Ship of Fools: Are We Creating Controversy?

Thread: Are We Creating Controversy? Board: The Da Vinci Code / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=66;t=000043

Posted by welshman in london (# 10777) on :

Are we creating controversy? How has a novel which 22% of British adults have read, is based on deception and has sold 100 million copies worldwide and been made into a dreary Hollywood film?

A colleague of the Pope called the DaVinci code "sack full of lies" in a major Easter sermon, Cardinal Hummes said: "The more people talk about the book, the happier the author will be." He dismissed The Da Vinci Code as "a big farce"; head of the Church of England condemned the obsession with it.

Are we creating the controversy? At the bottom what is the Da Vinci code? Effectively it’s a popularist ‘airport fiction’ novel based loosely on disproved theories and artistic license.

So why are evangelical and other churches across the country holding events which are essentially promoting it, ‘come hear what the DaVinci code has to say’, many people (including myself) went to see the DaVinci code in the week before out church’s event to know what differences there we’re between the film and the book.

What are other people’s opinions, should we carry on holding events on controversial pop culture? Or by kicking up a fuss are we simply fanning the fire?

It would be interested to know some opinions.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

By kicking up a fuss, we are simply fanning the fire. Every protest, every angry sermon, sells another 10,000 books and/or 1,000 movie tickets. Dan Brown is no dumb cluck. Simply stock your book with worn-out anti-Catholic cliches, and the largest religious institution in the world will do all your PR for you. It's as if the Vatican and the evangelical ghetto simply live to be duped into providing free advertising for hack artists, if only the hack artists will follow a certain formula.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

The Vatican should have released a 30-second TV spot showing a bunch of cardinals in their cardinally outfits, reading the DVC and laughing uproariously, saying to each other (using subtitles of course because they're speaking Latin), "look, he thinks we believe such-and-such!" or "I can't believe he would use that old canard about so-and-so".

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It's as if the Vatican and the evangelical ghetto simply live to be duped into providing free advertising for hack artists, if only the hack artists will follow a certain formula.

That'd make a good conspiracy theory.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Derision and debunking are much more effective than earnest protest. And there is plenty to deride and debunk. I saw Ian Hislop do a pretty good deriding job on the book and film on the UKTV show "Have I got news for you?".

Conspiracy theorists are relatively immune to logical argument and inference - but not being laughed at. Earnestness and conspiracy theorising seem to go together. Given that all those with a penchant for conspiracy theories believe that "we have been taken in by the official line", debunking laughter is quote a good way of pointing out that there are more ways than one of getting "taken in".

Try it. If you think someone is talking bollocks and believing bollocks, or being taken in, just tell them that for openers. Better than street protests and earnest corrective presentations IMO. Mind you, you've got to have some idea of what you're talking about to take that line.

Posted by The Om (# 2318) on :

Is it just me, or is TDVC a very cleverly created troll, on the surface plausible but designed to subtley irritate as many people as possible? Which, of course, is the point - because trolls sit back and watch with amusement all the heat being generated from their actions, while in Mr Brown's case raking in the profits. There seems to be a subtle art in trolling by raising everyone's hackles without being conspicuous and he seems to have it down to a T.

Personally I'm waiting for the sequel to the film, which is TDVC in the style of Monty Python and The Holy Grail. Now that should be worth watching...

Posted by Pax Romana (# 4653) on :

Well, I, for one, think that Mr. Brown is sitting back and laughing at all of us, while his back accounts are growing exponentially.

I just finished "Angels and Demons" and am just now reading "The Da Vinci Code." They are both well-written thrillers, but they play fast and loose with facts.

It's too bad that people can't just understand that these are works of fiction!

Pax Romana

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm sure Dan Brown is enjoying the free publicity and the royalties. I predict that he will have imitators. I'm also sure that there is NO WAY he would have sought to produce an analogous work of fiction which, inter alia, had a dig at Islam. After all, just look what happened to Salman Rushdie.

And I guess that's my point. On a community like this one, or in church communities in general, there is no harm in providing some support for and analysis of the questions which spin off as a result of the "digs". But I suspect that most of us are not favour of "fatwahs" in any form. Given those views, it isn't creating controversy to provide some analysis and support. Did Dan Brown foresee the controversy? If so, then he had a financial interest in provoking it. On that issue, he seems to have done a very good job for himself. With a little help from some of the rest of us ..

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After all, just look what happened to Salman Rushdie.
..

He became rich and famous.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

Just like Dan Brown.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

And lived in hiding for a long time. Tell you what, sharkshooter, if Dan Brown produces a work of fiction at any time during the next five years which, inter alia, knocks any of the central tenets of Islam, I'll make a donation of £100 to any charity you wish to nominate.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

So Brown found a "safer" target. I guess he gets extra points for that.

Posted by Calindreams (# 9147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After all, just look what happened to Salman Rushdie.
..
He became rich and famous.

And deservedly so I reckon - one of my favourite books... but sorry, please don't let me derail, just can't help saying something every time that book is mentioned.

Posted by Pax Romana (# 4653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So Brown found a "safer" target. I guess he gets extra points for that.

Can you imagine the extra publicity Dan Brown would get if Opus Dei were to put a price on his head?

I'd better shut up. I might give some people ideas!

Pax R.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0