Originally posted by CribsCribs, this isn't quite true in this case - for example the book refers a lot to the Dead Sea Scrolls, saying they were discovered in the 1950's. Actually they were discovered in 1947. Is the author allowed to get away with presenting very sloppy fact-checking just because the book says it is fiction?
The copyright page makes it very clear that the entire novel is
a work of fiction. Anything following that page must be interpreted
as such, including the statement that the novel is based on fact.
I don't see why there is such a fuss, unless you failed to read the
copyright page, in which case you are just an irresponsible reader
and deserve whatever confusion you have from neglecting that
responsibility.
Cribs
He tries to use real-world facts throughout the book (e.g. the pyramid outside the Louvre is made of 666 panels of glass because the French government insisted on it), all of which are verifiably wrong. He then uses those 'facts' to substantiate the historical detail he provides as plot background (such as the Templars in Jerusalem), which are equally inaccurate.
My gut feeling is that I have no problem with geography changing slightly to suit the plot, or new companies created, or secret organisations (such as assuming the Preurie de Sion does exist). I dislike a whole plot resting on claimed historical events that are lcoated in the real-world, when those events are all wrongly dated, attributed, or completely and willfully misunderstood.
Incidentally, the entire plot hypothesis was nicked from Baigent and Leigh's famous 1980's book 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'. Much better read, and has been comprehensively debunked over the years.
Originally posted by shavixmirIIRC, it was King Philip of France who persecuted the Templars to get at their wealth. Although the Church protested at first, it figured shortly that it didn't have the political clout to take on Philip.
But since the catholic church persecuted the knight's templers for herecy, that is the reason the mason's are anti-catholic.
Anyone with more data?
Originally posted by timebombtedThere is a difference between corruption, intrigue etc. existing in the Catholic Church and the assertion that the Church deliberately misrepresented fact (such as Jesus' alleged marriage to Mary Magdalene).
if you look at the catholic church as being innocent over the years its time to take off the Rose Petalled glasses........... political corruption, control, power I think these are arguments that shouldn't just be eliminated without further thought. Until something is proven 100% you have to have an unbiased open mind to other alternatives. Remember the ...[text shortened]... Catholic Church claims either, so why cant there be unsubstantiated claims against the faith????
Church teachings on subjects like, say, the Immaculate Conception are clearly unprovable. However, much of the Church teachings on topics like, say, the Resurrection, are based on documents that date back to the early centuries AD. Even as a historian studying, say the conquests of Alexander, you are unlikely to find better historical "proof"/evidence than that.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat is not right. For the conquests of Alexander we have written texts of contemparies, even from writers who accompagnied Alexander on his journeys to the East. We miss such sources about Jesus' life.
However, much of the Church teachings on topics like, say, the Resurrection, are based on documents that date back to the early centuries AD. Even as a historian studying, say the conquests of Alexander, you are unlikely to find better historical "proof"/evidence than that.
fjord
Originally posted by OsseYes, that is what fiction is. A mix of reality and fantasy. If you
Cribs, this isn't quite true in this case - for example the book refers a lot to the Dead Sea Scrolls, saying they were discovered in the 1950's. Actually they were discovered in 1947. Is the author allowed to get away with presenting very sloppy fact-checking just because the book says it is fiction?
required fiction to be pure fantasy, it would be incomprehensible.
If you required fiction to be completely consistent with reality,
it would be boring and too restricted.
If you come across something while reading fiction that is inconsistent
with reality, then what you have just read falls into the fantasy portion
of fiction. If you can't distinguish between reality and fantasy,
the problem lies with you and not the author.
You don't really believe time travel is possible just because
H.G. Wells wrote a book about it that said it was, do you?
Cribs
Originally posted by rapalla7Sure.
Can you elaborate on this? 😉
If H.G. Wells says through a novel that time travel is possible
when he knows it is not, that is fantasy. When he puts human
characters in his novel that communicate in spoke English, that
is reality.
When Dan Brown says the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered
at a date that is historically inaccurate, that is fantasy. When
he says they exist, that is reality.
The responsibility falls on the reader to distinguish between the two.
Cribs
Originally posted by CribsI was just kiddin ya, but I am delightfully suprised at your answer.
Sure.
If H.G. Wells says through a novel that time travel is possible
when he knows it is not, that is fantasy. When he puts human
characters in his novel that communicate in spoke English, that
is reality.
When Dan Brown says the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered
at a date that is historically inaccurate, that is fantasy. When
he says they exist, ...[text shortened]... t is reality.
The responsibility falls on the reader to distinguish between the two.
Cribs
I guess I got more than my moneys worth.
Thanks,
Mike
🙂
Originally posted by fjord
That is not right. For the conquests of Alexander we have written texts of contemparies, even from writers who accompagnied Alexander on his journeys to the East. We miss such sources about Jesus' life.
fjord
Fjord: "We miss such sources about Jesus' life."
.... and what about Mark, Luke, John and Matthew ?