Last comment on The Da Vinci Code
…Not that I’ve made a first comment, but Chris in the comments over at Samizdata pretty much speaks for me on this:
Cultural products like The DaVinci Code are ultimately expressions of ideas, with the power to convince. This power is particularly compelling given the way that imagination has been systematically subordinated to the instant gratification of television and movies (and dare I suggest the web of late?) for decades. The utter lack of historical knowledge, empiricism, and concern for nuance imparted by flawed education systems, with a prevailing tone of cynicism and skepticism in the broader culture, has made everyone “half-educated”. Common sense is not questioned but dismissed out of hand by those who fancy themselves intellectuals, while the common person lacks the intellectual discipline to develop anything beyond a shallow acquaintance with the big issues of the day. People are lazy and like to think of themselves as clever, and the prevailing unreflective culture panders to it in the worst sort of way.
…One can, of course, defend his right to publish whatever he wants while deploring the consequences of such writing, which is exploitation of the enforced ignorance of the masses of people. One can, without intending to circumscribe his rights in any way, despise him and his message and amatuerish writing. Much like many here might react to neo-Marxist academic writing and analysis. Certainly there is a part of the opposition to him that wants his rights abridged in a coercive manner, but that’s human nature, and it doesn’t really ennoble him and his message so much as point out that there are dangers on all sides. Especially since his partisans would probably, on the whole, be as quick to demand censorship or boycotts of cultural products that they believe does not favor their ideology.
…Ah, at any rate, I think everyone here should agree a voluntary boycott is within the rights of people to organize. Also that people who take bold and controversial stands should not be immune to criticism over them, even if they are protected from any coercion. As a cultural matter, and a matter of religious faith, many libertarians may not just get the percieved stakes involved, and so be it. Unless you have a dog in the fight, so to speak, in a war of influence to convince people to take up Christianity or to take up atheism, it probably shouldn’t matter to you either way, as long as no one starts bringing the government into the fray.
I’m actually something of a fan of this book, which I haven’t read; it’s fun to watch certain people struggle over whether or not they should rail against those who boycott the work and risk being seen as endorsing such filthy, profit-making pop culture product.
Filed under: Books, Film, Life, Politics, The State Is Not Your Friend
Having read the book I certainly wouldn’t call myself a fan of the writing: the most telling comment to me from all the people I meet who rave about the book is “I never read books, but this one…” and go into rhapsodies. (It’s like someone saying “I never watch football, but I know David Beckham is the greatest footballer ever.”)
But I do have a sneaking admiration for the way Brown has played the system described by Chris above. And there is no doubt that, poor as the writing is, there is something very compelling about the way the book is structured: it’s very hard not to want to know what happens next, even as you laugh out loud at the descriptions.
And I love the way it has brought out “censorship envy” in the Church, following the success of Muslim intimidation over the cartoon issue. It’s also funny how no editors seem to care enough about Catholic religious sensibilities to avoid covering the film. Couldn’t have anything to do with no Catholic threatening violence, now could it?
In the same vein, I felt, as you do about Da Vinci, about the movie Crash, which caused our friends in LA to engage in some fairly sanctimonious yowling. The film, they claimed, does not represent the LA THEY know; that the filmmakers’ conflation of issues and fanning of racial tensions serves only to spark what embers might be there; and that it was just all around irresponsible to make the movie because, you know, it’s not the way it is.
To which I say, so?
I don’t buy the claim that the filmmaker’s/painter’s/author’s duty is to present the picture the way you/he/I/the Pope see it, in order to promulgate a more accurate picture of the world. By whose authority do we do our work? How do we know Heinlein’s represenation of life on Mars is correct? Who gave Goya the authorization to scare the crap out of us? Who gets to vet this stuff? If the movie’s trash, it’s trash; who cares? People can take whatever stand they like on it, and there’s the beauty.
My only issue, Nancy, is when filmmakers claim that their movie *does* represent reality; then it’s time for a good, old-fashioned debate about whether or not it does. I find the insight into the worldview of certain people very interesting, especially the more warped or twisted it gets.
… you mean, like the undertaker claims you need a $25,000 coffin and the mechanic thinks it’s a really good idea to change all your belts, just in case? It’s axiomatic that almost anyone selling any product is going to back it as true; it’s up to us to decide. But I do agree that the ways these debates expose people’s worldviews is fascinating.
Not being religious, I always thing the best thing about Christianity is the mythology. It’s fantastic stuff. Good Omens is a great book, Constantine’s a superb film; The Passion of the Christ was rather excellent as well. If people want to go around believing it’s true, that’s their problem. And the Church have got a bit of a cheek, trying to disparage some bits of the mythology while insisting that most of it is absolutely 100% true. “Dan Brown is a liar, and furthermore I have just transformed this wine into God’s actual blood.” Yeah, nice one.