Fear!
Oct 25th, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 13 Comments |
What do the following stories have in common?
Brain study: Sleepy, grumpy and … primitive?
Howard moves fast with ‘Code’ sequel
That’s right. Fear.
In the first article, we can see how the words “primitive” and “barbaric” have come to be synonymous (as I said here). Fight-or-Flight/irrational emotiveness comes from the “primitive” part of the brain. It’s so hard not to be suspicious of evolution-theory when it leads to such unfortunate theoretical consequences. (But many evolutionists would say the same thing about religion, so there you go).
The second article has to do with Ron Howard filming Dan Brown’s Angles & Demons (which the article says is another Catholics-Are-Scary story). The book came out before Da Vinci, so I don’t know why it’s being called a “sequel.” If I had read it, perhaps I would know.
I saw the movie for Da Vinci (didn’t read the book) and was thoroughly disappointed. Does anyone think the Catholic Church really runs the world? It was supposed to be scary, but was unbelievable instead. (It would have worked better if it was Tom Hanks vs. American Protestants & George Bush. I would have at least been able to think the plot wasn’t stuck in the Middle Ages).
(This was another edition of, “Micah Tillman: Criticizer”)
I read the Da Vinci Code and it was awesome, I can’t tell a lie, but the movie did suck.
And to be honest I don’t think anyone in Hollywood has the guts to take on the Christian Right and George Bush other than Michael Moore.
My wife enjoyed the book as well. She said there was a lot of the solving-of-puzzles type stuff that didn’t translate very well onto the screen.
You’ve gotta love a great conspiracy-theory, solving-ancient-riddles, secret-of-life story. Maybe one day I’ll get around to reading the book.
It does seem that Michael Moore does what he wants. Which is nice. But if you ask the Christian Right, they’ll tell you they’re constantly under attack. So they don’t feel like the dominant force everybody else seems to think they are.
If “you” ask “them”, “they’ll” say “this”. So “they” don’t feel like “everybody else” seems to think “they” do. :-)
Tim—
Sshhh! Micah is perspective-taking. Which requires him to speak in the third person now and again, even if he’s talking about himself. ;-)
The only reason the DaVinci code was fascinating and exciting to people is because they are for the most part ignorant of church history, church councils etc. I didn’t think it was that great of a literary work. Actually, I found his writing style a bit obnoxious.
Of course I don’t mean the only reason as there were interesting puzzles to ponder throughout the book. However, the main premise of the book was nothing fascinating and new.
Agreed, Chuck. I didn’t find the writing itself to be great. Except that it did work for the fast pace of the story, it wasn’t too thick.
Micah-love, it’s the latest “edition” unless you’re looking at it as an “addition” to the other “editions.”
P.S. I love you.
P.P.S. :-p
P.P.P.S. I’m feeling silly. Oh, and the guy who wrote The Next Christendom (who sounds like John Cleese, IRL) Philip something? Anyway, he also wrote about how anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. I don’t think he’s quite right, but Brown could be used as evidence to support his claim I guess.
Thanks Wife! I shall fix my blunder. *looks ashamed*
I made a rare dip into fiction when I read the DaVinci code. I enjoyed the author’s depth of religious detail, and fast clip. It almost made up for the weak writing. I remember being especially annoyed at getting hoodwinked by a double identity late in the book. Maybe it’s common practice in cheap novels to mislead the reader, but it pissed me off.
It amazes me how much research some writers do for their novels!
I had a discussion with my Wife (who has her B.A. in English) one time about cheap deceptions in literature. I don’t think I articulated myself well because I don’t remember us coming to a conclusion.
It had something to do with how mystery writers hide information from their readers through perspective-changes, and whether they sometimes switch perspectives solely to hide information from the reader rather than because of some plot necessity.
But I still don’t think I’m articulating my question well.
Anti-Catholicism is an acceptable prejudice, but by no means the last. International prejudice is still acceptable. In America, it’s perfectly okay to hate the French. In many other countries (all?), it’s perfectly acceptable to hate Americans.
By the way, “eddition” isn’t right either.
Did I just change the vowel and leave the d?
*sigh*
Thanks Andrew!