I actually don't understand what the fuss is all about.

Hey, they tried to nip Christianity in the bud by killing Christ.
What happened? It flourished.

Dan Brown can say what he likes about the Church. It won't die - it will flourish.

A good point from Mark Shea on the whole "Isn't it just fiction?" retort from Da Vinci Code supporters

I proposed a fictional film in which all the homosexuals in the world were engaged in a vast conspiracy to destroy Western Civilization.

"That would be offensive."

No duh.

The *only* time people fall for this notion that a fictional story which goes out of its way to malign and defame a billion people is "just fiction" is when it bashes Christians. The only time such people believe it will have absolutely no effect on what people think is with the Da Vinci Code. Try making a modern fictional film in which blacks are all watermelon-eating Stepin Fetchit dunces, or Jews are all conniving lechers and you will (rightly) get a storm of protest because these lies are pernicious and do real damage. But declare Christians the suckers of a 2000 year old Vatican conspiracy of murder and lies in the service of "the greatest coverup of all time", blaspheme Jesus and call all Christians fools for believing in him: that's just fiction.

To further complicate matters, polls show that the story had an effect on the faith of those who read it. We are in the business of salvation. Causing people to lose their faith goes against our cause.

If you look at the specials on tv, the articles online, and the vast amount of literature on this film, it is all on the historical claims of it. Its not on Tom Hanks performance, or Ron Howards ability, or whatever. The overwhelming amount of attention this movie (and book) are getting are for its attacks on Christianity and their merit.

Weunice,

Did you read the book or see the movie? I ask because I read the book and saw the movie, and I don't recognize your description of either.

I have read other dscriptions of the book and movie from people who oppose both, and I also fail to recognize what I read and what I saw. I wonder if there is a mythology arising about what the book and movie really portray.

For example, I see much comment about the Da Vinci fact page. Has anyone read even that single page?

Yes, and the fact page notes, as I recall, that the "documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist."

Herein lies the problem. Just because something actually exists, doesn't mean that the depiction of that something is actually CORRECT.

This is the semantic card that Dan Brown is playing, and that's what so many of us are annoyed about.

Dani

I just moved and haven't unpacked the books. If I can find the Da Vinci, I'll post the fact page. But, I don't dispute your general summary of it.

The scope of the fact page is very narrow. For example, it doesn't mention Jesus, Mary Magdellan, divinity, or marital status.

I agree that depiction can differ from reality. But I wonder how many people who have not read the book think the fictional depiction is what is included in the fact page?

The problem is the manipulation. That's what I'm trying to explain.

The fact page MANIPULATES the readers and viewers into thinking that the depictions of these things, and the premises drawn by Dan Brown which are corroborated by his erroneous depictions, are logically correct.

This is the problem, and the insult, of the DaVinci Code.

Dani

We would disagree there. I see the fact page as a simple list of a few items. It makes no argument; it just lists things. The principle objections people have to the book are not even mentioned in the fact page.

When I can find the book, I'll post the page and let it speak for itself.

EXACTLY.

If the Catholic community (and other Christians too) hadn't gone on our 'lets stick up for our rights and stop the public from attacking us' trip, the book would NOT have been a best seller. It would not even have made it to a movie script draft, let alone to the big screen all around the world.

When Christ was struck during His Passion, He simply TOOK it, knowing that there was something greater behind all of this. He didn't argue the point and He didn't fight for His rights.

When people struggled to accept His Truth about the Eucharist in John's Gospel, did Jesus try and re-explain? No. The Truth had been told, and it stood as it was. People could choose to accept it or reject it.

I think He has given us the perfect example for dealing with the sort of nonsense that the Da Vinci Code is.

I think Christians everywhere need to stop GIVING this story credibility, by virtue of their protests. For thats what the protests do - if you don't believe something is a real threat you tend to ignore it and not waste your energy on it. If you believe that something IS a threat, that is when you fight. If we are fighting, we are leading others to believe that we are threatened by this nonsense. THAT is why the book sold millions.

I think the Christian community on a broad scale need to pick which hills to die on just a little more selectively than the current trends would suggest they are.

You can disagree all you want, but it's a known manipulation tactic that is used in both writing and documentary filmmaking. It's been done before, is done in Dan Brown's book, and will be done again in the future.

Some people refer to it as context manipulation. Perhaps you have heard it referred to in that way, which may help you to understand what I am talking about.

What people have a problem with is the whole project, which uses the fact page as part of the manipulation tactic. Also, earlier you stated that you have heard a lot of people refer to the fact page but you didn't suspect that many people ever actually read the fact page. Now you're changing your story by saying that most people don't have a problem with the fact page. Which is it?

How you personally would interpret the fact page and book has nothing to do with the presumable intention of the author based on the way this tactic has and is used.

Bottom line, if I put a fact page in a book that said all the organizations, locations, documents, etc., etc., were real and factual, then I wrote a book that stated that Betty Friedan was a Satanist, but the feminist movement tried to cover it up, and the actual name of her book was originally The Feminine Mystic and was meant to be the first in a series to draw women to the occult, but the feminist movement made her change the name of the book to The Feminine Mystique and changed the text within it to simply draw women away from their joy as wife and mother...it would be unethical and wrong. Period. I would be employing a cheap (yet often effective, whether you or I would fall for it or not) manipulation tactic.

There is right and wrong. There are authors and filmmakers who attempt manipulation and, therefore, insult their audience. There are authors and filmmakers who deny any necessity for cultural competence and avoidance of blasphemy.

Whether you or I personally fall for it isn't the question. It never was.

Look to the studies that show the effectiveness of the manipulation by Dan Brown and company...the number of people who have been confused and had their faith swayed. Numbers rarely lie.

Dani

For Opppoy and Nero-issima:

Have you read "The Davinci Hoax"?
Have you read "The Davinci Deception"?

Is it necessary to read and view pornography to determine that it is vile?

Have you read all of Shakespeare's plays? If not, then how can you hold any opinion on his writing?



I don't recognize your description of those opposing this work, either. Perhaps the problem is in your own perceptions? Are you sure that your own ability to read and comprehend is up to the task? Do you have any evidence to support your contention that your reading of the material is superior to all others?

Just wondering.

I didn't say most people have no problem with the fact page. I said the objections most people raise to the book are not mentioned in the fact page.

Note that the presumable intention of an author is a function of the observer's presumption.

If you wrote such a book about Betty Friedan, it would be silly for anyone to think the fact page had any relation to the rest of the claims you made. Anyone could simply compare the fact page to the other claims and see there is no relation.

What is blasphemy? Why should it be avoided?

I read one of the genre of books attempting to debunk Da Vinci. I forget the name.

It is necessary to view any particular piece of work in order to classify it as pornography.

I have read all Shakespeare's plays.

Yes, the presumable intention of an author is a function of the observer's presumption. No kidding. The point is that the presumption is reasonable based on 1) the method used and 2) past performance of Dan Brown

You can call people silly all you want. The point is, and the stats support, that it is precisely what happens.

You really don't know what blasphemy is? Seriously? And you really don't know why it should be avoided?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not answer those questions, because I can't believe that you really DON'T know the answers. If you truly don't know the answers and need help with this, just go ahead and tell me that I'm wrong to overestimate you and I'll be glad to clarify.

Dani

A person merely has to look at the fact page and see if it supports other claims. If not, there is no connection.

There are competing presumptions of an author's intent in presenting a fact page. How do we decide if any is correct?

What is blasphemy? Why should it be avoided?

The actual quote is "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

On his website he says they "exist". In the book he says they are "accurate". In reality, they are "a pack of lies".

Lowdenclear,

Thanks for the clarification! Interesting how he has changed that!!!

But, oh not...I'm sure he is not trying to manipulate anybody. Of course not. Nope, we're all just silly.

Dani