Originally, I wanted to write this second article on my thoughts of possibly why ‘The Da Vinci Code’ is so popular. However, I feel it’s necessary to elaborate a bit more on why I’m of the opinion Dan Brown is perpetuating this book as fact, even though he says it’s fiction.
Before I get into my research I'll just state, as a writer, that my opinions and beliefs come out in everything I do, whether painting, writing, drawing or playing my guitar. Contrary to popular belief no one can compartmentalize, or separate, all of their opinions and feelings from what they express. What's the point of artistic expression, if not to express ones perspectives, feelings, concerns and opinions? Even while reading something as fantastical as the LOTR, it's fairly obvious that JR Tolkien is expressing his desire for true friendship. Yes in some ways his characters are 2 dimensional, but yet still they somehow seem so real, or rather perhaps that's our desire for them to be real. Who wouldn't want to have friends like that? Especially considering how 2 dimensional and selfish most real people really are. So you see Tolkien's talent comes in his ability to write and create a breath taking world for us to get lost in, but his story is really about relationships, specifically friendships.
Back to my research. The following 4 websites offer views on 'The Da Vinci Code':
1. Go to this website to read what Dan Brown himself has to say about his book: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html
2. The following is an article from a critical site: http://www.ignatius.com/books/davincihoax/
3. Here's a very good well thought out critique: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/050114a.html
"It doesn’t have to be real, as this one is surely not, despite Brown’s inclusion of a preface boldly headlined “FACT.” "
4. The following is an article from MSNBC: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12815760/
“Ivereigh complained that Brown and film studio Sony Pictures “have encouraged people to take it seriously while hiding behind the claim that it is fiction.””
So there you go; an article from the author himself, statements from critics and a news article.
Something to chew on: Let’s say someone authoritatively and convincingly begins to perpetuate (through a book and/or movie) the belief that the Civil War never happened. This person presents convincing evidence, which suggests that other events led to the loss of lives and the resulting change in the political landscape. Let’s say this person also presents extensive evidence, which suggests most of the African American slaves, of that time period, conspired with foreign powers to overthrow the US government. Moreover, these slaves didn’t receive their freedom through the defeat of the South, but through negotiations mediated by this foreign power. In exchange this foreign power received beneficial trade agreements and other concessions from the US. The author presents all of this as fiction, yet claims all of the background of the story is completely factual. Even if this person were lying, who would really know? There are no eyewitnesses still alive. The author may even go so far as to say they want everyone to take it seriously because it encourages dialogue concerning racial tensions, which most people would agree is important. However, all the while the author chooses his or her words very carefully so as to create just enough "real" controversy, with race relations, so as to encourage everyone to buy their book and go see the movie. The author has no concern, nor does he or she accept any negative repercussions (concerning race relationships) as a result of his or her story, but the author will take all the money you throw at him or her.
Do you see how a person can say one thing, but it’s really meaningless, considering the motivations? This isn’t even taking into account personal beliefs. Perhaps Dan Brown’s a Christian or perhaps he’s a Gnostic, or some other anti-Christian? Perhaps the author of this fictional Civil War book is a racist? Perhaps not? However, knowing this would sure help with establishing intent. I personally believe Dan Brown is anti-Christian, consumed with wealth and fame. I also believe he's fully aware of the effect his book is having and he's relishing the fact that something he wrote has caused such a stir.
I believe 'The Da Vinci Code' is an attack on Jesus Christ and it's confusing people. I know of people in America who claim this book is real. I heard that 33% of Canadians believe it’s real. However, I also believe the fact that this book has caused so much of a stir only represents the failure of the church to reach out to the world. Yes Christians can use this book to open up dialogue with non-Christians, but I believe we wouldn't have to if we were actually bringing Jesus Christ to our workplaces and personal lives. Part of me believes being consumed with defending Christianity from this book is akin to handing out tracts, in that it seems too canned and prepared. I believe your witness is much more effective if you're actually living life with people outside of your Christian bubble. Be aware of this book, but not consumed with defending Christianity over it. Again I can’t stress this enough, do the research and develop your own opinion based on this research. Look at all sides, but as a Christian, always begin and end your opinions with the foundation of Jesus Christ as laid out in the Bible.
Here’s a resource I just found on Bible archeology (I don’t like doing this, but this one time, still do your own research):
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/bible-archaeology.htm
**I haven’t fully investigated this site, but after skimming it over it looks good. Please let me know if there are any major discrepancies or heresies on this site.
No comments:
Post a Comment