Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell
by fenomas on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @11:00PM
(#27535746)
> The Da Vinci code is not supposed to represent a factual telling of reality
It was published with a preface titled "FACT" claiming that all the secret societies and rituals and documents in the novel were historically accurate. That was the book's whole schtick.
Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell
by ashtonkem on Thursday June 17, 2021 @12:51AM
(#27536227)
Eh, lots of books use the whole “this is totally the secret history of …” as a gimmick; they’re still sold in the fiction section.
Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell
by fenomas on Thursday June 17, 2021 @03:57AM
(#27537178)
There was no "..wink, wink" to the da vinci code.
The author specifically claimed that certain parts of the book - he listed exactly which parts - were documented historical truth. Isn't that "purporting to communicate factual reality"?
Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell
by ashtonkem on Thursday June 17, 2021 @11:54AM
(#27541007)
If some people thought that a fictional book sold as such contained true things, then they are gullible fools likely to fall for anything. I wouldn’t read too much into that.
Re:When pop history bombs: a response to Malcolm Gladwell
by fenomas on Friday June 18, 2021 @01:46AM
(#27547703)
You're welcome to think so, but that doesn't change the fact that Dan Brown was unambiguously purporting to communicate factual reality.
More so that Gladwell, in fact - I don't think any of Gladwell's books ever had a "the following parts of this book are historical fact" preface! (though a few of them could arguably have used one...)
Malcolm Gladwell is purporting to communicate factual reality. If he discards good arguments and evidence to entertain, then he is doing a real measurable harm in a way that Dan Brown is not.