like it was based on historical facts aside from the characters. Since I am not a Christian scholar I don't even know where to begin to refute these claims.... If Christianity is nothing more than a big accommodation, it becomes relegated to a lifestyle choice and not a religion, which I do not want to believe."
In your spirit of asking better questions being better than providing better answers, I close with these two questions.
Have you addressed your congregation about the anti-Christian errors and false-hoods contained within this book? It may be that your congregation is wise enough and with a good enough spiritual education to recognize the book as false. If that is the case, you should be commended for brining people closer to God. However, it may also be that there are those in your flock who are experiencing crises of faith because they have taken the message of The Da Vinci Code to heart.
Secondly, do you pray for those who have fallen away from God because they bought into the ideas of this book? I firmly believe that by uniting in prayer, we might overcome the evil that has been done and bring those that have been lead astray back into God's fold.
In Christ,
Joseph Belland
P.S. My main sources:
Envoy Magazine: http://envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-part1.htm
Crisis Magazine: http://www.crisismagazine.com/specialreport.htm
Scott Kurtz, author of the PvP online comic strip had a blog entry on the subject, which can be found here: http://www.pvponline.com/newspro/archives/arc4-2006.html. Scroll down to the entry for May 18th.
He also wrote a comic strip on the controversy that is funny even though it misses the point: http://pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20060518
--
So... do I suck as an apologist?
Here's the real Da Vinci Code: realdvcode.ytmnd.com.
ReplyDeletePut it together and what do you have?
30 extra lives.
But the consequences of knowing it might be more than you can handle.
Oh, and George Lucas lied.
Joe, awesome response. My husband is obsessed with refuting "da Code." I'll have to have him read it.
ReplyDeleteLooks like you learned the pastor a thing or two. Would love to see his response. You have a gift for apologetics and for writing. Hats off to you!
< rant>
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the "it’s a work of fiction" defense can ONLY apply to those fictional pieces of story that are necessary to move the plot along. For example the Force is "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together." We know that no such thing is true, but it is a necessary component to build the universe George Lucas wants to immerse us in and move the plot along. So we take it as such. Now say that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire contained the following quote: “Harry we all know that Christ is but a weak god figure and that magic is real”… Do explain to me how any such line would be necessary to move the plot along. I find it especially unnecessary in Return of the King when Legolas says “Aragorn, if it wasn’t for those dirty Jews making up the Holocaust just to kick the Orcs out of their own land, we wouldn’t be fighting this unjust war.” How does that really affect the plot?
So explain to me how Dan Brown can get away with such blatant historical inaccuracies a claiming that Constantine made Christianity the official religion to stop the warring Christian and Pagan armies. What Christian army?!?! Was it the one that was being fed to the lions in the coliseum?!?! Don’t forget the beautiful cinematography we are treated to in the movie of the two armies clashing in an historical flashback. How about the conspiracy at the Council of Nicea designed to force the belief that Jesus was divine? It is historical fact that the council already new that, and that the controversy of the time was whether or not Jesus was fully human (historical spoiler: they determined yes, He is fully human). Further Dan Brown claims that the Apostles knew that Jesus was just an extraordinary, good fellow. You know the kind of extraordinary, good fellow that apparently ten out of eleven disciples were willing to die horrible painful death in His name. Perhaps I heard wrong in the movie, but it also sounded like Dan Brown claimed that Peter didn’t want to cede power to Mary Magdalene as Jesus intended. How is this necessary to the plot if evil white guys are going to cover her role up 300 years later in Nicea anyway? How is warring Christian armies necessary to the plot of a conspiracy of a few white guys stealing power? Why is any of this necessary when you could just as easily write it all off as some random Pope did it all!?!?
The overwhelming majority of what “historical facts” I heard in the movie were not necessary to the plot at all. The Catholic Church has never been in any official way oppressive to women. On the contrary, it raised women up by ending the trafficking of wives like cattle when it said monogamy was the way to go, and it venerates the other Mary, that insignificant character in the Bible that bore Jesus as her Son. It has also been at the forefront of ending slavery everywhere the Church went. Dan Brown also paints Paganism as just as good as anything else. Ritualistic and group sex are perfectly alright as they blatantly and unnecessarily showed in the movie.
Are his unnecessary “historical facts” there to boost up pagan beliefs and rituals bordering on satanic rituals (bordering, my arse! I think they were), or to tear down Christian beliefs? I don’t know, but they seem to have accomplish both. Makes you wonder what for?
< /rant>
Oh, yeah, not bad Joe. Pretty good letter. Didn't realise that was you that wrote that on BBSpot when I read it. He didn't have a very good comeback to your letter.
Got a response from Pastor Gil:
ReplyDelete"In response to your questions, yes, I have spoken and held specific discussion groups about this book. I think that one of the reasons that this book may not raise as many angry feelings in the denomination I am called to be part of is that it historically has accepted and approved of women in leadership, so one of the main things that would raise questions or possibly cause anger has not impacted us as much. I am not saying that Dan’s book is accurate, or not dangerous if read by someone in a vulnerable place, but what I am saying is that the world is going to take its cue from our response. If we react too strongly in the negative, the world will consider that it may have struck a sore point, and then will belabor that point ad nauseum. Our church has actually benefited in new membership because we were willing to discuss the book. One of the things we are trying to discipline ourselves to do is to listen to the culture outside of our church to hear what questions it is asking about spirituality, and then engaging them where they are. I think that my concern is not whether to engage over this, but the way we engage the culture. I understand and to a limited extent agree with what you are saying, but see a need to be cautious in the way we approach this. We have a specific call to be agents of reconciliation, and in performing that, we need to not beat people over their heads. I definitely agree with your call to prayer. The key to bringing these souls into the kingdom, be they lost before the book or after the book, is prayer. The area of the country that I live in is the least churched area of the country, the pacific northwest. It breaks my heart to see so many who are lost, floundering their way, and grasping at whatever looks good. Please be praying for my ministry out here that God will open hearts to His kingdom and His way of being and doing what is right. Thank you for your response. I think that we in the church need to better listen to each other, maybe in doing that we can become a bride again instead of a harem."
Hm, maybe he isn't so bad after all. It sounds like our disagreement is in the proper response (angry and irate vs. pat-on-the-back "there, there, it's ok").
Any suggestions on a reply to him?
Tom, nice rant! You and Joe are two apologists in a pod!
ReplyDeleteTom, nice rant! You and Joe are two apologists in a pod!
ReplyDeleteWell, he seems to be an open communicator, willing to listen to the views and beliefs of others. Although he does not seem to understand Catholicism and the roles of females within The Church.
ReplyDeleteFor example:
"I think that one of the reasons that this book may not raise as many angry feelings in the denomination I am called to be part of is that it historically has accepted and approved of women in leadership, so one of the main things that would raise questions or possibly cause anger has not impacted us as much."
This is a very telling sentance, it starts by saying Catholics are feeling "anger", while attempting to legitimize the validity of his protestant denomination and affirming its validity by refrencing "historical presidence" of "women in leadership", and finally ascerting that one of the "main things that would raise questions or possibly cause anger" does not apply to their "denomination".
The challenge I have is seeing promise in his intentions while being offended by his "I'm ok, you're ok" justifications of his denomination.
Whatever vague "historical" relavance this "pastor" claims, shows little to no understanding of The Church's efforts to combat misinformation.
I am surprised that he would gain "new membership" to his church based off of questions regarding a work that is anti-Catholic. If the new members felt challenged by the book to seek understanding of what is true, why would the answer be found in some no-name-given denominational "church" that does not teach Universal (aka: Catholic) Truth?
Well, if he is misinformed, the best combat to his ignorance is information. For what he does not know, can be instructed.
For instance, I am not angry at the author of the book inasmuch as I am offended and hurt by the defamation of the core tenents of my faith. While I do not expect people not of The Faith to understand, I will not deny that it also pains me to hear when people take the oppertunity from learning about those who were injured (Catholics and Catholicism) and promoting thier own, Non-Catholic "flavor" of Christ's work.
Much like the author of the work of fiction, this pastor is using this work of fiction to promote his non-Catholic/anti-Catholic plank.
~The Blue Fox
Your mother is a murdering whore. No, she really isn't, and you shouldn't get upset about what I just said.
ReplyDeleteThis is the summary view of people who say "It's just fiction." "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was just fiction, and so were Hitler's anti-semitic films. Were they also influential?
I've read comments from a lot of people about this topic, and, whenever somebody gets upset about Davinci Code (DVC), somebody invariably says something about the upset person burying his head in the sand. Many of these people are also evangelicals. What, your not upset that somebody calls your beloved Savior a Jewish Rabbi horndog who's real intention was to set up a line of bumbling French kings?
Where does it say that I can't be enraged and willing to engage other people with kindness and charity? One is just, the other is an act of love, and both are necessary.
[quote]
ReplyDeleteThe general reasoning here, it seems, is that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction
[/quote]
Well, the Bible is a work of fiction too, so who cares...
First off I will say I'm religious, Lutheran if you want to get technical. How ever there are issues I have with your argument. However what you believe is what you believe I'd just like to show you a few things you may not have thought of
ReplyDeleteNow granted I haven't read the book or seen the movie, Due to the fact I have no time to read nor do I like to I don't have the money to get to movies as I like.
In you statement "On that note, I think I'll write a book about how all black people are serial rapists and Jews sacrifice babies as part of their daily worship." Lets Dissect that for one second "all black people" this is an entire community through the world of black people, some are Christian, in which case you are in sense trying to say that the black family that just joined you church are all rapist. Likewise, "Jews sacrifice babies as part of their daily worship" Christianity came from Judaism, which hasn't changed that much in 2000 years; therefore, why aren't you doing it.
I know you were talking about making fiction books, but the two groups you chose. Blacks not only were they enslaved for hundreds of years, but after they were "free" they still had no legislative power, and they were raped beaten and tortured, for one second imagine if you were black and you were falsely accused got pulled down the road behind a truck, whipped and left to bleed to death, then some self-righteous prick writes a book that implies that you are a serial rapist. Jews, were also persecuted by Hitler because they were below him, starved and beaten, and then exterminated much like an insect. If you want to prove you point titles like: All Whites are Racist Pricks, U.S. Justice: The System that Never Fails, or Nazi’s: The Best Thing since Sliced Bread.
Yet when it comes down to it the two groups that deserve what is coming are white Christians. Not only did we come to the Americas and force people of there lands, kill them and confine them to "reservations," then start up a slave trade, trade black people as goods. Then we look a t Christianity, forcing religion on the Native Americans, and black people. As well as forcing it on Latin America and many other groups that have beliefs of there own.
"I don't know about you, but the idea that Christianity exists to suppress women seems a little "controversial" to me." In a way this isn't "controversial" Greek, Roman and Egyptian culture hade male and female God (ess), and boom Jewish, Muslim, and Christian religions pop up and we have one God, referred to as GOD or he, the women's role has disappeared, and Jesus was his son, all 12 apostles were men... maybe its just because I watch to many kids shows with my daughter, but I think I see a pattern.
"While The Da Vinci Code may be fiction, the sources and inspirations it is based on are not written as such. Within his text, Brown actually cites some of these non-fiction works: The Gnostic Gospels; The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ; and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, to name a few. With these works, it is obvious and upfront what the agenda of the author is." Are you sure that they are non-fiction, are you 100% sure the bible is non-fiction, thus not one story was made up or embellished. For all we know the bible could just be an ancient Da Vinci Code, fiction if you will.
"My sincere hope is that The Da Vinci Code, in addition to entertaining people, will serve as an open door for readers to begin their own explorations. So Brown himself says he wishes readers to use his book as a starting point to begin their own spiritual journeys. But is it really wise to start such a journey from a point that is in such opposition to the Truth?" First off what is the truth, are we certain that the writers of the bible didn't fill in stories with fiction. Also religion is personal, there are many things I believe out side of Christian faith, and that’s what it is about, Martin Luther was persecuted for saying problems that the Catholic Church had, in a way Dan Brown is a present day Martin Luther.
"They even received a letter from a former Lutheran who was having a crisis of faith:"Honestly, [reading the book] shook my whole faith. I realize that the book is fiction, but much of what he wrote about seemed like it was based on historical facts aside from the characters. Since I am not a Christian scholar I don't even know where to begin to refute these claims.... If Christianity is nothing more than a big accommodation, it becomes relegated to a lifestyle choice and not a religion, which I do not want to believe."" This person being a Lutheran doesn't understand why they are a Lutheran I was told in confirmation to always question, never to assume, that is why Luther posted the 95 theses.
"Secondly, do you pray for those who have fallen away from God because they bought into the ideas of this book?" This is a question I have, why prey for forgiveness of my sins, Jesus died for my sins, therefore as long as I accept him as lord an savior I shall be saved.
If you want to get upset about movies look at Dogma, where they claim to "pothead" are prophets, god is a female, and there were 13 apostles and Jesus was black. Look at the Omen, according to that movie there is basically no way god can save us from Hell.
I question to ask is if God and Allah are so mighty and powerful, could they in fact be one in the same? Could it possibly be that the warring factions in the Mid-East are fighting for the same omnipotent being?
Sorry if this gets posted twice, after the first time the comment page froze in the middle of posting the comment, so I'm not sure if it got through or not.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, I think I'll write a book about how all black people are serial rapists and Jews sacrifice babies as part of their daily worship. Oh, but no need to take offense; it'll be entirely fictitious.
Or have I crossed the line?
You didn't quote the line. If you write a book which uses this as a background for the story, you're fine. Some people will be offended, but they'll be wrong to.
What about all the other thrillers who present this or that faction of the CIA or NSA as murder intent maniacs, or which make up secret agreements between various intelligence agencies?
Those are fiction, and nobody cares.
Heck, there's a nice urban fantasy book by Fritz Leiber, "Conjure Wife", which is based on the premise that practically all women deal in magic, mainly black magic, often in order to progress their husband's career. But you won't find any feminist organization going up in arms to protest it.
Fiction is fiction. People should be able to know the difference. If someone takes the background of a book too seriously, it's their own problem and they should relax and get over it.
I'm a Jew myself, but if you'd give me an interesting fiction book which as a background involves all sorts of old Jewish conspiracies to take over the world, or drink the blood of Christian children, or whatnot, I'll be perfectly fine with it. (Of course whether Brown's books are good and interesting is a different question, but many of the people reading it think so, and that's what matters in this context)
So according to Dan Brown himself, over the last two millenia, women have been denigrated and stripped of spiritual power, and his novel puts forth the theory, for the reader's consideration, that this is primarily the fault of Christianity.
This, and all those other examples, are the background for the plot taking place in the book. It is only relevant to the book's "universe". This is true for things which happen to coincide exactly with reality, and for things which aren't. A work of fiction has a plot, and a background/world in which it occurs.
Many fiction books settle for just inventing a few characters who aren't real people, and many invent parts of history, or technology. It's all the same.
You won't see anyone in the department of transportation claiming that they have never ever issued a driver's license to the book's protagonist, and that it presents them in a bad light. This is the same thing.
Why is any of this necessary when you could just as easily write it all off as some random Pope did it all!?!?
Are you seriously going against anything in a book which isn't directly and actively related to a major plot point?
Have you tried reading a book with no background, no history, no backdrop for the characters to act against, no descriptions, no "life"?
You won't find many like that, because they will be as boring as hell. And with no details they will be even harder to "suspend disbelief" in than when you know the background is false and invented.
Throwing stuff off on a random pope, as you suggested, would alter the story. For better or for worse is a matter of opinion, but it will be different. Different history, different background, different motivations. Even if people will do exactly the same, which isn't at all certain, it will feel different for a reader. This IS the plot.
By your reasoning George Lucas actually could have gotten away with disposing of the Force. He could have made it psionic abilities instead, no? Or turn the Jedi into clerics who get their powers from gods. This could have been done without changing the "plot", no? But it wouldn't be the same story, and it wouldn't have the same style.
Same with this.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePrevious post deleted for language, but the jist was:
ReplyDelete"Hows about (love) you, you christian (nice)head. Are you so simple minded that you feel the need to believe in a higher being than youself just so you can justify your own existence? The Da Vince Code was written to be light entertainment NOT a piece of factual evidence against the church.
In summary I hate that type of person that you are because you are always trying to push your faith onto other people who really couldn't give a (squeaky toy) in your make believe "god" and the other filth that you put forth under the pretense of truth."
Wow! Such vitriol I've elicited! And a check mark for Wednesday.
OMFG! BBspotted!
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason that many people, including this pastor and myself, encourage things like the DVC is that they push us to question our beliefs. I haven't read it myself, but from what you have posted it seems that the DVC questions the legitimacy of the Catholic church. If a devout Catholic were to read this book, I would expect him/her to do some thinking or research on how the book misrepresents their actual faith. Often the best way to refine your own beliefs is to expose yourself to conficting ideas and arguments.
ReplyDeleteYour objection seems a bit like people with strong political opinions arguing that the other side should be silenced because they are obviously wrong. In a society of free speech, it is important to value all ideas, and especially those which we don't agree with.
I believe that religion should be a very personal thing. Everyone should come to their own conclusions about what the universe is like. If the DVC has helped some people start to think about their own personal religious values, then I would say it is a good thing, even if it is not factual.
Grant
"OMFG! BBspotted!" For some one concerned about a book causeing problems... Oh My F***ing God... You just used the lords name in vain.
ReplyDeletetl;dr
ReplyDeleteOMFG means "Oh, my food is good". Joe was eating. Weirdo.
ReplyDelete"Your objection seems a bit like people with strong political opinions arguing that the other side should be silenced"
Well, if they are just flat out slanderous and factually wrong and could be proven so just like in slander cases in court... Then yes.
...By your reasoning George Lucas actually could have gotten away with disposing of the Force...
No, an accurate analogy would be if Yoda said that all women are weak and cannot be trusted WITHOUT ACTUALLY AFFECTING THE PLOT. If it would explain why Yoda wouldn't train Leia or blah blah blah whatever... then it would be okay. But likeI said before, Peter's jealousy of Mary Magdalene is in no way related to warring christian and pagan armies or Constantine's conspiracy or later popes' cover ups. So why make the claim when it adds nothing to the plot. Why couldn't Dan Brown mention in his book that the Jews instigated the war between the Christian and Pagan armies in an attempt to profit by selling to both sides? It wouldn't make the story any more outlandish but it would certainly offend many people.
Your point justifies WHATEVER I write in a book of fiction. I couldn't disagree with you more. I only justify it if the moral of the story is acceptable and if the made up stuff that I would normally find offensive was necessary to the plot/universe.
Bible is not a book of fiction to many people... Troll.
Did anyone even notice Joe's link to Dan Brown's own website where he claims to base his book on historical facts?! "Facts" that have been proven wrong. "Facts" that never should have had to be proven wrong cause they weren't even held by sensible people. Dan Brown may just as well have written a Math text book and said 2+2=5. His math is based on facts, and his book is good because it makes us question what we know about math. Besides, its not boring like those other math books.
Maybe 2+2 can equal 5, how long was the world presumed flat? How long did scientist say that the sun revolved around the earth? As time changes new facts are revealed. Soon we will discover there is other life out there, un less you really believe that out of 100's of billions of stars and planets this one is unique. Scientist have plenty of proof that the universe was created by an explosion not by a being, whats your proof? How come "this book of facts," The Bible, says nothing about the dinosaurs and other prehistoric beings?
ReplyDeleteThe old testament his the same as DVC, a fiction novel, or folk tales at best. Obviously GOD could not have created Earth (which at the time of writing was flat) and then rest of the universe, if he did we'd be in the middle of it all. And GOD didn't just create Adam and Eve he would of had to create the Dinosaurs first, right?
Granted 2+2 cannot be five since 2 represents an absolut, I have 2 cars I have 1 child, no matter what numbers represent a specific thing they are not ideas. relgion on the other hand is an Idea, Was jesus the Mesiah or his he still to come, is the only one god, if so how is it GOD, Allah, or Buddah? Religon has no absolut if there were then the entire world would untie under one relgion, there would be no need for relgious wars. I assume we both know 1+1 is 2, but maybe I beleive in reincarnation, you beleive in an after life.
2 is an idea. I could lecture for an hour on that, but I have code I have to type tonight.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutes can be known. For example by asking the question "Do I exist?" you absolutely prove that you do.
The Bible is a book of Truth and not so much of facts. Historical facts are insignificant among the universal Truths it speaks. Think of truth as infinite and facts as finite. (Truth for example: All men are created equal. Fact for example: I am shorter than the average man)
Complaining about how "scientifically innacurate" creation is described in Genesis is like complaining about misspellings in a Math book. It cannot detract from the fact that an all powerful God created a universe to put us in. No amount of scientific proof that not all men are equal changes the Truth of our Declaration of Independence or Constitution.
Religion is the result of people searching for absolutes and Truth in the universe. The reason the world is not united under one religion is because we are imperfect at determining ALL Truth and there are evil people and forces that don't want to bend their will to the Truth. To say that if religion was absolute then everyone would agree with it, is naive b/c it assumes that no one is just plain evil and will fight against it and that everyone is smart enough to come to it.
Would argue more if I felt like I wasn't restating arguments I had back in 5th grade.
But likeI said before, Peter's jealousy of Mary Magdalene is in no way related to warring christian and pagan armies or Constantine's conspiracy or later popes' cover ups. So why make the claim when it adds nothing to the plot.
ReplyDeleteSeems like we disagree on what plot is, and what has an effect on it or not.
A good story should add atmosphere, mood, background. Good characters can, and should, have character traits which may not be directly relevant to things they do. And they may know things not relevant. It all gives the story depth. It's important. Even if everything that "happens" on the main timeline of the plot is not directly affected.
The book's plot involves groups within the church, and the believes and historical knowledge that some of these characters have. So the "real" history of the things involved in the plot matters.
If the book actually had said that the Jews did it all, like in your example, do you think people reading the book will feel it had the exact same impact, said the exact same things, and all people, groups, and beliefs involved in the "plot" were the same?
Of course not. Because it would have changed things.
This is a part of the book. And as long as the book is fiction, it can do that. Saying that a totally fictional character did something is not factually accurate. So is saying something that contradicts what we may know about events in history. The two cases aren't different.
Besides, even if you insist that there really is nothing at all beyond events taking place in a plot, and all else in a book is redundant, how do you know it's not relevant?
There may be a sequel, or a prequel, or it may gain popularity and you'll see other writers getting permission to write additional novels in the "DVC" universe.
Heck, it happened in Star Wars. If Yoda did have something against women, which was not relevant to the plots of the movies at all, it still might have been relevant to the plot of a different book, or computer game, or whatever, done in that universe.
When that happens, it goes much better to use a pre-existing element, then to invent it as a background that wasn't mentioned.
The richer (in details) the original story/world is, the more "organic" does it feel when it gets expanded.
Real life has many things not relevant to the "plot" of many people's lives. That doesn't make all those details redundant and needless.
Your point justifies WHATEVER I write in a book of fiction. I couldn't disagree with you more. I only justify it if the moral of the story is acceptable and if the made up stuff that I would normally find offensive was necessary to the plot/universe.
OK, so basically you're objecting to this book on the same grounds you probably object to most of all the SF or Fantasy books, and to many other thrillers beside Brown's?
Anything presented in a book, and a book of fiction at that, which you find offensive is enough to make the book "bad", instead of just not to your taste?
There are plenty of serious non-fiction books that hold opinions contradictory, and offensive, to some other people. If those contradict facts, it's bad.
But to stretch that to works of fiction is something I don't understand. When I read a fiction book I put everything going on there as a part of the "book X universe", and that's that.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to read almost any fiction at all.
Did anyone even notice Joe's link to Dan Brown's own website where he claims to base his book on historical facts?! "Facts" that have been proven wrong.
Yes.
There was a lot of noise after the book was published on how he claims to have done real research for background while most of his research was nonsense and fictitious.
But the book was still published as fiction. Just because the writer claims to have done good homework for the background doesn't make it so, and isn't really relevant. Not as long as Dan Brown isn't a historical authority, which he isn't, or publishes a non-fiction book with this, which he didn't.
I remember at one time being really annoyed at noticing a totally and completely bogus medical references to some disease I have a good knowledge of, in a novel by an author who usually does near impeccable background research.
I still shrugged it off with an "oh, well, fiction", instead of starting to think maybe people will consider it solid medical advice and start to die en-mass from bad treatment.
And that was after a number of well researched novels. Though the research was usually on non-medical aspects but on modern history, politics, military, etc.
I'm mentioning this because Dan Brown DOESN'T have a personal history of publishing well researched books, on anything. So it's not even possible to say people will assume he did as good a work as usual on DVC. Nobody has a reason to take his word for anything. Especially on a book still published as fiction, and especially after all the media noise on how bad his alleged research was.
"Facts" that never should have had to be proven wrong cause they weren't even held by sensible people.
Sorry for deviating a little off-topic, but generally speaking facts have very little to do with whether people are sensible or not. They are, or aren't. A matter of proof and knowledge.
Beliefs are held by people, sensible or not. Facts aren't.
Absolutes can be known. For example by asking the question "Do I exist?" you absolutely prove that you do.
Ah, yes. You prove that you exist. But not that you're not Sun-Tzu in a fever pitch dreaming that he's you.
Complaining about how "scientifically innacurate" creation is described in Genesis is like complaining about misspellings in a Math book.
Hmm... I don't know. After all, these inaccuracies are very relevant to the plot. They're sometimes a part of the plot, actually.
So you're saying that the bible, at least for believers, have truths which transcend the details of the plot. Yes?
Regardless of one is a believer or not, actually, that only determines if someone agrees with the truths. There are other books, religious or not, trying to pass other truths or falsehoods, and they do that regardless of whether the reader agrees or not.
But regular fiction books have something similar, trying to provide either some smaller truths, or just a general sense and feeling for the book for pure entertainment purposes.
By saying facts are not relevant, in a sense you do say that the bible is a work of fiction, but that it doesn't essentially matter since the bible isn't about the specific facts and plot lines.
Fine, I can accept that. Most people, even those who entirely disagree with Christianity and Judaism, can accept that on principal, even if not agree that the truths it tries to impart are really true.
So why is that so different that you believe that all others works of fiction (in the meaning of fiction as containing details and "facts" that are somehow different from reality) don't have anything at all whatsoever in them beyond actual occurrences in the described plot?
Ten writers can write the same plot in ten different ways (possibly more), and each will be an entirely different story even if the events are the same.
I think people should feel free to be offended. The God that Christians believe in is supposed to have given us free will, so choose away.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the flip side of that coin is to allow everyone else the same right you say your chosen god has given you. To suggest the suppression of something because it goes against what you claim to be the truth makes you a hypocrite. The belief that only thinking in ways that promote your particular dogma should be encouraged implies that you don't believe anyone should be allowed to present alternatives and everyone should be discouraged from considering alternatives. That's not a very Christian belief.
The Bible is largely an interpreted work. If it weren't it wouldn't be possible to come up with justifications for things like suppression of non-whites, the crusades, etc. from the text. In addition, every Christian church would teach the same things. These things do happen, though. From that point of view I believe that it is extremely important thing to encourage people to think and not suppress any line of thought. After all, the way in which one pastor interprets a particular verse of the Bible may not be what was intended by the original author.
That's just one small example and perhaps easily considered not to be pertinent, but the argument extends much further. There is no question that women have long been considered as subservient to men, certainly by organisations such as the Catholic Church, and it is only recently that this has really begun to change. There is a branch of His People at the university I attended and they made no secret of the fact that they seriously believed women to be inferior and that their proper place really was at home, barefoot in the kitchen. Certainly a small branch of His People, but presumably informed by the greater part of the organisation.
There are two ways that one's faith can go in questioning anything that has to do with that faith, it can become stronger, or it can become weaker. If it becomes stronger then I'm sure you'd agree that the questioning was a good thing, but you make the assumption that questioning of things related to one's faith must lead (those of "weak" faith) astray. This conveniently ignores the question of why their faith is weak in the first place. It also assumes that there is no open avenue for them to use to bring their questions to someone that might answer their questions in ways that strengthen their faith. As far as I can see there is no good reason to believe that the sort of questions that might be asked out of reading something like The Da Vinci Code (no, I haven't read and couldn't be bothered, really. Apparently it's a really badly written book with pathetic characterisation) should inevitably lead anyone away from their faith.
Instead of discouraging questions (which is the sort of thing tyrants do), encourage it, but also encourage answering the questions.
I think people should feel free to be offended. The God that Christians believe in is supposed to have given us free will, so choose away.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the flip side of that coin is to allow everyone else the same right you say your chosen god has given you. To suggest the suppression of something because it goes against what you claim to be the truth makes you a hypocrite. The belief that only thinking in ways that promote your particular dogma should be encouraged implies that you don't believe anyone should be allowed to present alternatives and everyone should be discouraged from considering alternatives. That's not a very Christian belief.
The Bible is largely an interpreted work. If it weren't it wouldn't be possible to come up with justifications for things like suppression of non-whites, the crusades, etc. from the text. In addition, every Christian church would teach the same things. These things do happen, though. From that point of view I believe that it is extremely important thing to encourage people to think and not suppress any line of thought. After all, the way in which one pastor interprets a particular verse of the Bible may not be what was intended by the original author.
That's just one small example and perhaps easily considered not to be pertinent, but the argument extends much further. There is no question that women have long been considered as subservient to men, certainly by organisations such as the Catholic Church, and it is only recently that this has really begun to change. There is a branch of His People at the university I attended and they made no secret of the fact that they seriously believed women to be inferior and that their proper place really was at home, barefoot in the kitchen. Certainly a small branch of His People, but presumably informed by the greater part of the organisation.
There are two ways that one's faith can go in questioning anything that has to do with that faith, it can become stronger, or it can become weaker. If it becomes stronger then I'm sure you'd agree that the questioning was a good thing, but you make the assumption that questioning of things related to one's faith must lead (those of "weak" faith) astray. This conveniently ignores the question of why their faith is weak in the first place. It also assumes that there is no open avenue for them to use to bring their questions to someone that might answer their questions in ways that strengthen their faith. As far as I can see there is no good reason to believe that the sort of questions that might be asked out of reading something like The Da Vinci Code (no, I haven't read and couldn't be bothered, really. Apparently it's a really badly written book with pathetic characterisation) should inevitably lead anyone away from their faith.
Instead of discouraging questions (which is the sort of thing tyrants do), encourage it, but also encourage answering the questions.
Ok, normally I don't feel the need to post twice in a discussion. If I couldn't convince someone the first time, no additional posts will change their mind.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I feel I need to correct certain impressions that some people have inferred from my original post.
First, lets review the history:
1) Brian Briggs humorously said that people who find the DVC controversial don't read BBspot.
2) I replied, humorously, saying I find it controversial and read BBspot. (Note I said that I took religion seriously; some people inferred that I meant anyone who takes religion seriously will find DVC controversial; this was not my meaning.)
3) Pastor Gil (God bless him) replied to me and said that he didn't find DVC controversial because it is fiction.
4) This lead to my post, about why I find the DVC controversial. My main points were that DVC is controversial because:
a) Despite being published as fiction, I believe the author wants you to believe some of it as fact and use it as a starting point for your own spiritual journey, which I believe is a bad idea.
b) Despite it being fiction, people are buying into and believing it as fact and, as such, are losing their faith.
Note: Pastor Gil responded to me with a very satisfactory answer. He and I essentially agree that the book is full of false-hoods and that it is important that people understand this. He has used the book, actually, to bring people to God by giving them correct answers to the questions of the book. I think this is exactly the right approach to have to it.
Note things that I have NOT said:
1) I have not said that I think DVC should be banned, regulated, or in any way supressed.
2) I have not said that it is wrong to ask questions of your faith.
Yet, some people have seen fit to put words into my mouth and compare me with a tyrant or a suppressive government. I'm not exactly sure where they came up with those ideas. Oh well, I can't control peoples thoughts. They can believe what they wish.
I don't believe DVC should be supressed by the government because, in the end, it is free speech.
I also don't believe it is wrong to ask questions of your faith. Actually, I learned my faith (Catholicism, if you hadn't guessed by now) through a series of questions (Who made us? Who is God? Why did God make us? etc.). (A word of caution: The website "Truecatholic.org" is actually run by a schizmatic organization that is not in union with the Catholic Church. I only link to them because, it's the only online version of the 1941 Baltimore Catechism I could find.) My problems with the DVC is that it asks questions, then provides readers with the wrong answers. If you are smart enough to recognize the book as fiction (as it seems most of the posters who arrived here from BBspot are), then I really don't see any problems with you reading the book. However, if someone reads it and takes it seriously (as many have), they need to be provided with the correct answers to the questions of the book, which is exactly what many people (including, seemingly, Pastor Gil) are trying to do.
Oh, and Tom, good luck with that "it shouldn't be there because it's not relevant to the plot" argument. Sorry, buddy, but I disagree with you on that one. You're on your own defending it.
I echo Joe's sentiment entirely.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I hope you d't actually think I'm against it in the story if it aint relevant. I'm against it in the story if it ain't relevant and its morally unacceptable. I was more appeasing the non-catholics with that statement. Several people I know would disregard the whole story if one morally unacceptable item was in the story (ie people I know who think Star Wars is subversive). I'm saying, you can throw morally offensive material into a story if it actually pertains to the plot (the plot is assumed be of a high moral stature).
Quick EG: The sex scene in Jerry McGuire, morally unacceptable b/c that could have panned/wiped/whatever to omething else and the plot/characters would have developed just the same. The sex scene in Rain Man, morally acceptable b/c it flushed out just how innocent Raymond is and how morally digusting Charlie was. This made for a great moment that the chacters could develop away from, and the plot took full avantage of it.
Does that fit with your reasoning, Joe?
When I say a work is morally wrong, I never implied that tyrants should ban it. I implied that people should make the right informed decision and not support that kind of tripe. All this 1st Amendment BS everytime some conservative says something said/written/shown was wrong!
Ok, I gotcha, Tom. Makes sense.
ReplyDeleteTL;DR
ReplyDeleteDavid Duke is a malignant narcissist and a Domestic Terrorist.
ReplyDeleteDr. Duke invents and then projects a false, fictitious, self for the world to fear, or to admire. Dr. Duke maintains a tenuous grasp on reality to start with and the trappings of power further exacerbate this. Real life authority and David Ernest Duke’s predilection to surround him with obsequious sycophants support David Ernest Duke’s grandiose self-delusions and fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience.
David Ernest Duke's personality is so precariously balanced that Dr. Duke cannot tolerate even a hint of criticism and disagreement. Most narcissists are paranoid and suffer from ideas of reference, the delusion that they are being mocked or discussed when they are not. Thus, narcissists often regard themselves as "victims of persecution".
Duke fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, and mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. Dr. Duke monastically denies himself earthly pleasures, or so Dr. Duke claims in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.
Duke is a monstrously inverted Jesus, sacrificing his life and denying himself so that his people - or humanity at large - should benefit. By surpassing and suppressing his humanity, Duke became a distorted version of Nietzsche's "superman". But being a-human or super-human also means being a-sexual and a-moral.
In this restricted sense, narcissistic leaders are post-modernist and moral relativists. They project to the masses an androgynous figure and enhance it by engendering the adoration of nudity and all things "natural" - or by strongly repressing these feelings. But what they refer to, as "nature" is not natural at all.
Duke invariably proffers an aesthetic of decadence and evil carefully orchestrated and artificial - though it is not perceived this way by him or by his followers. Narcissistic leadership is about reproduced copies, not about originals. It is about the manipulation of symbols - not about veritable atavism or true conservatism.
In short: narcissistic leadership is about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle, and be subsumed by it, the leader demands the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis is tantamount, in this narcissistic dramaturgy, to self-annulment.
Narcissism is nihilistic not only operationally, or ideologically. Its very language and narratives are nihilistic. Narcissism is conspicuous nihilism - and the cult's leader serves as a role model, annihilating the Man, only to re-appear as a pre-ordained and irresistible force of nature.
Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon David Ernest Duke like, and rather psychopathic, toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader.
Minorities or "others" - often arbitrarily selected - constitute a perfect, easily identifiable, embodiment of all that is "wrong". They are accused of being old, they are eerily disembodied, they are cosmopolitan, they are part of the establishment, they are "decadent", they are hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, or because of their race, sexual orientation, origin ... They are different, they are narcissistic, feel and act as morally superior, they are everywhere, they are defenseless, they are credulous, they are adaptable, and thus can be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction. They are the perfect hate figure. Narcissists thrive on hatred and pathological envy by relishing in their aspirations by masking anarchy with a well-developed smokescreen of order.
This is precisely the source of the fascination with Hitler, diagnosed by Erich Fromm - together with Stalin - as a malignant narcissist. Dr. Duke was an inverted human. His unconscious was his conscious. Dr. Duke acted out our most repressed drives, fantasies, and wishes. Dr. Duke provides us with a glimpse of the horrors that lie beneath the veneer, the barbarians at our personal gates, and what it was like before we invented civilization. Hitler forced us all through a time warp and many did not emerge. Dr. Duke was not the devil. Dr. Duke was one of us. Dr. Duke was what Hannah Arendt aptly called the banality of evil. Just an ordinary, mentally disturbed, failure, a member of a mentally disturbed and failing nation, who lived through disturbed and failing times. Dr. Duke was the perfect mirror, a channel, a voice, and the very depth of our souls.
Duke prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime - Duke having died, been deposed, or voted out of office - it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns out to have been a fraud-laced bubble. Loosely held empires disintegrate. Laboriously assembled business conglomerates go to pieces. "Earth shattering" and "revolutionary" scientific discoveries and theories are discredited. Social experiments end in mayhem exposing the voracious jealousy and covert treason.
It is important to understand that the use of violence must be ego-syntonic. It must accord with the self-image of David Ernest Duke. It must abet and sustain his grandiose fantasies and feed his sense of entitlement. It must conform David Ernest Duke like narrative. Thus, David Duke who regards himself as the benefactor of the poor, a member of the common folk, the representative of the disenfranchised, the champion of the dispossessed against the corrupt elite - is highly unlikely to use violence at first. The pacific mask crumbles when David Ernest Duke has become convinced that the very people Dr. Duke purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, and the prime sources of his narcissistic supply - have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, David Duke strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by, the media, big industry, the military, and the elite,” “they don't really know what they are doing,” “following a rude awakening, they will revert to form,” when these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail, David Duke becomes mortally injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized - is now discarded with contempt and hatred. This primitive defense mechanism is called "splitting". To David Ernest Duke, things and people are either entirely bad, evil, or entirely good. Dr. Duke projects onto others his own shortcomings and negative emotions, thus becoming a totally good object. Duke is likely to justify the butchering of his own people by claiming that they intended to kill him, undo the revolution, devastate the economy, or the country.
The "small people", the "rank and file", and the "loyal soldiers" of David Ernest Duke - his flock, his nation, and his employees - they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated - is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of David Ernest Duke. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.
Wow. That was random. Bonus points for thread hijacking.
ReplyDeleteDouble bonus points for hijacking a thread that is now over a month old.