Movie Angels And Demons Full Of Lies

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1817264' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:28 PM']My question is, even though it is a work of fiction, what good will it be, or produce? Will that possible good be affected by its fictional but negative portrayal of Catholic figures (if not the Church)? And should Catholics not be concerned with not only if a book is morally offensive in and of itself, but how others, non Catholics will be affected by it? Many were sucked into the lies of the Davinci Code, especially the unchurched.[/quote]

She doesn't "get it."

[Saint Therese]

I understand her point of view. I have family members who have similar philosophies. I always tell them, even though a movie is fictional the theme is still real. If a movie is made about Abraham Lincoln, it could be fiction, but it's still about Abraham Lincoln. Just because a movie or book, is fictional doesn't mean it can't be about real evil. I had this discussion with a family member re The Dark Knight.

[HisChildForever]

I need to make it rather clear that I am not a particular fan of Dan Brown's writings. I read two of his novels which were not exactly great literary works. They were back on the bookcase after I finished them. Treating these novels as anything more than fiction is ludicrous. I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone will read Angels and Demons and begin to tell people how corrupt the Church is BASED on a fictional book. I have a feeling that such people are the same ones who believe JK Rowling worships the devil.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817269' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:30 PM']She doesn't "get it."[/quote]

There is seriously no reason to be rude.

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817245' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:09 PM']It produces entertainment. It. is. a. fictional. story.[/quote]


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817299' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:50 PM']There is seriously no reason to be rude.[/quote]


I don't think its absurd to think that an author, any author, has an agenda which informs his/her story.

[HisChildForever]

I was emphasizing my point. Maybe I should have put it in bold.

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1817302' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:53 PM']I don't think its absurd to think that an author, any author, has an agenda which informs his/her story.[/quote]

It is not absurd at all. But there were also positives in the book, like I mentioned. The purpose of the book was to save Vatican City.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817296' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:47 PM']I need to make it rather clear that I am not a particular fan of Dan Brown's writings. I read two of his novels which were not exactly great literary works. They were back on the bookcase after I finished them. Treating these novels as anything more than fiction is ludicrous. I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone will read Angels and Demons and begin to tell people how corrupt the Church is BASED on a fictional book. I have a feeling that such people are the same ones who believe JK Rowling worships the devil.[/quote]

People already consider the Church horribly corrupt. This book just panders to that view. You are missing my point. You cannot separate the preconceptions readers have even when reading fiction. The books codifies their prejudices. I agree that very few people will decide "Today I will hate the Catholic Church because of what I read in Angels and Demons." But there are millions of people content to just accept tha the Church is corrupt as an assumption and not challenge the lies of his novels. And I don't think that people who are content with Dan Brown maligning Catholicism are of the same ilk as who think J.K. Rowling is evil.

Fiction is a dangerous thing when people are content to know learn what "truth" is true and what "fiction" is fiction within the work. When an author places statements of fact in a character who is an "expert" then the reader assumes that must be one of the "facts" of the novel. Period. And most people are either too prejudiced or too lazy to do some research and learne any different. So the lies become part of the growing pool of prejudice already within their mind

Gnostic texts of the 1st and 2nd centuries were fiction and I wouldn't recommend Joe Shmoe to read them for entertainment because they contain theological poison; and most people have an insufficiently-formed conscience to sort fact from fiction on such matters.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817306' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:57 PM']But there were also positives in the book, like I mentioned. The purpose of the book was to save Vatican City.[/quote]

...from a tyrannical and traditional Catholic figure intent on maintaining orthodox views on the supremacy of Ecclesiology over scientific research?

Vatican City itself is immaterial; The Church is what matters...and its the Church that his novel apparently disparages through its scandal and corrupted characterizations.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817307' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:57 PM']People already consider the Church horribly corrupt. This book just panders to that view. You are missing my point. You cannot separate the preconceptions readers have even when reading fiction. The books codifies their prejudices. I agree that very few people will decide "Today I will hate the Catholic Church because of what I read in Angels and Demons." But there are millions of people content to just accept tha the Church is corrupt as an assumption and not challenge the lies of his novels. And I don't think that people who are content with Dan Brown maligning Catholicism are of the same ilk as who think J.K. Rowling is evil.

Fiction is a dangerous thing when people are content to know learn what "truth" is true and what "fiction" is fiction within the work. When an author places statements of fact in a character who is an "expert" then the reader assumes that must be one of the "facts" of the novel. Period. And most people are either too prejudiced or too lazy to do some research and learne any different. So the lies become part of the growing pool of prejudice already within their mind

Gnostic texts of the 1st and 2nd centuries were fiction and I wouldn't recommend Joe Shmoe to read them for entertainment because they contain theological poison; and most people have an insufficiently-formed conscience to sort fact from fiction on such matters.[/quote]

No, I do understand your point. I agree that people who already see the Church as corrupt will read a novel like Brown's and use it against the Church. However, I do not believe that Brown was pushing an anti-Catholic agenda and I feel (which I have not yet mentioned) that all the attention it is receiving from Catholics can actually be a bad thing. It makes non-Catholics curious and it may make them wonder about crazy conspiracies. I think that toning down the publicity and treating it like any average novel is the way to go.

Edited March 26, 2009 by HisChildForever

[jmjtina]

anyone working within the Church know the catehesis of the Church as a whole on the laity is weak. Also, anyone working in the Church know that even though its a work of fiction, this has been brought up more than once and is far from "ludicrous".

there is cause for concern and caution. While some wish to stamp it with an authoritative "it's fiction-end of story"- we are talking about people who read it and ask questions like, "Is it true?"

And if we don't have answers to those questions, then we better find out. It should cause us to defend the Mother Church.

Bottom line: literature influences the masses, like it or not, and fiction has a more powerful impact than a non-fiction book.

As with the Da Vinci Code, know what the book says and be ready for questions. It's good for discussion and defending the faith because the faith is being attacked. It's not the first nor will it be the last.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817308' date='Mar 26 2009, 07:00 PM']...from a tyrannical and traditional Catholic figure intent on maintaining orthodox views on the supremacy of Ecclesiology over scientific research?[/quote]

The leaders of the Church are just as capable as anyone else to cause scandal and behave sinfully.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817311' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:05 PM']No, I do understand your point. I agree that people who already see the Church as corrupt will read a novel like Brown's and use it against the Church. However, I do not believe that Brown was pushing an anti-Catholic agenda and I feel (which I have not yet mentioned) that all the attention it is receiving from Catholics can actually be a bad thing. It makes non-Catholics curious and it may make them wonder about crazy conspiracies. I think that toning down the publicity and treating it like any average novel is the way to go.[/quote]


Excellent. Sorry for bein a bit snappy. I felt like we were talking past eachother...which we were. Fiction of itself is not dangerous. But fiction coupled with ignorance, prejudice, or agenda is a very dangerous thing. If he did not intend to be anti-Catholic, then he is simply wholly incompetent as a writer. Really I think it was the "All facts regarding documents, rituals, and secret organizations are completely accurate" statement in the DaVinci Code that set me off. Because in fact what he said regarding those things had hardly any veracity at all. But you are right, what Dan Brown intended or did not intend to do with his novels is immaterial; artforms are subjective and the audience draws their own conclusions. My point is that his presentation is simply ripe and ready for an audience looking to furhter support their own prejudices, hatred, or indifference of Catholicism. And reality is these kinds of people are not going to bother with fact-checking. Hence the danger and burden of responsiblity is ultimately on the reader's end our own end as educated Catholics to be able to respond intelligently to fallacies presented by this fiction writer. And just for the record, having read one of his novels; I think he is a very poor writer...hence my preceding literary criticisms.

[Veridicus]

I just can't imagine that I wouldn't get into a world of bad public relations if I were to write a novel which fabricated a fictional conspiracy wherein the Jewish leadership in the West had orchestrated the current world economic depression as a means of solidifying their fading power in economic institutions or something. If I were to take a religious or social group and implicate them so greviously, even in fiction, and then precede my work by stating "my facts are all accurate"...I dunno...it would just seems shady...people would call it bigotry or racism or say that I had an agenda. And I could just say "I read in a historical book written in the middle ages that Jews planned in the future to do this...so some histories support my fiction. A tour guide also told me about their plans; Besides people its fiction...so just chill out; I think the end of the book where we find out the Jews worship Satan is really a positive note."

Know what I mean, Vern?

Edited March 26, 2009 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817323' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:23 PM']The leaders of the Church are just as capable as anyone else to cause scandal and behave sinfully.[/quote]

Of course they are capable. And of course they have past, present, and will again in the future. But I desist from sensationalizing, popularizing, or pandering to such notions. Scandal sells, so I guess I cannot blame Dan Brown for delivering what people want.

[dauntingknight]

And Hollywood wonders why the Catholic Church doesn't like them.