11 Oct 05
More good "religious" fiction:
The Human Age trilogy (Wyndham Lewis), comprising The Childermass, Monstre Gai and Malign Fiesta.
"Part of the 'Human Age' trilogy, 'The Childermass' is Wyndham Lewis' most imortant literary achievement - an apocalyptic novel and a reworking in modern terms of Dante Alighieri's 'Divine Comedy'."
11 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhich one? The one in which I won't let people have it both ways?
You're in one of your "moods", aren't you?
Priest A: "I can't believe Dan Brown spreads all those lies about our church."
Priest B: "But I thought those books were fiction. Is Jurassic Park a lie?"
Priest A: "Well..."
11 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell?
Which one? The one in which I won't let people have it both ways?
Priest A: "I can't believe Dan Brown spreads all those lies about our church."
Priest B: "But I thought those books were fiction. Is Jurassic Park a lie?"
Priest A: "Well..."
And how is it that the Church is trying to have it "both ways"?
11 Oct 05
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHuh?
If it's true that the Church claims the Dan Brown books contain lies, the books must be non-fiction, because fiction is untrue by definition.
I can't believe you're joining DoctorScribbles' word games squad - I think you know exactly why the Catholics assert the Dan Brown books contain lies.
When reading any piece of fiction, one apprehends information on two levels - the primary level of the plot and the characters, and the secondary level of background, setting etc. With any piece of fiction, one is immediately aware that the primary level there will be events and characters who are not real (although there might be real people featured as well - such as King Richard in Ivanhoe). With most fiction, however, the background information is generally assumed to be real unless the genre of the fiction explicitly contradicts it (e.g. Middle-Earth in Tolkien's works; or the world of Harry Potter). For instance, the characters of Oliver Twist are, obviously, not real whereas the general condition of society, setting, values etc. are assumed to be real.
With Dan Brown's books, of course readers know the lead characters and plot is fictional but, since the background includes some reality (e.g. the institution of the Catholic Church, the Opus Dei organisation), the reader is liable to accept most (if not all) background assertions to be true (e.g. the Church tried to hide the truth of Jesus' marriage; Opus Dei fathers regularly and cruelly mortify themselves etc.)
This is much the same as a person knowing that the Corleones are not real when reading the Godfather, but assuming that their behaviour and lingo is representative of the Mafia anyway.
But, of course, you knew all this already.
11 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI must confess I haven't read the books & I didn't know even know there was a controversy. Dan Brown's books have "crap" smeared all over them. I'm as likely to read one as I am to read Wilbur Smith.
But, of course, you knew all this already.
I don't share your assumptions regarding fiction--for me, in fiction, anything goes, because it is made up. Whether or not it contains "facts" is beside the point. The closest relationship to reality that written fiction can achieve is to turn it inside out.
The last book I'd consult for information on the Mafia would be The Godfather. The "facts" (real or distorted) are only important insofar as they add depth to the narrative canvas.
11 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThen you have an irresponsible reader. My copy of The DaVinci Code has this at the very beginning:
since the background includes some reality (e.g. the institution of the Catholic Church, the Opus Dei organisation), the reader is liable to accept most (if not all) background assertions to be true
"This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are either the product of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resmeblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or locales, is entirely coincidental."
The reader you describe is not playing by the rules.
11 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMost readers don't "play by the rules", Doctor (customary disclaimer on copyright page notwithstanding).
Then you have an irresponsible reader. My copy of The DaVinci Code has this at the very beginning:
"This book is a work of [b]fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are either the product of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resmeblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or locales, is entirely coincidental."
The reader you describe is not playing by the rules.[/b]
Now, unless you are a history buff or student, chances are that most of your presumptions about Victorian society are going to be based on Dickens and Austen. Nothing wrong with that per se - but it is something most readers do (at least at an unconscious level) most of the time.
This is particularly true when book reviewers claim a book has been "exhaustively researched" (Publishers Weekly on The Da Vinci Code).
11 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not saying you'd consult 'The Godfather' for factual information, but it would inform your presumptions on the Mafia. (See also my Dickens/Austen example above).
I must confess I haven't read the books & I didn't know even know there was a controversy. Dan Brown's books have "crap" smeared all over them. I'm as likely to read one as I am to read Wilbur Smith.
I don't share your assumptions regarding fiction--for me, in fiction, anything goes, because it is made up. Whether or not it contains "facts" ...[text shortened]... acts" (real or distorted) are only important insofar as they add depth to the narrative canvas.
11 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThose who don't play by the rules have no claim against those who do. Dan Brown plays by the rules: what he writes is not factual, and thus he publishes it as fiction with the appropriate disclaimer. Your hypothetical reader doesn't play by the rules: he disregards the disclaimer's either/or dichotomy. If your hypothetical reader turns to Publishers Weekly to figure out whether everything he reads - fiction, even - is true or not, then he is need of some serious help.
Most readers don't "play by the rules", Doctor (customary disclaimer on copyright page notwithstanding).