Gnostics' favorite scholar gets a free pass from critics

CWNews.com, The Forum ^ | May 9, 2006 | Phil Lawler

[Tax-chick]

If it doesn't hurt, it's not penance!

[atlaw]

Education in rudimentary literary devices, employed for centuries by good and bad novelists alike, has apparently been eliminated from the curriculum. Sad.

I suppose the word "novel" itself will soon be a head-scratcher, relegated to the depths of the thesaurus as an oddity that pre-dated the rise of truthiness and television news.

[AmishDude]

Well, I am certainly familiar with the rhetorical device of accusing your opponent of ignorance or stupidity.

So, what you are saying is that when Dan Brown writes in the front of his "novel" that "all this crap is true" he is just using a "literary device"?

What about when he continues to maintain that polite fiction in interviews?

[atlaw]

So, what you are saying is that when Dan Brown writes in the front of his "novel" that "all this crap is true" he is just using a "literary device"?

Yes. Which is why the cover of the book says "a novel."

The rather simplistic device of claiming that a story is based upon "true" events ("only the names have been changed to protect the innocent" -- wink-wink, nudge-nudge) has been employed in everything from novels to comic books to television shows.

Surprisingly, it still seems to work.

[AnAmericanMother]

That is the hyper-technical pedant's view.

"Scotch" is perfectly acceptable in Scotland itself - it's the English (and American) Caledoniophiles that have spread the rumor around that it can only be "Scots" or "Scottish" except for whisky or broth. Not true.

[AnAmericanMother]

Are the Black Egyptians flying around the pyramids on the wings that the Evil Ice People stole from them?

[AnAmericanMother]

LOL Why is it so many intelligent, humorous and cool converts issued from the border countries?

'cause the Borderers are intelligent and cool (but scary when mad) people?

Have you read George MacDonald Fraser's history of the Borders yet? I think it's called The Steel Bonnets.

[Taliesan]

Brown repeats this "literary device" in interviews, on his web page, etc., and refers readers to non-fiction works which purport to substantiate these historical facts which he really doesn't believe, but just acts like he believes, all the time.

I guess it's all ok, and we are silly for responding, since he really doesn't believe it all (though he never says he doesn't believe it all), and what he really believes (against all evidence) is what really counts.

Thanks for educating us in the nuance of authorial practice. I will ever after judge all writers by what they really believe, which I will make up out of thin air in spite of what they say. I am so much smarter now.

[atlaw]

You're welcome. All you have to do is remember what a novel is -- and is not.

[livius]

I guess you're a little concerned about it yourself, or you wouldn't be participating in this thread.

[AmishDude]

So you are saying that Dan Brown doesn't believe a word of what he says. That his "facts" are all hokum. That he knows it. That he lies about it in every interview to promote the book.

And that he knows he's lying about it now.

Right.

[Taliesan]

This entire discussion is predicated upon the fact that many, many people believe the history they read in novels. That is empirically true, no matter what you and I think about the intelligence level it implies.

If you heard that someone did a play in your child's classroom which taught that America was stolen from the rightful owners, would you correct that by injecting a contrary interpretation of history into your child's thought life, or would you simply take the attitude that "everyone knows that drama is not history"? Of course not.

So your entire response to this issue, that we just have to remember what a novel is and is not, demonstrably misses the point, which is that great numbers of the public do not so remember, and therefore must be reminded.