I really don’t think that anyone is going to start threatening the life of anyone over this book and film. The only one crazy enough is Fred Phelps and he is busy at the moment crashing gay proms and making an ass of himself…again.
Phelps probably hates Catholics. I doubt he’d care either.
How about Pat Robertson?
Then again, Pat Robertson is probably anti-Catholic too. I bet the Abu-Gharib whistleblower got more death threats than Dan Brown.
Actually, Pat Robertson is pretty ecumenical in his views.
As for the OP, I have to agree with the overwhelming consensus that there is simply no legitimate comparison between Dan Brown and Salman Rushdie. Not even a hint thereof.
I’m coming to this a li’l late, but it seems to me that this isn’t really about arts/entertainment, but about politics/religion. Hence, off to Great Debates.
The tone can be a little looser there, but personal insults are still not permitted. Quasimodem, that means you, and the “putz” symbol is a personal insult outside the Pit forum.
Okay, I stepped back and really looked, and I have to remain steadfast in my resolve that I only asked a question with good intent (as is my way). For that I offer no apologies, and you can do what you want with that, I really don’t care.
I do apologize for the use of the Wally, however. I realize I won’t be getting any apologies for the misrepresentation of my words and for the use of the word idiotic in a previous post, but as I said , if you expect me to back down and apologize to this crowd just because they disagree, then you had better take a step back and really look, because I will not.
If that results in banning me, then have at it. I’m sure I’ll be in great company. I don’ t think you need my money that badly, and I sure as hell have enough T-shirts! 
The question was fine. You asked if there was any similarities between the two cases and the Teeming Millions answered with a resounding “no” for very clear and factual reasons.
The only issue remaining is why you are having such a hard time accepting that answer or coming up with any evidence or arguments to support your contention. So far you have presented nothing to support your case, yet you dismiss other’s arguments without any explanation. That is why people are frustrated with your debating tactics.
As it stands, the cases of Rushdie and Dan Brown have some superficial similarities, but any real connection disappears as soon as you look closely. The Catholic Church doesn’t have fatwas, no one is seriously threatening Dan Brown, he’s been extremely successful for 3+ years with no muss or fuss, and other books with similar themes have been around much longer without anything happening. Opus Dei asked for a disclaimer in the movie, but beyond talking about the book, what actions have been taken to threaten Dan Brown or turn him into a pariah?
Compare that to a fatwa, death threats officially supported by a large country, killings of translators and publishers, and a life completely disrupted. Your hypothesis was found to be unsupported, what more do you want?
Quasimodem, you might want to get down off that cross, people need the wood.
You opened this thread with a false statement:
or at least a statement that was not supported by your own link in which Opus Dei merely asked for a disclaimer to be added to the film. (I’m sure the Catholic League will be out foaming at the mouth for a boycott pretty soon, but you did not link to any evidence that they had.)
You then began responding snidely to every poster who pointed out the rather stark differences between Brown’s case and Rushdie’s (including pointing to other literary works and films that have irritated some Catholic–even to the point of calls for boycotts–in which the authors and publishers suffered nothing more harmful than the effects of extra publicity).
You may have asked an honest question, but you have ignored every bit of evidence provided that demonstrates that your question was ill considered and you have consistently responded with personal hostility rather than rational discussion.
You are not under consideration for banning; you have simply been told that you need to moderate your responses and avoid direct insults–hadly a new rule on this board.
I bought a hard copy first edition, cheap. The shopowner told me he was delighted to have it out of the store, ‘no more worries about a bomb in through the front door.’
Not quite. The Fatwa cannot be rescinded as it is a form of judgment, and the Ayatollah concerned has died without a further comment on it. Rather, the Iranian government has indicated it will not provide and encouragement or reward to any person making an attempt on Mr Rushdie or any person involved in the publication of his book, (IIRC). In other words, it has revoked the fatwa to the extent possible.
Rushdie now lives in New York, although obviously his movements and security arrangements are not publicised. However it is unlikely that GB employs bodyguards for Rushdie in the US.
I’ve heard him speak twice, in rather well publicized events, since 2001. Both times there have been searches at the door and you couldn’t take in anything bigger than a small purse - but that became status quo after 9/11, Rushdie’s appearance didn’t change it too much. It seems, hearing him speak about the fatwa, that most of the impact on his life is over and he’s gone back to living day by day in a fairly normal manner. In fact, that is one of the points in Step Across the Line, published shortly after 9/11. As someone who had his life turned upside down through extremist Muslim politics, he talks about being cautious and taking steps, but not letting it run your life.
While there are extremists and loons in the Catholic Church, in general Catholics believe in the sanctity of life. They don’t support the death penalty, they are unlikely to call for the death of Dan Brown. There may be a medival equivelent of fatwa in the Catholic Church (though I have never heard of such a thing), but I would doubt there is a modern equivelent. A fatwa is an Islamic legal ruling. A similar ability for a Catholic “judge” to call for death would have to exist under cannon law in the Catholic Church. I’m no cannon lawyer, but I think Bricker at least has familiarity, as does Tom, but what I do know of cannon law, I doubt there is an equivlent.
Does Dan Brown fear for his life? Well, Stephen King has been stalked by fans. John Lennon was murdered. Famous people are targets for all sorts of nutcases. I don’t think Dan Brown is any more or less of a target than any other famous person. The difference between Rushdie and other famous people is that Rushdie is the target of a calling to kill him that comes from a person in authority within Islam. Most people need to fear a lone nutcase. Rushdie has to fear a significant portion of the world’s population.
What I resent the most is that my post was used as a platform for bashing the novel and its author, and that was not the intent.
My responses were appropropriate to the replies I was offered: small-minded, impolite, and mean-spirited as hell, and I am sorry you do not see trhat. As I said of EM, I expected better from you and some of the others.
I will moderate as I see fit and according to the responses I am given.
In other words (let me break it down for you once again), if you treat me politely I will do the same for you. I did not see that happening anywhere in this thread.
If you put me on the defensive, I will defend. If you treat me diplomatically, I will respond in kind.
No Tomndeb, I beg to differ, and I don’t need your so-called intervention.
What a stupid article:
(my emphasis)
Sounds juicy! Read on!
Hey Quasi, almost every single one of your posts in this thread has been a complaint about the other posters in this thread - not about the substance of their posts, but about them personally and how they are not taking you seriously or haven’t read the book or don’t know what they’re talking about or are laughable or whatever.
How about instead of just coming back to post a bunch of personal attacks, you actually respond to the substance of what has been said in this thread? If you are able to factually refute the general contention in this thread that the fatwa against Rushdie is in no way similar to Dan Brown’s current situation, I for one would love to see it.
You mean the Pat Robertson who said
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."
link;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/quot_intol.htm
That Pat Robertson?
You posted this originally in Cafe Society. The place where Dan Brown bashing is an art. Your title is “Is Dan Brown the new Salman Rushdie.” The only sentence in your OP that gets to your point is “It makes me wonder however, if Brown fears becoming a pariah for the sake of his novel and the subsequent film.”
Perhaps rather than complaining because you couldn’t control the discussion (which you never can, and you know that), you should recognize that a better crafted OP outside of Cafe Society would have helped keep the discussion to what you were interested in.
Interesting comment from the typical stuffy old Italian ccardinal. Now, if that was important, why did you not link to that rather than to the story which did not say what you claimed for it in your OP?
Your more recent link is also interesting in that it claims
Now, this would make Brown an idiot if it were true, but here is what Brown actually said:
In other words, he has taken a number of historical phenomena (explicitly, “artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals”–no mention of events) and woven a story of fiction around them, coyly not actually saying what he actually believes in what he calls a work of fiction. He makes no mention of which “theories have merit” (or whether he actually believes that any theory that “has merit” is actually tru or simply plausible.
His whole strategy is based on marketing his idea by implying things that he does not say. “Plausible deniaility” lookws just as silly coming from an author hyping his works as it does coming from the White House.
Since there is no evidence that the Catholic Church has taken any official action against him, (fusty cardinals and lay associations are free to do what they want without church orders), there does not appear to be any similarity between Brown and Rushdie aside from “bad” publicity being good for sales.
Yes, that Pat Robertson. Despite what he said (assuming that quote to be accurate), he has Catholic clergy serving within his ministry, and he’s also one of the signatories to the controversial ecumenical document, *Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT)*. I have also heard him praise the Catholic mass on his television program.
Personally, I don’t trust much of what comes out of www.religioustolerance.org, based on their track record. But even if we assume that quote to be accurate and in context, note that he didn’t condemn the Catholic Church per se. And even if he did, it’s hardly unusual for someone to say something to one group, and then backpedal when faced with a larger audience.
OTOH, I’ve never met anyone who has actually read any of Rushdie’s books, whereas Dan Brown remains on prominent display in the bookstores’ bestseller sections and there are even special displays of books in a Brown-inspired cottage industry – books debunking Brown’s ideas, books exploiting them, books putting a slightly different spin on them . . .
Rushdie is a respected writer. Brown is a popular writer. Which, from the RCC’s POV, makes him a lot more dangerous as a heresiarch.
Actually, that’s only what he said on his website, where he is clearly backpedalling from the position stated in the preface to his book.
In his book, he specifically said, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” I checked a copy of his book out from the public library, and that’s exactly what he said.