---
title: Confusing Fiction with Fact
date: 2024-05-13
categories:
    - general
    - 'Book Reviews'
tagss:
    - curiosity
---

# Confusing Fiction with Fact

I swear some people can't keep track of reality.

While browsing Amazon for something to read in the vein of philosophy I ran across a book entitled *The da Vinci Fraud: Why the Truth is Stranger than Fiction* by Robert M. Price.  The book purports to debunk the "many misleading claims found in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code" according to one reviewer.  That statement and several others made by various <!-- more -->reviewers suggest that somehow Brown was intending to provide accurate historical information regarding the Christian Church.  Funny, having read *The Da Vinci Code* I don't recall Brown ever claiming that the book was historically accurate.  For someone to take the time to write a book to refute claims that were never made seems, well, stupid. Apparently, Mr. Price (or I should say Doctor Price, given his PhD) has difficulty comprehending that fiction is by definition not fact.  Fiction writers often base their works on some variation of an idea or concept and follow the "what if" process. That is, "what if" there really is an Opus Dei [^1] with sini
ster underpinnings?  "What if" Jesus and Mary Magdalene really did have a child together? and so on.  Fiction writers take some fact and embroider it with the lace needed to paint an enticing picture that tells an entertaining story.  Few set out to present history (or any other topic) factually.

I love James Michener's work. He has generated dozens of books that provide insight into the history of various regions (Alaska, Hawaii, the Caribbean, Spain, Poland, and on and on) but I would be fool to believe that his works are 100% historically accurate.  And, again, I don't think that Michener ever set out for accuracy.  Having read almost all of his books, including his autobiography, I suspect that he simply found the process of researching and learning about these different regions interesting and consequently used that research to provide a foundation for his stories. His histories are painted in broad brush strokes that do give the flavor of that region's history but are likely not completely accurate.  Does the lack of absolute historical accuracy diminish his work?  Not in my view.

Every writer writes through a particular lens and it's especially important, I think, to remember that history is researched, interpreted, and written through the specific lens of that writer. Dr. Price may claim to present facts to refute Brown's storyline (I can't say for certain that he does since I've not read the book) but the reader must remember that Price's account was interpreted and written through his own lens and may, therefore, be just as historically inaccurate.

I'm left scratching my head on why someone with a PhD would even consider Brown's stories to be intended to be historically accurate.  They are simply works of fiction with some references to reality.
# Footnotes

[^1]:Opus Dei is an organization officially recognized by the Catholic Church.  Brown's depiction of the organization as somehow sinister is based, from what I can understand, on controversies surrounding the organization and its cult-like activities ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei))