|
THE DA VINCI CODE Author Roundtable
12.
FaithfulReader.com: Brown has said he would not change anything if he were to rewrite the book as nonfiction. What would you like to say to him about that?
Carl E. Olson: If that is true, then he is either a con artist or is incredibly gullible. His book is full of glaring errors that only the most ideologically driven or intellectually dishonest of people could take seriously.
Sandra Miesel: You mean, after all the criticism he's received, Brown would still insist that The Madonna of the Rocks is 5 feet high (instead of six and a half) or say the Last Supper is a fresco (it isn't)? And so on and so on. Persistent in his errors, isn't he?
Dan Burstein: If I were his spin doctor, I would tell him to change his response, just as I would tell George Bush that when he is asked what mistakes he has made, he ought to be able to think of a few. In my opinion, Dan Brown would be better advised to say he mixed fact and fiction to create a story. This story, in turn, gives people new perspectives on history and religion and causes them to think about big ideas and engage in healthy, intriguing debates, while enjoying a fast-paced, page-turning thriller.
In my opinion, he loses intellectual credibility by arguing that "everything is fact." It's not like he needs the pretense that it's all fact to sell books. At this point, he owns a massive public franchise. Readers are going to buy tens of millions of copies of his books in the years to come. He can afford to be the novelist-symbologist spinning great tales out of bits and pieces of fabric from many sources in religion, in history, in conspiracy theory. He does not need to insist we take him seriously at the level of fact, when people can get so much more out of reading him at the level of thought-provoking fiction.
Erwin W. Lutzer: I'd say that he is living up to Napoleon's credo, quoted in the book, "What is history, but a fable agreed upon?" So, if he wants to take fables and write them up as history, that is his privilege, but he has to shut his eyes to the overwhelming consensus that his revision of history is riddled with errors.
James L. Garlow: I'd like to say, "You've got to be kidding!"
Peter Jones: Brown is a believer in this alternate spirituality and has said as much on national TV. He is part of a major attempt in our time to redefine Christianity and spirituality in ways antithetical to biblical faith. That is his "divine" right and it has raised to consciousness a whole series of questions that otherwise lay dormant, so I am glad for the occasion to seek clarity.
Amy Welborn: He has the right to do that. But since he's not an historian, I don't know why anyone would bother to read it.
Richard Abanes: Dear Dan, call me. I could help you get your facts straight. Although, to be honest, if you were to re-write your book as nonfiction and correct all of the errors you now have in THE DA VINCI CODE, you would not have very much of a book left. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Steve Kellmeyer: I would tell him I believe him. After all, he is also the product of the culture. He has made allusions to his fundamentalist upbringing. He clearly likes conspiracy theories and avoids primary source historical documents. He has made a lot of money off this book, and if he were to say anything else about THE DA VINCI CODE, he could hurt his sales. Like the editors at Doubleday, like the major news media, he is very successful at what he does. Why on earth should he change? Is the truth really worth it? Many people have decided it isn't. Dan Brown is just one more. He is wrong to say or think such a thing, of course, but I completely understand why he would choose to say it.
Darrell L. Bock: Read our works. It is clear the detailed research you claim for the novel may well have missed some very important things.
Ben Witherington III: Shame on you. Is this an example of invincible arrogance?
© Copyright 2008, FaithfulReader.com. All rights reserved.
|
