I must be one of the few people yet to read 'The Da Vinci Code'. So, it is perhaps strange that I should be found pontificating about it. But since when have the facts got in the way of a good story?
The best-seller has just been banned in Lebanon after complaints by Catholic leaders that it was offensive to Christianity.
Father Abdou Abu Kasm, president of Lebanon's Catholic Information Centre, is reported to have described the contents of the book as "insulting". "There are paragraphs that touch the very roots of the Christian religion... they say Jesus Christ had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene, that they had children. Those things are difficult for us to accept, even if it's supposed to be fiction," he said.
'The Da Vinci Code' had sold in great numbers in Lebanon where about a third of the population are Christian.
There are many sub-sets of censorship, but one way of boiling this thorny issue down is to split secular and religious censorship. Secular censorship has often tried to protect us from ourselves, with the result being that future classics, like James Joyce's 'Ulysses' and D.H. Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' were banned initially. It has also been used by authorities such as Napoleon III and Nazi Germany as a tool to maintain the status quo.
Religious censorship has often revolved around the notion of image. In early Christianity, for example, the feet of the saints and the Virgin Mary could not be shown bare. In the 17th Century, Bartolome Murillo, a great painter of religious subjects, suffered the wrath of the Spanish inquisition for "suggesting that the Madonna had toes".
I suppose I have always instinctively felt that the essence of civilisation was to allow fredom of expression.
In the realm of 'fact' whether books, or documentaries, for example, we have a variety of laws such as libel, privacy, incitement to racial hatred to protect society. Like all laws they are imperfect, but nevertheless they are rightly there to prevent people from peddling hatred and lies.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
very thoughtful analysis of censorship and docudramas are the work of Stan, thanks Danny!
2 - Chris
Very nice, interesting read. And I agree. I have not read the book, and I may not agree with much of the ideas put forth in it, but it is a work of fiction. I do not want tpsee it banned. "I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." I am not sure who said that, but it seems appropriate.
3 - Vic
The problem with the book is that it is published as a work of fiction, but not really. The author claims that there is research to back up his ridiculous claims and many people take the "facts" presented in the book at face value.
Vic
4 - Mark Saleski
i guess i never heard about the research done for this book.
to me, it was just a fun read.
5 - Robert T DeMarco
I read it. The book is fascinating and thought provoking. The author did a great job on the research.
It is true that some of what is in the book is a "stretch". But the book is thought provoking and does make for interesting discussions.
The fact that the book brings discussion about religious hierarchy and myths is in itself worthwhile.
If you can put together a group to read the book and then discuss it that is great fun. Don't forget the wine.
Bob
6 - Big Time Patriot
I thought the Davinci Code was an okay read, but for a real conspricy thriller I recommend 'Foucault's Pendulum' by Umberto Eco. Umberto manages to tie up almost all of the grand conspiracy theories into one large knot. Plus, he's a better writer than Dan Brown.
The censorship fuss does bring up the whole "Satanic Verses" issue. Religious inspired censorship doesn't sound any better coming from Christians than it did coming from Moslems.
7 - Bevinda
I read the book and it does not merit all the hype. While it is instructive up to a point, I've read faster paced thrillers. And come on, those codes were really too simple. 'Sofia' and 'apple'. The end was really disappointing with Sophie finding her family (just like a Bollywood script) and the body of Mary Magdalene in the Louvre. And would it not have been easier for the Teacher to go along with Langdon and Sophie as part of their team and find the map? I thought the plot was silly.