The Da Vinci Code (again)

Boy has there been a lot of ink (and electrons) spilled over Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. On the one hand, what's the big deal? It's a thriller novel, which are almost as notorious for outlandish plots as action movies are.

On the other hand, the book claims that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." This threw me for a loop when I read the book, before I realized it different from your average thriller. Was the vote at the Council of Nicea really that close? Was there really documentary evidence that Jesus was romantically involved with Mary Magdalene?

Many people probably see the church's complains about the novel as sour grapes; of course they would argue with a book like this, despite the truth it might contain. However, this page on WikiPedia exposes a number of these inaccuracies and fabrications.

Look here, Dan, write any book you like, but don't claim that it's "accurate" when it isn't. In fact you might want to put a note in the front saying "This is all for fun. I've made no pretense of historical accuracy, so just enjoy the book."

Progressive = offensive?

In a recent letter, Cindy Petricko says, "If the Masters series manages to never tangle with ABC's fear of FCC sanction, somebody is not doing their job. Sci-fi is progressive in nature—an artistic force for technological advance and social awareness." I've heard similar things said for years, and everyone seems to accept them as truisms. I'm not quite clear on the reasoning, however, so let's break it down point by point.

First, running into FCC sanctions presumably means content which will be directly offensive to some people--typically language, violence, drug use and nudity/sex. Ideas, good writing and effective storytelling are very seldom censored by the FCC, so presumably that is not what we are talking about.

Second, SF is "progressive." Therefore, it follows that we are progressing toward something.

Third, SF is an "artistic force for technological advance." As an SF fan, I guess I'll buy that.

Finally, SF is an "artistic force for social awareness." Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what that means.

Putting these together, SF (and the Masters series) apparently should be progressing toward something, mindlessly driving toward coarseness, offensiveness and bad taste, no matter what the consequences (but somehow in a socially aware manner).

Ironically, art thrives on its limitations. G.K. Chesterton said, "Anarchism adjures us to be bold creative artists, and care for no laws or limits. But it is impossible to be an artist and not care for laws and limits. Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame."

Plenty of people are "pushing the envelope" against social mores, and the result? More crap on TV than ever before. Why can't we focus on good storytelling and thought-provoking ideas instead? Isn't that what SF is about anyway?

Regards,
Rob Scott

-----------------------------------------

Original letter:
April 11, 2006

Masters of SF Must Be Provocative

"Robert Heinlein never really provoked Bill O'Reilly." ("Writing Sparks Masters Of SF") Oh, really? If that's true, it's only because O'Reilly has never read Job: A Comedy of Justice or anything about Lazarus Long and his kin. Unfortunately, I have to ask—has Keith Addis never read Heinlein?

If the Masters series manages to never tangle with ABC's fear of FCC sanction, somebody is not doing their job. Sci-fi is progressive in nature—an artistic force for technological advance and social awareness. A Masters of Sci-Fi series worth its salt would be a powerful expression of that force. I hope this series will be.

Cindy Petricko
prayleen AT sbcglobal DOT net