... or, my pointless rant about "The Da Vinci Code".
I could probably rant on about this for a few pages, but I think other people have already said all the things I want to say.
Mark Shea said exactly what I was thinking so well that I'm going to quote it here:
"Isn't it just fiction?" [In reply] 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.
Question: with the number of books, articles, more articles, presentations, TV specials, etc debunking "The Da Vinci Code", doesn't that mean you would have to be a completely ignorant idiotic buffoon to believe it? And so, can't we just enjoy it for the murder mystery thriller it is?
Answer: to the first question, yes, and yet, there seem to be a great number of completely ignorant idiotic buffoons out there, and this is just from one survey in England:
The British survey, released by a group of prominent Catholics, revealed that readers of Dan Brown's blockbuster novel are twice as likely to believe Jesus Christ fathered children and four times as likely to think the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is a murderous sect.
...
ORB interviewed more than 1,000 adults last weekend, finding that 60 percent believed Jesus had children by Mary Magdalene — a possibility raised by the book — compared with just 30 percent of those who had not read the book.
I wish I could find a transcript of the ABC Special from a couple of years ago, where Brown pretty much said he believes in his own fiction (I can find a summary, but not the direct quote I was looking for). I did find this transcript of an interview on Today back in 2003.
LAUER: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that
actually occurred? I know you did a lot of research for the book.
Mr. BROWN: Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are--Robert Langdon
is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret
societies, all of that is historical fact.
I get the impression that Brown himself draws the line between fact and fiction the same way a lot of his readers seem to: the characters (Langdon, Sophie, etc) and the thriller plot are the fiction, designed to make it more exciting to uncover the secrets about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, which are (supposedly) fact. Why else would he have written the book to begin with?
To the second question, yes, there are a lot of people who can read it or see the movie and think, hey, that was entertaining. You'd have to be stupid to believe it, but it was entertaining. I for one will not be among them; refer to the quote from Mark Shea for why.
Full disclosure: I have not yet read the book. I intend to read it at some point, for the simple reason that (as one person I know put it) "it's good to know what the other side is saying". I would not say I'm particularly interested in reading it for any other reason. I can tell you the main plot points and name the main characters and tell you where the author got some of his ideas in the first place. I am unwilling to put any of my money down to support it or the author in any way, which means I won't buy the book nor go to the movie nor rent the movie. The most I'll do is borrow it from somebody or get it out of the library.