Re: Re: Proof of faith?
- [[[From: Anne Gilbert <shanidar9@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Proof of faith?
If you want to get a flavor of what the "furor" is about, you can
either go to an e-mail list called MEDIEV-L(google for it if you're
interested), or else I can send you a paper on pdf(I think), that
will give you an idea. Personally, I agree with you about The Da
Vinci Code. I found it mildly entertaining, and it was more of
a "puzzle" than anything else. But believable? I don't think so.]]]
---Last time I checked, novelists had artistic license to play around
with any speculative ideas they liked. But there *does* seem to be a
new trend amongst pseudoscientists to write up their ideas as novels,
thereby insulating themselves from criticism ("hey, it's only a
STORY, fer cryin' out loud!"), while still reaching their target
audience. Michael Crichton's latest effort comes to mind.
To Brown's credit, I can't quite work out if he's one of those, or
simply someone cleverly cashing in on society's endless infatuation
with 'alternative science.'
If I had the talents of a novelist, I would long ago have turned
Graham Hancock's ideas into a novel. I'm sure there's small fortune
to be made there.
- --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, MB <mbb386@m...> wrote:
>I must be the only one who loved it *grins*
> > You saw this same thing with the Muslim hysteria over
> > Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses.' Most of them never even read the book
> > (who the hell in his right mind COULD read a book like that?)
> I did read the book and was totally puzzled why it was considered so