Jews Never Had This Problem

It seems these days that marketing companies insist on sinking their fangs into the most unholy of places. Nickelodeon is the highest grossing cable network on television, mostly because advertisers are so eager to cater to this immense market demographic. Children spend more money on unnecessary crap than millionaires and old people do who, lets face it, might as well spend it while they’ve got the time. This is probably because most children don’t have to worry about providing for the basics in life, shelter and whatnot. Moreover, I imagine that many parents have bought into that line of crap that raising children is the greatest reason for existence. That belief has manifested itself into providing monetary extravagance for their children, whose wants are often unconventional by adult standards (I mean, honestly, who else would spend five dollars on a bundle of cardboard vials filled with flavored sugar?). Giving in to the constant nagging of a child who has no shame and is perfectly comfortable whining for hours on end if for no other reason than to see what kind of weird voices he or she can make with his or her young vocal chords may also be a reason.
But another marketing demo being exploited these days by both advertisers and politicians is the evangelical Christian 18-45 group. These people are gaining a lot of influence, and it’s either by God’s own will, or their ability to convince themselves they are right and all others are going to hell that they’re their voices are being heard, and therefore must be sucked up to. But we must be careful when looking at how politicians and advertisers are exploiting the theologically faithful, because it isn’t just the straightforward, say what they want us to say, method that’s getting the job done. Just ask Dan Brown. He’s using religion to exploit his book’s popularity by insulting the religious and getting them to create his own media campaign that bashes his novel, but will certainly ensure that millions will read it. All over the world, people are fighting for or against the legitimacy of “The Da Vinci Code” by debating a question that both answers itself, and yet has opened a world of conflict wherein both Brown and Christian leaders can profit: is a work of fiction factual?
Now I know what you, my faithful readers, are saying right now, “I would have thought you’d be on Dan Brown’s side. After all, aren’t you a staunch defender of the first amendment, and the right for everyone to be heard, regardless of what they say?” Well, I am, and fuck you for questioning my judgment. As the voice of the people, I am obligated to preserve the right to free speech, whilst ensuring that all are heard, and the truth is found. I am, after all, a man of science. And what more fundamental concept is there in my world than the search for truth? It wasn’t until tonight that I was turned around on Dan Brown. There have been a flux of articles in the past few months about “The Da Vinci Code” and I read them all. But it wasn’t until I read a New Yorker piece that I discovered Brown to be staunchly defending the facts stated in his book. Before I heard this, I assumed that Brown was going with the same argument Tom Hanks and Ron Howard had used, that this was a fictional story not to be taken seriously. Whether facts used in the story are true is insignificant. But Brown is now saying that his book is well researched and what he’s talked about has some truth to it. But the problem is that he fails to draw a line where the factual part ends and the fiction begins. He has created a very hazy middle ground, and decided to use both sides for protection. Of course he’s shouldn’t be questioned. This is a novel after all. But he can now also say that what he’s saying has some historical basis, and is to be taken seriously.
This is dangerous ground for a species with such a wild imagination, and a willingness to believe in anything (including the existence of an all-knowing being that created our universe). We love our tales to be as wild and improbable as possible, but there’s nothing we love more than when these tales have a hint of truth to them. That just gets us frothing at the mouth.
Hence, the tendency of movies to slap the “The following is based on real events” tagline at the beginning of a movie is becoming more common than ever. Does this violate Aristotle’s laws of impossibilities and improbabilities? It’s hard to say. After all, if a probable impossibility is preferable, wouldn’t the fact that it’s just a little bit truthful add to that impossibility? Can something true make something seem more false? It’s a question for serious men, and I’ll take care of it at a later date.
But that brings about an even more serious question; does it really matter what is perceived as true and what isn’t? I would argue that it does, but I’ve been wrong before. There are several thousand members of Opus Dei. If any of them commits murder, then they’ll surely be prosecuted and sent to prison for it. Outside of that, what does it matter for the other 5,999,950,000 of us who have absolutely nothing to do with any of this nonsense? Imagination fosters progress. If we are so easily whisked away to a world where an albino monk murders in the name of God and the preservation of truth, a world where Tom Hanks can get a girl like Audrey Tautou with hair like that, why must we be brought back when our imaginary world will never intersect with the harsh strains of reality that seem to offer little interest? Interesting things happen every day. Is it possible that “The Da Vinci Code” is factual? Absolutely, as much as it is possible the entire story is bullshit. I live in Portland, Oregon, and the only time I was at Westminster Abbey, I never ran into Ian McKellen as a cripple, staging a climax of a thrilling story near the Isaac Newton sculpture. Therefore, I don’t care if it’s real or not, and it shouldn’t matter whenever you open a novel (a poorly written one, I might add) and look for a good time.I was planning on talking about gay marriage tonight, but it’ll have to wait, because I found a crack in my airtight argument while I was writing it: why on earth shouldn’t Dan Brown create this kind of stir? He may be right or wrong, but he has created a debate about truth that needs to be had. He has also created, or at least perpetuated, a mythology that has captured our imaginations beyond that which can be done in a novel. The mythology of the Da Vinci Code has entered our public lives, and seeped into areas of life where fiction is rarely able to travel. Casual conversations on the bus, theorizing while on break at work, and musing about possibilities of a world outside our own everyday lives where crazy things may or may not happen. Most discussions overheard at my office usually regard television programs, mostly American Idol, and these do so little to get us to say more than whether we liked something or not. Brown has also got over forty million people to open a book and actually read it (although they should really read the epilogue before flying to Scotland to find the Holy Grail for Christ’s sake). Few people have or will ever achieve such an accomplishment. Brown should be praised if only for that reason. Step two: teach people the difference between fact and fiction. Good Night.