“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”
I just read earlier that The Da Vinci Code was banned in Manila, and for some reason, that set me off. I never really understood what all the fuss about Code was all about, but I didn’t particulary care anyway. Reading that short article got to me though.
Yes, I understand that it raises some questions about Catholicism, or Christianity in general. Some will even argue that the movie, or the book for that matter, is blasphemous. So what? Kevin Smith poked fun at the Church in Dogma, but I don’t remember there being an uproar like what we have today. Then again, I don’t think that movie hit the theaters here anyway. Give me enough time and I can probably cite several movies that feature ideas contrary to the teachings of the Church. I’m not too keen on doing that right now though.
One thing I will point out, however, is that regardless of what ideas these stories might put forth, they are all fiction, and therefore ok. They don’t claim that vampires, ghosts, or zombies really exist - but they allow us to step into a world where they just might be real. They don’t tell us to question our knowledge - but they ask us to open our minds to the possibilities that exist in other people’s imaginations. They don’t replace our world - but they allow us, at least temporarily, to escape into another reality, so to speak.
Code is not much different from these other stories. It doesn’t pretend to a factual narrative. In fact, it stays well within the realm of fiction. If you can’t differentiate fact from fiction, then you should seek professional help. Based on the worldwide reaction to the Dan Brown tale, psychiatrists the world over will have more on their plates than most of them can handle.
This brings me to the quote I started this entry with. I took that from the movie Men in Black. People collectively really are, for the most part, stupid. This confusion of fact and fiction is just one proof of that. The whole buzz about the novel, in my opinion, isn’t due to the brilliance of the narrative, but due to the gullibility of people.
If that isn’t clear, let me attempt to explain. If it is, then skip this paragraph. If you choose to read this paragraph, I warn you now - it could be long, and I apologize in advance. That being said, the enjoyment of a narrative is dependent on the suspension of one’s disbelief. We as readers (or viewers) have to accept the “facts” presented in a story as plausible, at least within the contxt of the story being told. In the story of Goldilocks, for example, we have to accept the idea that bears use furniture, eat porridge, and sleep in beds - otherwise, we dismiss the story as total rubbish, and the whole narrative fails. In the case of Code, the “facts” about the Church presented by the author are there to push the story forward.
Some people have accepted the ideas presented in the novel pardon the pun, gospel truth. They have taken the assertions set forth in the novel and applied them to their own worlds. These same people, if they ever read the story of Goldilocks, might start leaving mattresses and bowls of porridge in the forest so the bears there might be more comfortable.
I admit, I’ve made some pretty bold statements here. I’m not apologizing for them. I am, however, admitting that I’m a bit sleepy. Actually, I’m quite sleepy. If I didn’t really make much sense, I apologize. If I entertained you anyway, then you’re welcome.
