11 Oct '05 08:56>
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat are they, then?
Those aren't fiction.
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?
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..."
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.
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.
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
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]
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.
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).