Do you think all fiction is propaganda if it involves historical events? One can make that claim. Remember ‘The Name of the Rose’? Do you think that was anti-Catholic propaganda?
>>> Do you think all fiction is propaganda if it involves historical events? One can make that claim. Remember ‘The Name of the Rose’? Do you think that was anti-Catholic propaganda? <<<
No, but I do think that fiction CAN be “propaganda,” and that it probably IS if it systematically distorts history in one direction (as _Angels_ and _Da Vinci_ do; in both cases, a negative direction).
>>> Remember ‘The Name of the Rose’? Do you think that was anti-Catholic propaganda? <<<
_The Name of the Rose_: saw the movie, didn’t read Eco’s book. Don’t know if it was anti-Catholic propaganda. Certainly a caricature of late Medieval europe. I thought MPATHG was better (and much, much funnier).
The difference between Brown’s work and the Name of the Rose is quite massive.
Brown’s thesis is that the death and resurrection of are false, the Church knows they are false and will go to any length to maintain the fiction to continue its power.
In other words, the whole foundation of Christianity is a trick of oppression on the unknowing followers.
Eco, while portraying bad men in Catholicism and exploring post-modernism, goes nowhere near this.