10591Re: Gnostics and Templars
- Feb 1, 2005--- In email@example.com, "George Harvey"
>I dunno, George. I've gotten a very different impression from some
> First I want to point out that what an author has a character say
> and what the narrator says in creating a fictional reality in a
> work of fiction is not necessarily the author's opinion about
> history or anything else.
> I think Brown created his own history based loosely on the holy
> blood theory and added some names and dates from ancient history. I
> don't think he had any idea the book would be read as anything
> other than fiction or he might have been a little more careful with
> the ancient history part.
of the documentaries I've seen on the subject, in which Dan Brown was
interviewed. Basically, he claims to have embarked on his "research"
of the historical elements as a bit of a skeptic, but ended up being
thoroughly convinced. Obviously, as you say, he has created a
fictional reality for the purposes of the novel, but as far as the
background goes, I'm not sure he realizes the difference between
history and alternative history.
This topic reminds me of James Redfield. He flat-out stated once
(with a smug grin) that The Celestine Prophecy was meant as nothing
more than a piece of fictional entertainment, but just look at how
many people got completely carried away with it. In the end, there's
no accounting for how the public will respond to a particular work.
People often have a need to make gurus and messiahs out of anyone who
happens along. In this case, while there might have been no one as
initially perplexed by his readers' reaction as Redfield himself, I'm
not so sure that he didn't also get wrapped up in their expectations
of him and their interpretations of his work.
It's pretty bizarre, really.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>