Print

Print
Hi Jesper;

I entirely see your point about authors like Brown using a pseudo-historical validity to convince their readers that their conspiracy theory version of events is right and that establishment academia is covering it up does open his books up to scholarly criticism. At the same time I also understand that books like these are part of a larger marketing strategy to produce books, movies and all of the merchandising that goes with it. You can actually go on a DaVinci Code tour and relive the conspiracy for yourself. The people that drive this industry don't really care if it is true just if it is profitable. The author ends up being little more than the name on the cover. From that perspective these books aren't even classifiable as literature and it is a bit simplistic to point at the author and say that it's all his idea and that he is leading people down the wrong track. It is a larger issue of publishers and the entertainment industry blurring the line between the truth and what they want you to believe at the moment so that you will spend your money. In fact learned scholars speaking up about the fake history being presented become part of the spin because they feed the conspiracy fiction that is being used to create the air of realism in the first place. It could also be said that the readers of these kinds of books aren't necessarily looking for education and judging them by academic standards isn't going negatively to effect their sales.

In the end I think that people bending the truth to make their fiction more salable is going to be a consistent marketing strategy for a while yet. There will be more Dan Browns. The most important thing is to endeavor to make the truth available to those people that are really looking for it so that we don't forget that Dan Brown's history isn't the right telling of it.

I would like to add that I found Dan Brown pretty unreadable, poorly written and fairly unoriginal (as other contributors have already pointed out). I do admire the promotions package though.

Thanks for the spirited debate

David

Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:21:46 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 'historian'
To: [log in to unmask]

David,

 

I didn’t feel bullied at all – it was merely an illustration of escaping any consequence by rhetorical strategy. The bully (not you) is using hidden intention when confronted – in the same way, your marketing argument can always be applied in the face of any counterargument. In either case, with no finality things are blurred beyond the reasonable. Reality might be blurred, and we should be attentive to all sides of an argument, but we shouldn’t let that relativism prevent us from using baselines and common ground when we disagree.

 

But enough metatalk. I am not talking about audience reception and sexing things up. And I have read enough Hayden White and Bruno Latour to acknowledge and enjoy the constructivist and rhetorical takes on history and science. What I do argue is that Dan Brown, because of his preface and interviews, is susceptible to academic criticism, because of the thinly veiled appeal to historical fact and truth. Compared to Tolkien and Rowling, his books are a vehicle for a discourse besides the fictional. This is not the same as the emotional response or enactment needs of Tolkien and Harry Potter fans – this is an intentional blurring of an established genre difference.

 

And this is the important point: Of course we can judge such a book by academic standards, just like we can judge alternative medicine or political rhetoric (or at least, we can judge *that dimension* of the book). That depends on where we are in our research, who we are talking to, what we want to do with it. Calling it “fiction” doesn’t absolve it from reproach, just like calling it “my opinion” doesn’t absolve a statement from criticism. Historical “facts” disguised as “poetical truths” should be engaged with all the more. One of the responsibilities of historians is to point out that beautiful day dreams are historical fallacies based on the state of research at the time. This might change – so what? It is exactly the nature of academic knowledge. If you really believe that “people are free to do so” as an absolute and not a methodological rule, there is no need for universities, intellectuals, or scholars.

 

Best,

 

Jesper.

 

Fra: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne av David Mattichak
Sendt: 9. november 2011 23:54
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'

 

Whether Dan Brown believes his work or not becomes irrelevant long before his books ever hit the shelves. Random House (his publishing overlords) have listed his books as fiction, they are reviewed in the mainstream media as novels, so people that want to believe them as facts are choosing to read them through some sort of rose colored glasses.

I don't imagine that academic publishers require their authors to sex up their work to create a broader appeal but I would be willing to bet that Random House do. I have published (and tried to publish) non-fiction books on magick and the publishers that I dealt with wanted me to "Potterize" them to make them more broadly appealing (I refused and so I am still a poor writer). My point is that once the writer has finished a book it goes to the mainstream publication machine and often comes out as something quite different. I am not saying that Dan Brown started with anything valid but he certainly would have bent to the will of his publishing overlords and written something that they could sell millions of copies of. The whole phenomenon is driven by profits and judging these kind of popular books by the same sorts of standards as an academic view of history misses the point- I think.

Publishers, especially publishers of popular fiction, are only accountable to their shareholders so they will always want to sex it up for success in the marketplace. I would doubt whether Mr Brown's books were even written completely by himself as his publishers would certainly have put them through the editing mill that takes an artist's work and bends it into commercial shape that can be marketed mercilessly to make money. That system is hardly going to produce a volume of serious history. If people want to believe that it can, or will, then they are free to do so. In the end fiction is just fiction regardless of who believes it.

I apologize if you feel that I have bullied you- it was never my intention.

 

David

 

Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:07:27 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'
To: [log in to unmask]

Well, this kind of postmodern infinite regress takes us nowhere, I think. Reminds me of high school bullies who covered their snipe remarks behind “irony” and claims that the offended couldn’t take a joke. If that is so, the line between fact and fiction is not blurred, it is gone. And that is simply not true, Latour notwithstanding.

 

In other words: Marketing ploy is a bad argument when discussing fact and fiction. Otherwise, we can always use “perhaps this was intended” as another escape. Genres exist for a reason; they are frequently abused, twisted, blended, mixed, but that confirms their basic utility. Von  Däniken wrote speculative history, but most of it was fact for him. Same with Celestine Prophecy. That they sell is beside the point. We can criticize them because they believe it to be historically true. SW and LOTR is fiction, and fans want it to be true and so enact it. But no dragons and deathstars appear. In any case we cannot criticize Tolkien or Lucas on the level of academic veracity. We might do so for the fan who offers a working lightsaber though.

 

Best,

 

Jesper.

 

Fra: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne av David Mattichak
Sendt: 9. november 2011 13:36
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'

 

It may also be a marketing ploy for his readers to think that Dan Brown believes his faked history too- great identification gimmick. People believed Eric Von Daniken too but now we really know where the statues on Easter Island came from. Sold a lot of books though. The Celestine Prophecy sold a ton of books too- is it fake, is it real? From my reading the authors believed what they wrote. Is that a reason to criticize them as frauds? Caesar said that conquerors have the right to tell history in any way that they choose so how can I be sure that any history is true? People want the Lord of the Rings to be true- have they been milked for wanting it to be true, or Star Wars?

 

I am sure that not everyone that read Dan Brown or Eco believed their take on history. Fiction relies on people that want to believe on some level. Not that I am defending Dan Brown, not really my kind of books, but it is an enduring debate.

Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:37:13 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'
To: [log in to unmask]

David,

 

Arguing that Brown is artistically «right» because millions buy his books or because his «fact-fiction» reversal is just a marketing ploy seems to me to ignore two things: First of all that he himself seems to believe in his pseudohistorical drivel, and second that neither sales nor marketing (that is, your artistical argument) justifies an industry bent on milking his audience because they want it to be true. People might be gullible, but that doesn’t mean we should prey on that, fiction or not.

 

So no, we’re not criticizing Brown for talent (which is overrated IMHO) or marketing ability (where he is very good), but for his deliberate fictionalizing of pseudohistorical fact and participation in the popular occult industry. He is not «just» writing fiction. Rowlings is just writing fiction. What her fans do is another matter.

 

Best,

 

Jesper.

 

Fra: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne av David Mattichak
Sendt: 9. november 2011 00:51
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'

 

It occurs to me that much of the pagan/Wiccan world still believes a similar style of believable fiction re Margaret Murray's interpretation of history that has since been shown to be off track. Even though this is so there are still many witches that hold to that particular fiction as believable. People are gullible, nothing will ever change that. The genius of great fiction writers isn't in their accuracy or their perfect use of English Grammar, but their ability to tell a story that holds the reader to the end. Criticizing them for their talent and their ability to market their work is almost a misinterpretation of what they are all about.

Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:35:09 +1100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'
To: [log in to unmask]

These psuedohistorians are deliberately vague about the difference between history and fiction – and the readers do believe that it is history much of the time.

 

 

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Mattichak
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 9:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'

 

The perceptions of the reader aren't the business of the author. If the reader wants to believe that the fiction is genuine history then that is their business. Authors of fiction are telling a story not writing a serious history. It really doesn't matter how silly a novel is the object of writing it was to sell books. It is like saying that I have read all of the Harry Potter books so now I know all about magick.
 

> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:14:53 +1100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Hi Vivianne,
>
> It might be one of the silliest, but I've heard several people speak of it as though it is history as in (in an excited voice) "Yes, and once I read 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' I understood blah, blah, blah.." - As if it is a history book.
>
> ~Caroline.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vivianne Crowley
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 6:27 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'
>
> Many years ago there was an article UK left-leaning broadsheet 'The Guardian' which described Michael Baigent et al's 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' as 'one of the silliest books of the 20th century'.
>
> It now has a rival:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059084/Six-deaths-attributed-Curse-Tutankhamun-murders-committed-notorious-satanist-book-claims.html