Da Vinci Code and Post Modernism
sar...@supanet.com
and agenda or about the way 'The Da Vinci Code'
has been understood by its readers, but I get the
impression that many people are taking Brown's
version of Christian history more literally than
Brown intended.
IMO Brown's version of Christian history is
supposed to be legitimate in a Post-Modern sense
ie to avoid any clear demonstrable errors in
matters of historical fact, and to be preferable on
PC grounds to the more standard version. (eg more
feminist friendly than traditional Christianity.)
'The Da Vinci Code' IMO fails to avoid a number of
clear and demonstrable errors in matters of historical
fact and can legitimately be criticised on these
grounds. I would however have regrded it as a
misunderstanding of the book's claims to criticise it
for interpreting the historical evidence in ways that
although formally possible are by traditional
historical criteria definitely improbable.
However from reading some Christian critiques of the
book and from overhearing strangers discuss it, I get
the impression that many people are taking Brown's
version of Christian Origins as being historically
plausible by traditional historical criteria. If so, it
would seem to imply widespread confusion about the
difference between post-modernism and traditional views
of historical truth.
Similar issues might possibly be relevant to the
controversy about Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses' although
in this case the unfamiliarity with post-modernism would
be less surprising.
Andrew Criddle
Dave McGrogan
> supposed to be legitimate in a Post-Modern sense
> ie to avoid any clear demonstrable errors in
> matters of historical fact, and to be preferable on
> PC grounds to the more standard version. (eg more
> feminist friendly than traditional Christianity.)
I'm not sure that being "legitimate in a Post-Modern sense" means that
at all. The whole point of Post-Modernism is surely that everything is
as legitimate as everything else; or, rather, that legitimacy is
itself an outdated notion. It has nothing to do with errors in
historical fact or not: True Post-Modernism doesn't concern itself
with the truth of facts, so even if the Da Vinci code were to be
riddled with "mistakes" that wouldn't detract from its status as being
"Post-Modern". (Having never read it, I'm not sure whether it is or
not anyway.)
It's also unfair to categorise Post-Modernism as just being
"preferable on PC grounds". PC should fairly be called a Modernist
movement. Post-Modernism itself is much more radical - and, as many
academics have pointed out, lends itself just as clearly to supporting
fascism as it does to supporting feminism - or, indeed, to any other
-ism you could name.
Dave
sar...@supanet.com
> I'm not sure that being "legitimate in a Post-Modern sense" means
that
> at all. The whole point of Post-Modernism is surely that everything
is
> as legitimate as everything else; or, rather, that legitimacy is
> itself an outdated notion. It has nothing to do with errors in
> historical fact or not: True Post-Modernism doesn't concern itself
> with the truth of facts, so even if the Da Vinci code were to be
> riddled with "mistakes" that wouldn't detract from its status as
being
> "Post-Modern". (Having never read it, I'm not sure whether it is or
> not anyway.)
IMHO the more interesting forms of Post-Modernism are
those that have SOME criteria of legitimacy but very
broad ones.
In mainstream Post-Modernist historiography IIUC a
distinction is made between isolated historical facts
(variously interpreted) and interpretations and
meta-narratives based on these facts. Objectivity and
accuracy are relevant with respect to the first category
in a way that is not true of the second.
In 'The Da Vinci Code' the clsim made that in the statement
in the 'Gospel of Philip' that Mary (Magdalene) was the
'companion' of Jesus, the word 'compasnion' is Aramaic, is,
from this perspective wrong (it is a Greek loan word in
Coptic). The claim that, in the 'Gospel of Mary' the special
charge given to Mary (Magdalene) by Jesus occurs shortly
before the crucifixion, is similarly wrong (it is clearly a
post-resurrection appearance).
However the interpretation put by Brown on the Gospels of
Philip and Mary can in Post-Modernist terms only be criticized
if it depends critically on mistakes like the above. But if
two interpretation are formally compatible with the facts being
interpreted then there are no objective grounds for preferring
one interpretation to another.
>
> It's also unfair to categorise Post-Modernism as just being
> "preferable on PC grounds". PC should fairly be called a Modernist
> movement. Post-Modernism itself is much more radical - and, as many
> academics have pointed out, lends itself just as clearly to
supporting
> fascism as it does to supporting feminism - or, indeed, to any other
> -ism you could name.
>
IMHO the PC preoccupation with language as generating reality
and not merely reflecting it probably makes it Post-Modernist.
However I was on reflection using PC in a very broad sense which
you were right to challenge and whether PC in the strict sense is
Modernist or Post-Modernist is a peripheral issue here.
My main point was not that 'The Da Vinci Code' is legitimate in a
Post-Modernist sense because it has an specifically feminist agenda
but that overt biases of this nature are legitimate in mainstream
Post-Modernist theories of history as long as they do not lead to
distortions of the underlying isolated historical facts. (And to
a lesser extent that Post-Modernism welcomes and encourages
challenges to traditional views even if they are clearly driven by
some controversial agenda or other.)
However, although I agree that Post-Modernism is genuinely likely
to be used in support of racist nationalist etc agendas, I doubt
whether overtly anti-feminist Post-Modernism is a real option in
the English-speaking world. Despite the very real potentialities
of such an approach, the sort of sadistic misogyny that would be
involved is in practice excluded from the Anglo-American tradition
in a way that would not necessarily be true in continental European
thought.
Andrew Criddle
sar...@supanet.com
> I'm not sure that being "legitimate in a Post-Modern sense" means
that
> at all. The whole point of Post-Modernism is surely that everything
is
> as legitimate as everything else; or, rather, that legitimacy is
> itself an outdated notion. It has nothing to do with errors in
> historical fact or not: True Post-Modernism doesn't concern itself
> with the truth of facts, so even if the Da Vinci code were to be
> riddled with "mistakes" that wouldn't detract from its status as
being
> "Post-Modern". (Having never read it, I'm not sure whether it is or
> not anyway.)
IMHO the more interesting forms of Post-Modernism are
those that have SOME criteria of legitimacy but very
broad ones.
In mainstream Post-Modernist historiography IIUC a
distinction is made between isolated historical facts
(variously interpreted) and interpretations and
meta-narratives based on these facts. Objectivity and
accuracy are relevant with respect to the first category
in a way that is not true of the second.
In 'The Da Vinci Code' the clsim made that in the statement
in the 'Gospel of Philip' that Mary (Magdalene) was the
'companion' of Jesus, the word 'compasnion' is Aramaic, is,
from this perspective wrong (it is a Greek loan word in
Coptic). The claim that, in the 'Gospel of Mary' the special
charge given to Mary (Magdalene) by Jesus occurs shortly
before the crucifixion, is similarly wrong (it is clearly a
post-resurrection appearance).
However the interpretation put by Brown on the Gospels of
Philip and Mary can in Post-Modernist terms only be criticized
if it depends critically on mistakes like the above. But if
two interpretation are formally compatible with the facts being
interpreted then there are no objective grounds for preferring
one interpretation to another.
>
> It's also unfair to categorise Post-Modernism as just being
> "preferable on PC grounds". PC should fairly be called a Modernist
> movement. Post-Modernism itself is much more radical - and, as many
> academics have pointed out, lends itself just as clearly to
supporting
> fascism as it does to supporting feminism - or, indeed, to any other
> -ism you could name.
>
Kim Tame
>I may be wrong either about Dan Brown's beliefs
>and agenda or about the way 'The Da Vinci Code'
>has been understood by its readers, but I get the
>impression that many people are taking Brown's
>version of Christian history more literally than
>Brown intended.
>
>IMO Brown's version of Christian history is
>supposed to be legitimate in a Post-Modern sense
>ie to avoid any clear demonstrable errors in
>matters of historical fact, and to be preferable on
>PC grounds to the more standard version. (eg more
>feminist friendly than traditional Christianity.)
>
I'm about to read it, so will comment more fully later! However, it
is a novel, and the art of a good novel is to make it believable.
--
Kim
At home: http://freespace.virgin.net/kim.tame/Home.htm
At work: www.feedthechildren.org.uk - now with online donation facility
Mitch B
<kp.tame'nospam'@virgin.net> wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2005 11:01:26 -0800, sar...@supanet.com wrote:
>
>> I may be wrong either about Dan Brown's beliefs
>> and agenda or about the way 'The Da Vinci Code'
>> has been understood by its readers, but I get the
>> impression that many people are taking Brown's
>> version of Christian history more literally than
>> Brown intended.
>>
>> IMO Brown's version of Christian history is
>> supposed to be legitimate in a Post-Modern sense
>> ie to avoid any clear demonstrable errors in
>> matters of historical fact, and to be preferable on
>> PC grounds to the more standard version. (eg more
>> feminist friendly than traditional Christianity.)
>>
>
> I'm about to read it, so will comment more fully later! However, it
> is a novel, and the art of a good novel is to make it believable.
Did you see last Thursday's Channel 5 "The Real Da Vinci Code" ?
--
Mitch
Doug C
news:6m2i01h7f7v5hjktm...@4ax.com...
>
> I'm about to read it, so will comment more fully later! However, it
> is a novel, and the art of a good novel is to make it believable.
> --
page turner of a story, and a dreadful novel marked by poor
characterisation, and formulaic writing. I think the same of Dan Brown's
other books. I enjoyed them all as stories (good book for a train), was
irritated by the presentation of nonsense as fact, and periodically felt
like reaching for a red pen to scrawl rude comments about their
two-dimensional characters and cliched and formulaic writing in the margin.
--
Doug
--
brain under construction
Doug C
news:1107862645....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dave McGrogan wrote:
>
>>
>> It's also unfair to categorise Post-Modernism as just being
>> "preferable on PC grounds". PC should fairly be called a Modernist
>> movement. Post-Modernism itself is much more radical - and, as many
>> academics have pointed out, lends itself just as clearly to
> supporting
>> fascism as it does to supporting feminism - or, indeed, to any other
>> -ism you could name.
>>
> IMHO the PC preoccupation with language as generating reality
> and not merely reflecting it probably makes it Post-Modernist.
> However I was on reflection using PC in a very broad sense which
> you were right to challenge and whether PC in the strict sense is
> Modernist or Post-Modernist is a peripheral issue here.
>
argues that particular forms of language encode a metanarrative that
privileges some particular interest group, e.g. men, the able-bodied etc.
Kim Tame
No. Was it good?
David Ould
> On 7 Feb 2005 11:01:26 -0800, sar...@supanet.com wrote:
>
>
>>I may be wrong either about Dan Brown's beliefs
>>and agenda or about the way 'The Da Vinci Code'
>>has been understood by its readers, but I get the
>>impression that many people are taking Brown's
>>version of Christian history more literally than
>>Brown intended.
>>
>>IMO Brown's version of Christian history is
>>supposed to be legitimate in a Post-Modern sense
>>ie to avoid any clear demonstrable errors in
>>matters of historical fact, and to be preferable on
>>PC grounds to the more standard version. (eg more
>>feminist friendly than traditional Christianity.)
>>
>
>
> I'm about to read it, so will comment more fully later! However, it
> is a novel, and the art of a good novel is to make it believable.
To some extent,
I'm reading Harry Potter 4 at the moment and it's very good, but I doubt
that JK Rowling really wants me to believe that Hogwarts exists and that
there's a big Wizard conspiracy to stop us muggles finding out about them.
But Brown, does believe the stuff in tDVC and writes it while pursuing
an open anti-Christian agenda (and he really doesn't like the RCC).
--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com
Mitch B
<kp.tame'nospam'@virgin.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:08:37 +0000, "Mitch B"
> <mitch...@mid.ydns.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:53:55 GMT, Kim Tame
>> <kp.tame'nospam'@virgin.net> wrote:
[..]
>>> I'm about to read it, so will comment more fully later! However, it
>>> is a novel, and the art of a good novel is to make it believable.
>>
>> Did you see last Thursday's Channel 5 "The Real Da Vinci Code" ?
> No. Was it good?
Suffice it to say, it put Dan Brown's research in its true context :-)
--
Mitch
sar...@supanet.com
> Kim Tame wrote:
> >
> > I'm about to read it, so will comment more fully later! However,
it
> > is a novel, and the art of a good novel is to make it believable.
>
> To some extent,
>
> I'm reading Harry Potter 4 at the moment and it's very good, but I
doubt
> that JK Rowling really wants me to believe that Hogwarts exists and
that
> there's a big Wizard conspiracy to stop us muggles finding out about
them.
>
> But Brown, does believe the stuff in tDVC and writes it while
pursuing
> an open anti-Christian agenda (and he really doesn't like the RCC).
>
>
> --
> David Ould
> http://ould.bravehost.com
I agree that Brown is really hostile to the RCC, but one
of the odd things about tDVC is the claim made by the
authors of 'the Da Vinci Hoax', writing from a rather
conservative RC position, that tDVC has become widely used
in the USA in RC lay study groups as a source of new light
on the Christian Gospel.
I presume that Olson and Miesel (the authors of 'the Da Vinci
Hoax') know whereof they (disapprovingly) speak. But if so I
regard it as rather odd.
Andrew Criddle
Kim Tame
<davidNO...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kim Tame wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2005 11:01:26 -0800, sar...@supanet.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I may be wrong either about Dan Brown's beliefs
>>>and agenda or about the way 'The Da Vinci Code'
>>>has been understood by its readers, but I get the
>>>impression that many people are taking Brown's
>>>version of Christian history more literally than
>>>Brown intended.
>>>
>>>IMO Brown's version of Christian history is
>>>supposed to be legitimate in a Post-Modern sense
>>>ie to avoid any clear demonstrable errors in
>>>matters of historical fact, and to be preferable on
>>>PC grounds to the more standard version. (eg more
>>>feminist friendly than traditional Christianity.)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm about to read it, so will comment more fully later! However, it
>> is a novel, and the art of a good novel is to make it believable.
>
>To some extent,
>
>I'm reading Harry Potter 4 at the moment and it's very good, but I doubt
>that JK Rowling really wants me to believe that Hogwarts exists and that
>there's a big Wizard conspiracy to stop us muggles finding out about them.
Ah, but while you're reading it, you inhabit that world. A good novel
will draw you in, albeit temporarily.
>
>But Brown, does believe the stuff in tDVC and writes it while pursuing
>an open anti-Christian agenda (and he really doesn't like the RCC).
But we put the novel down and come back to reality.
David Ould
of course, and that's the first difference between Potter and DaVinci. I
never felt part of the DaVinci world, but I feel immersed in Hogwarts.
>>But Brown, does believe the stuff in tDVC and writes it while pursuing
>>an open anti-Christian agenda (and he really doesn't like the RCC).
>
>
>
> But we put the novel down and come back to reality.
yes, we do. But Brown doesn't. He *believes* and *advocates* the stuff
that he writes.
Steven Carr
Bart D. Ehrman.
Steven Carr
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/