|
THE DA VINCI CODE Author Roundtable
4.
FaithfulReader.com: Since it is fiction, why do you feel the need to refute Dan Brown's research?
Sandra Miesel: But Brown claims his work is factually accurate right in his book and tries to convey the same impression in interviews, his appearance on that ABC special, etc. Readers take it to be true, some even claiming it was a life-changing experience. If it were perceived merely as entertaining fiction (as is James Clavell's SHOGUN, which takes great liberties with Japanese history), there would still be the anti-Catholic angle to refute. For me, THE DA VINCI CODE outrages my historical reflexes. I've written, edited and analyzed fiction as well as done research for other fiction writers. Knowing what lengths my colleagues and I went to in pursuit of accurate information, Brown's false and sloppy work is offensive.
Carl E. Olson: The novel and its author make it clear that THE DA VINCI CODE is more than "just a novel." In fact, fiction of all different sorts has become a primary means of propagating "nonfiction" beliefs and attitudes. That's hardly new, of course, which is why the retort, "It's just a novel!" is so empty. Besides, Brown has presented himself as a diligent researcher who has taken great pains to get his facts right. And since so many readers are taking those claims seriously, they do need to be refuted.
Amy Welborn: For precisely the reasons I've already cited. I have no problem with the existence of this novel. That is just not my style. I was raised in a very intellectually open household and I deeply believe in the right of writers to write what they want and readers to read what they want. If THE DA VINCI CODE simply existed and was read and enjoyed by readers as fiction, I wouldn't have written my book. I wrote it because there are readers who accept the historical assertions within this book as fact and are asking questions about it. My book is an answer to those questions. In my mind, it's uncharitable to ignore people who are asking questions when you have the expertise to answer them!
Darrell L. Bock: I wrote my book and engaged Dan Brown's research in detail because millions of readers have read the book and are left with the impression that this "historical skeleton" behind the story might just be true or even partially true. The record needed to be laid out and set straight. The other half of a real historical discussion and debate needed to be put in front of people. My educational background put me in a place to do that.
Steve Kellmeyer: To the extent Dan Brown did accurate research, his novel isn't fiction, is it? The very question buys into Dan Brown's mutually exclusive claims. He claims he did enormous amounts of historical research and incorporated enormous amounts of factual evidence into his novel. He also claims his work is fiction. No one is refuting his fiction. No one is saying Robert Langdon doesn't exist --- we all KNOW Robert Langdon doesn't exist. The problem is, the Council of Nicea (as Brown represents it), Vatican II (as Brown represents it), Opus Dei (as Brown represents it), indeed, the whole Catholic Church (as Brown represents it), doesn't exist either. But because he makes the research claims he does, he encourages people to think he is accurately portraying history and theology. Many of his reviewers, like the New York Times, explicitly encouraged this belief in their reviews. If he did so much accurate research, why is none of it in the novel?
Ben Witherington III: Simply because Brown presents THE DA VINCI CODE as historical fiction when it is not historically accurate.
Erwin W. Lutzer: The reason can be simply stated: yes, it is fiction, but as mentioned the line between fact and fiction is blurred. Then you have some reviews of the book that rave about its "impeccable research" and you are left with the idea that maybe there is some truth to all of this...or at least some truth in it.
Richard Abanes: I believe that people deserve the truth. And a refutation must always be presented when someone, whoever they may be, uses a highly visible platform to pass off falsehoods for truth, especially when the falsehoods they are offering as truth includes information that many people might use to make life-changing decisions; decisions dealing with spirituality, faith and religion.
Dan Burstein: SECRETS OF THE CODE (my book), is not a refutation of The Da Vinci Code. It is for readers who are interested in parsing out the fact and fiction in the novel. My audience is readers who want to go deeper --- readers who appreciate the opportunity the novel put before them to learn about ideas that are new to them and now want to engage in a deeper discussion of those ideas. SECRETS OF THE CODE is a book designed to explain what's so interesting about THE DA VINCI CODE, not to "refute" it. However, precisely because Dan Brown makes such a big deal out of insisting that everything in the novel is "fact," it is also fun and adds to the reader experience, in my opinion, to question many of his facts and details. We uncovered a great many plot flaws in THE DA VINCI CODE. SECRETS OF THE CODE is probably the only one of the current crop of books you can turn to if you want to debate the minutiae of the plot and the actions of the characters.
Peter Jones: In writing fiction, and in attacking classical Catholicism, Brown nevertheless produces a scathing attack on biblical Christianity. Brown questions and rejects orthodox claims by cleverly weaving historical fact and fiction, what we call "faction," thereby making it difficult for the uninformed reader to be sure of much, except that the Bible is doubtless wrong.
James L. Garlow: My answer is the same as what I said earlier. I discovered people who were believing the historical statements and the theological implications from them. Thus, I felt it merited a response.
© Copyright 2008, FaithfulReader.com. All rights reserved.
|
