I haven't read said book of this discussion, but I have read "The Last Temptation of Christ" (by Nicholas Katzenzakis)>There seem to be some parallel bits especially about Christ's relationship with Mary Magdalene. When this book was published it was banned by the Church and was horrific to many. With all the hype the DVC is getting I pause to wonder why the alternate theory of History is making such waves now.
Kathleen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sharon L. Krossa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Historical Costume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:25 PM Subject: [h-cost] DaVinci Code & Claims of Truth (was: h-costume Digest, Vol 5, Issue 358) > At 10:58 AM -0700 4/27/06, Onaree Berard wrote: > >Just curious, when did Dan Brown claim to DaVinci Code was true. > > He has repeatedly asserted that although the main characters and the > specific plot involving them are fictitious, the background "history" > is true (not only the marriage and offspring of Mary Magdalene and > Jesus, but the two millennia long competing conspiracies to cover up > and to preserve this "knowledge", including the "Priory of Sion", > the supposed clues in artwork, etc.) > > >I listened to the unabridged audio book and it seemed like an author > >who took some facts, some legends, a few other theories.... tweeked to > >taste and shook well to create an interesting *story*. > > He explicitly claims -- in both interviews and also in text published > in the book with the text of the novel -- as "facts" things that are > not only not facts, but demonstrably untrue, and generally by various > means actively encourages people to believe that what is presented in > the novel as history/facts are indeed history/facts. > > >I couldn't figure out why so many people were trying to prove/debunk it. > > Because so many other people are believing things are true based on > having read it in a novel. > > >To me it was like trying to prove/debunk Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes. > > If everyone treated it like it was Tarzan -- or rather, if everyone > treated it like it was Star Wars -- no one would bother trying to > debunk it. But people aren't treating it like Star Wars, they're > treating it like a history book, with the sole exception of the > immediate plot and its main characters. That is, things Brown > presents in the novel as "history" many people are believing as > history. They're using a novel as if it were a source of reliable > historical information. Thus, the need for debunking, to clearly > demonstrate that novels are novels, not reliable history books. > > Now, Brown would be blameless in this -- like George Lucus is > blameless for those few who really think there is a galaxy far, far > away where Ewoks lived -- if he didn't himself actively encourage > people to misuse his novel by claiming the "history" in it really is > true. > > Sharon > -- > Sharon Krossa, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resources for Scottish history, names, clothing, language & more: > Medieval Scotland - http://MedievalScotland.org/ > _______________________________________________ > h-costume mailing list > h-costume@mail.indra.com > http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume > _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
