|
THE DA VINCI CODE Author Roundtable
10.
FaithfulReader.com: Apart from the theological issues that are in dispute, the book contains what we now recognize as numerous factual errors. What responsibility do you think Doubleday should take, if any, for allowing those errors to go unchecked?
Steve Kellmeyer: Like all publishers, Doubleday is in the business of making money. They are interested in creating books that sell. They succeeded. Do you think this book would have sold as well if the errors were corrected? Of course not. The success of the book hinges on playing into the popular misconceptions of the culture. This culture is Protestant in its theology and atheistic in its use of the body. Since both strains of thought are highly antagonistic to Catholicism, Doubleday was simply playing to its market.
Thus, Doubleday is responsible for the errors in the sense that it is responsible for making money to pay its employees and its shareholders. Like the editors at most of the major news outlets, Doubleday's editors are products of this culture --- they know as little about history or Catholic theology as Dan Brown. Nor do they care. If accurate history or accurate Catholic theology sold well, then they would care. I know a major Catholic theologian who signed with Doubleday and has produced several books with them, but none of these ended up on the bestseller's list. THE DA VINCI CODE did. So, should Doubleday stick to the truth and make a little money, or stick with Dan Brown and make a LOT of money? The editors want to keep getting paid and their bosses do too.
Is a two-year old really responsible for breaking a window? Doubleday's editors happily joined Dan's rock-throwing party and the truth shattered. We might get a lisping "I'm thorry!" from them (doubtful), but we can hardly expect more. That's just life with children.
So, should they take responsibility? Of course. Will they? Of course not. They can't. Too many people would lose money, it would send the wrong signals to new authors, etc.
Richard Abanes: I do not know what Doubleday editors or salespeople were thinking when they all decided to release a book that is clearly rife with factual falsehoods, and yet at the same time claim that it accurately represents history. At this point, the damage has been done. Perhaps the only thing left to do would be for Doubleday to release some kind of public statement wherein they make it absolutely clear that the contents of the novel, contrary to previous Doubleday statements and assertions by Brown, are not historically accurate. But I am not holding my breath.
James L. Garlow: I think both Dan Brown and his publisher should be held responsible. All of us can make mistakes. I certainly have had things in my books that I discovered later were in error, so I made every effort to make corrections in future editions. If Dan Brown and Doubleday made honest mistakes, we should forgive them. But to not acknowledge the mistakes is arrogant, at its best, and intentionally deceptive at its worst.
Peter Jones: Brown, not Doubleday, is responsible, if Brown has a contract like mine! But I am not sure of the rules for historical fiction.
Amy Welborn: I have no idea what the process for fact-checking novels is. Doubleday is, of course, ultimately responsible, and should be very embarrassed, especially at the idiotic and just plain wrong things Brown says about Leonardo Da Vinci, especially.
Darrell L. Bock: I am less concerned here for the publisher. The responsibility is the author's. In addition, one can always claim that it is just a novel and so in that sense not to worry about responsibility. That is another reason why others needed to write.
Ben Witherington III: I do think Doubleday has a responsibility to have a reader do some fact checking, especially in light of the first page that reads "FACT" and gives the misleading impression that this is a work like that by Uris or Michener.
Erwin W. Lutzer: I suspect that Dan Brown and Doubleday can argue that these errors are excusable because this is "fiction." So, I'm not sure what the rules of fiction are...can you just say whatever you like? If this would be a book on history, then I think there would be accountability. But it is precisely because this book purports to be historical fiction that the problem occurs. If Doubleday actually began to correct the errors, the novel would collapse.
Dan Burstein: As we point out in SECRETS OF THE CODE, a few small corrections were made between the first edition of THE DA VINCI CODE and subsequent editions. For example, in an early edition Langdon and Neveu try to throw their pursuers off their trail by buying a ticket at the Gare Saint-Lazare in Paris to go to Lyon; in a later edition Lyon has been changed to Lille. The first edition spelled the visual syndrome referred to by Teabing as skitoma; later editions spelled it scotoma. Interestingly, as we point out in SECRETS OF THE CODE, in both cases THE DA VINCI CODE still got the point wrong even after the changes were made. The experts who contributed to our book have documented dozens of these fascinating plot flaws and intriguing details. Rue Haxo is described on the wrong side of Paris from where it really is. Chateau Villette (which is a real French chateau you can rent out by the week), is described as being close to Versailles at the same time it is said to be northwest of Paris. In fact, however, Versailles lies to the southwest of Paris.
But aside from having fun with these details, I think everyone should take a deep breath and remember this is just a novel. Writers of fiction, even well researched fiction, have an inherent license to use fact and fiction in their own proprietary mix to weave their plots.
Carl E. Olson: Quite a bit of responsibility, especially since they printed the now infamous "FACT" page and then allowed Brown, in interviews and on his website, to play up the supposed accuracy of the novel's claims.
Sandra Miesel: Doubleday chose to sell this book as the product of deep scholarship. They didn't change their tune even when experts began to weigh in against it. When quizzed by the NY Daily News, Brown's editor reiterated his support for Brown's expertise. Brown's website still tries to give that impression. I daresay all parties feel that sales figures justify their decisions.
© Copyright 2008, FaithfulReader.com. All rights reserved.
|
