Brown vs. Crichton and the value of "Faction"

I don't know about you, but I really enjoy reading fiction that challenges my views on reality, the same could be said for movies or music I suppose. In fact, most great fiction, whether it be in literature or film, is explicitly concerned with explaining or developing thoughts and ideas about the real world and humanity. Now, we would never claim that these great novels or films, like The Brothers Karamazov or Citizen Kane were true stories, but that doesn't mean that they didn't contain some "truths" or ideas that could be useful or true about real life.

But times are changing, and enter now the new hot item on our book shelves and soon to be in our movie theaters: Faction. I think thats a good word for it, bookstores are filled to the brim these days with works of fiction that are supposedly based on factual information. This is not an entirely new subgenre, Its at least partially related to historical fiction, which places fictional characters in actual historical events, can be very entertaining. But much of this new work has a different intent than to make history more alive and human, it wants to change our minds about certain beliefs and opinions; to open our thoughts to the possibility that certain "facts" we now possess may be untrue and supplant them with "the real truth." Two great examples of this are Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

SPOILER WARNING: Go no further if you don't want to know what happens in these books!

State of Fear is the fast paced thriller we Crichton fans love, stuffed full of technical jargon and cool technology that Crichton always throws in his work, like the genetically engineered dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park, the sign laguage capable apes in Congo, and the out of control nano technology in Prey. But there's something new in this thriller. Crichton has included a vast array of information about global warming and in the midst of his chases and shootouts makes a very bold statement about his beliefs on the topic, he even goes so far as to conclude his novel with a personal note on what should be done about it.

The Da Vinci Code has fast become one of the best selling books of all time and in the same span has grown into one of the most controversial books in all of popular literature. Infusing exciting chases and very cool puzzle solving mysteries with his hypothesis on the truth about Jesus and the Catholic Chuch, Brown created a sure fire hit and a firestorm of debate. At the outset of his story he claims that much of what is written in the following pages is factual.

So here we have two novelists, best sellers, men at the top of their game with huge fan bases, but more than that we have a problem: we are used to accepting what they write instantly because it is fiction, we wonder about the ideas they present but only abstractly, exptrapolating their points and applying them to reality, but now we are confronted with two books that claim to actually be based in truth and we are left with this quandry: How do we seperate the fact from the fiction? How much do these guys actually know about their topics? Is what they say is true...really true?

Let me start with this, as a writer I can assure you that any responsible author, writing fiction or especially if writing non fiction, will have read and studied a great deal on their subject even if just to make sure that their work "feels legitimate." Whether or not they choose to use the facts or knowledge that they gain properly, or whether or not to embellish them in fiction usually isn't a problem because its...well...fiction. But now these two authors are making a greater claim, that their facts are indeed real and that something needs to be done becasue of the truth they've revealed to us. In this respect, Crichton has succeeded where Brown has not in that he has provided his readers with a tool that allows them to clearly see where he is inserting his own research and where he is simply writing his story. This tool is called Notation, and it is Brown's failure to use this elementary device that landed him in a recent lawsuit.

Crichton's claim is that Global Warming may be an invention of the media and scientific community for their own gain, the media needed a story to continue to keep viewers glued to their sets after the end of the cold war and scientists needed something to keep them busy and keep rich folk funding their lives. Ouch! Bold claims in a world that has all but accepted Global Warming as fact, and if Crichton had left it at that, I'm sure we would probably just write him off as being overly critical, but he keeps hitting us with that damned notation and even goes so far as to include actual temperature measurements from across the world over the past several years and goes on to use the evidence to make his own claims about natural phenomena: That deforestization and the earth's own cycles are the cause and not global warming, which he insists, (this time without notation) is around to push a liberal agenda. He goes so far in this aspect to have a Patagonia sporting, leftist, Hollywoodite insist that natives living in undeveloped countries are better citizens of earth than those of us who wastefully live in develped cities...the natives then eat said actor in a canabalistic rite...(okay, I laughed my head off becasue I thought it was pretty hilarious, I'm sure it pissed off a lot of actors who really aren't so stupid or self absorbed, but man, it was funny) So any way, Crichton presents his ideas and the literary community and the rest of us pass off an exciting novel that has actual documention in it without much thought, except for a spiteful review in Popular Science that claims that Crichton's work was anti-science.

Now we have the Da Vinci Code, an exciting tale of suspense and intrigue in the vein of Indian Jones. There are cool Anagrams, secret messages written in art (or worse) and vast conspiracies that cover up centuries of real truth with orthodox falsehoods. In truth, this novel is a real page turner, and Brown does a great job of keeping you on the edge of your seat, but he also presents us with a problem, he never divides his fact from fiction. He makes astronomically large claims: Jesus was married to Mary Magdelane, they had children, the early church made up stuff about Jesus to gain power and at the same time stifled the outgrowth of the original teachings and stamped out the peaceful religion of the "sacred feminine," not too mention has a whole slew of battle ready monks and priests ready to take names and kick some ass in the name of the Pope. (Of course, if that were true I think more people my age would be becoming Catholic and hoping to get let into the Special Forces Catechism classes so we could take it to the streets!) So how do we know if what Brown is saying is true or not? Well, we don't, so we have to look it up ourselves, which I don't guess very many people have, because unfortunately, unlike Crichton's charts in State of Fear, the reality behind Brown's work is a little dull. I'm sure most of you have seen that Brown was in a court case involving the authors of a book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This work, written by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln was an historical hypothesis presented in 1982 based on the claims of Frenchmen Pierre Plantard and also makes many of the same claims as the Code does (the law suit is for plagiarism) But do yourself a favor, and just type in the book (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) and the man (Pierre Plantard) into an online encyclopedia (I like Wikipedia.) HB, HG was denounced by mainstream historians as inaccurate and even one of the books own authors deep sixed it as not having much to do with any proveable history, just an idea, and P. Plantard turned out to be one of the biggest cons and frauds in French history (He even claimed in the 1960's that he was the true King of France...take that Chirac!) Anyway, maybe that's why Brown didn't include any notation, becasue even a brief online encyclopedia search nearly debunks his entire claim.

So in the end, if an author is going to make a claim that his/her fiction is based in truth, I think they should go the Michael Crichton route and include notation, but even if they don't, (I mean, in a film its sort of impossible unless the filmmakers encourage you to do dig into some particular works) we as readers or film goers should be responisble enough to at least do a little bit of research before believing the claims presented in entertainment.

So until next time, I guess I'll leave you with my G.I. Joe lesson for the day: Gee, Duke, State of Fear was really a great book! That's right Scarlett, keep reading these challenging books, and thinking about their ideas, just don't buy into them without careful thought and study! GOOOO JOOOEEE!!

"V" For Very Thought Provoking

"Right is laid aside, either by simply renouncing it, or by tranferring it to another...and when a man hath in either manner abondoned or granted away his right, then he said to be obliged or bound, not to hinder those to whom such right is granted...that he ought and it is his duty, not to make void that voluntary act of his own: and that such hinderance is injustice."

Thomas Hobbes, from "Leviathan"

WARNING: Spolier Alert for V for Vendetta

Well, I just got back from watching V for Vendetta, and I have to say that those Wachowski brothers sure know how to get inside your head. I think a film is a successful film if it can accomplish at least one of two things: a) simply entertain and engross me for a couple of hours; or b) really make me think about the world I live in and my part in it. By these standards V succeeds, whether or not I agree with the film's point (or even if I've actually grasped the Wachowski's true intentions) I will discuss shortly, but first a short review of the movie itself.

First of all, it looks great, I mean, what do you expect from the guys who brought us the Matrix trilogy? Every set is perfect and I believe that the lighting and effects achieved their intended purpose (which I will discuss shortly), but anyway, the parts that are supposed to look like real life do, and the parts that look like a comic book are really cool. If you're a big fan of Equilibrium (as I am) you might be able to draw some comparisons, and while not as frequent or full tilt, V's knife fighting scenes are every bit as kick ass as Preston's Gun Kata and sword fighting. Of course, much of the film is dialogue and idea, again, what would you expect from the guys who brought you the Matrix trilogy? But that gives us an opportunity to see Natalie Portman give an outstanding performance and get an earful of Hugo Weaving's velvet thick vocal quality and control. Several other characters give helpful performances, but the curious and earnest police detective, an actor I was unfamiliar with, does probably the best supporting job. So overall, looks, acting, sound, music, entertainment, any and all technical aspects are pulled off with the precision you expect from a major production and from artists such as the Wachowskis, but its the ideas that they present that give me some trouble with the film (except for when V manages to crawl all the way back down a tunnel after being shot like, 50 times to die in Natalie Portman's arms...pleeeeaaassse).

In America, we love the underdog and we love Rebels, and why shouldn't we? I mean, literally we're a country of rebels: we overthrew the Brits to secure our freedom, we saw the African American community rebel against white suprememcy, hell...we even invented Rock n' Roll, the most rebellious musical art form since...well, Rock n' Roll. It only stands to reason that this drive and love for the fight against opression should be ingrained in our art: See Star Wars if you want a perfect example, the heroes are all rebels or freedom fighters, they won't tolerate opression and they stand up for liberty even if it costs them their lives. That's what America was built on and I think it is 100 percent important that our art, music, and lives reflect that, so that we don't forget the cost of liberty. But here's the catch: all of that art (if we take movies for example, Star Wars, Equilibrium, vigilante movies like Batman, X-Men, etc) that demonstrates these THEMES, are completely fictional, they present an idea that we as clear thinking adults can incorporate in some way into the vastly more complex real world...but this is where I think the Wachowskis may have gone too far. Instead of leaving their dystopian future in a fictional realm from whence we can extrapolate its ideas and lessons, they explicitly connect it with the real world and real events that occuring in our present age, and that creates some issues for me, logically speaking.

I should probably go ahead and give the disclaimer that I don't know what the Wachowski's were intending to say (if anything) with this film. After all, they used a ton of religious and philisophical undertones in the Matrix, but those were mostly tools to tell a gripping story, and maybe that's what's going on here, but I just got this feeling that they had a message hidden in there, and I'm not sure if I think it is a reasonable one.

First of all, V is not a vigalante, he is a terrorist, or freedom fighter, depending on your perspective, at one point he walks into a newsroom with a bomb strapped to his chest so that he can give a desperate message of freedom, or propoganda, to the people of Britain: Who, it should be pointed out, have access to no other information but that which their government provides them. Insert here: Standard Nazi symbolism, Right Wing religious dictator who only yells when he talks and has really bad teeth, sleezy propogandist, and shadowy SS-like leader. Anyway, I got this really queasy felling in my stomach when V did that, and of course later when he actually says to Natalie Portman that blowing up a building can be good for the world, and of course in the climactic finish to the movie makes good on his word.

So here we have a terrorist, blowing up buildings, sending out video messages, and brainwashing his followers (a truly disturbing montage of scenes and Natalie Portman's finest moments in the film). Is this the right hero for our time? Well, what is he up against? What has driven him to these desperate acts? Well, good reasons, I suppose, the government he lives under attacks its own people with chemical agents, forces one religion on them, has secret police that take advantage of innocents and black bag them, dragging them away to internment camps, kills a newscaster that performs an antigovernment skit on TV, performs experiments on its own citizens, and generally suppresses the populace in every way it can.

So here's where I come to the crux of my problem. If this governmetn were my government, I might consider V the hero of the hour, and if it were a fictional place in a fictional time, again, I would probably be rooting for V as a symbol of the neverending struggle against tyrrany, whether it be personal or global, but as I said earlier, the Wachowskis relate this film to our time and our situation at present. I can't help but get the feeling that much of this film is a stab at our current administration's poicies and actions over the past 5 years and at the conservative elements in our society. So what's the problem with that, you might ask? Well, I just have some logical concerns (and I should probably go ahead and get this out of the way before you take me as some kind of zealot defending my own institutions: I'm an Independant and I'm not a Catholic, so just bear with me for a few moments).

Go back up a couple of paragraphs and read the description of the government in V's society...okay, good. What does it remind you of? I'll tell you what it reminds me of: The government of Iraq that was removed not too long ago by a world coalition. Was it not there that the government suppressed its people, nerve gassed them, rounded up political enemies and killed them, controlled information, forced one religion on its citizens, etc., etc.? so why do I still get the feeling that its Blair and Bush that are getting criticized here? Do I agree with everything they've done over the past four or five years? No, but that doesn't make them Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler. In the fact, the Wachowskis are from a country where the CAN take a stab at their own government, criticize it for a couple of hours, mock its institutions, and then leave their studios and walk down the street in perfect peace without the fear of retribution, and to go even futher, they can then, and probably do, expect that same government to protect them from censorship, outlaws, put out fires in their great state of California, and keep their roads free of potholes for them. THAT is a free society, and that is what our Rebels fought for. That is what all those people walked around the streets of Baghdad with blue fingers for, in a place where terrorists (freedom fighters?) are blowing them up for it. Perhaps those brave people are the heroes the Wachowskis should have made a movie about: people who change their world by taking part in their government, by being their government, not by destroying it.

I didn't vote in the last election...but after seeing those Iraqis vote for the first time, and then get killed for it, I was ashamed that I didn't. The reason I put the Thomas Hobbes quote at the top is because its from a section that speaks about covenants, promises or contracts if you will, between people and their governments. We pledge our allegiance to our government and support, and are even given the right to pick the agents of that government ourselves, in exchange for that government's promise to take care of us, and to protect us. Its not an easy balance, and maybe sometimes we don't get it right, but that's why we have checks and balances and a free press. in any case, WE elected this government that we have now...no matter what our individual votes may have been...becasue we have a covenant, not only with the government, but with each other, to stick together, and take care of each other. Read Hobbes and I think you'll have an undertanding of the complex nature involved in the gaining and surrendering of personal liberties when we take up a government.

I guess it just bothers me that the Wachowskis seem so eager to cast such a dystopian prophecy on the very governments that just waged a war to destroy just such an evil dictatorship. I know that particular war is unpopular: GOOD! It SHOULD be unpopular, when a war IS popular that's when we should be worried, so much evil happens in war and I'm thankful I never had to be in one myself, and I don't wish we were still in a war now...but just becasue something is tragic, sad, and dirty, doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Take V for instance, we watch the movie and we root for him as he kills security guards and dirty politicians, his work is extremely bloody but he remains the hero because he stands for what is right. I just wonder why these filmakers felt more drawn to the terrorists as heroes than the government that fights them, or the people that use their rights to express their freedoms in a proactive way, like those people now voting in Iraq.

To wrap up I only have one more bone to pick with the films ideas and that is this: the Catholic church is once again the evil empire of religion in the film, and its priests are raging pedophiles. I guess why not take a shot at the Church (Everybody's doing it) but the film seems to suggest that the church and our governments are on a path to enforce that religion and destroy the religion of Islam and its "Beautiful imagery" as one character puts it. And while there are many peaceful Muslims living now, and there have been many violent Catholics in the past, I have only this to ask now: tomorrow, when the weekend in over, are Catholics worldwide going to take to the streets, stop feeding the poor and running hospitals and funding orphanages to burn pictures of the Wachowskis, destroy theatres and riot just because someone criticized them? I think not. Just as their are thousands of brave Muslims in Iraq fighting injustice and oppression peacefully by voting and taking part in their government, believe it or not there are equally as many Catholics suffering under persecution in places like the Sudan and China right now. I don't know, I just don't understand what makes them such a fair target whereas we have to watch our step when criticizing other religions. For another example, a South Park episode was recently yanked for mocking Scientology, (Scientology for crying out loud!) yet how many times has that same show mocked Jesus himself? At least the South Park guys are equal opprtunity critics of politics and religion.

In the end though, I'm glad that the Wachowskis are bold enough to make this picture, even if I don't agree with their point. I've actually written a screenplay of my own that takes place in a dystopian future and I suppose whenever we try to forecast what will happen based on current events and ideas its sure to ruffle feathers and get people talking and thinking, which is, in this writer's opinion, a very good thing. So thanks for giving me something to chew on Larry and Andy!

So anyway, next time I promise to talk about subjects that are far lighter, like basketball or the Ryan Reynold's movie: Just Friends, absolutely the funnniest movie you can rent on DVD right now...so go rent it! Then go watch V for Vendetta and see if it make you think as much as it made me think, I'm just glad I live in a place that isn't V's London, and I can talk about whatever I like and no one will bang on my door and arrest me for it.

Introductions are always so awkward!

It seems so strange to me to be introducing myself to well...everyone...literally! Yet at the same time its nothing but awesome to know that just about anyone in the world could somehow tumble down some google-link-rabbit hole to my little blog here on the Twenty One site...I love the internet! But anyhow, let's get down to it! My name is Mat Raney, and yeah, there's only one "t" in my name because it's short for Matlack. Anyway, I was born in '79 which makes me a just ripening 26 years old. Growing up in a military family meant that my sister and brother and I grew up in several countries besides our own and in more states than I can count on one hand! Basically, bad for digging roots, but great for learning some cool lessons about the world around me and the people who live in it. Eventually, I graduated from the University of Kentucky with a degree in Eastern Studies (mostly language, literature, and history for those of you who were wondering). So besides watching great basketball and football at the time (we went to two bowl games while I was a student) I got the chance to learn a new language (Russian) and read a great deal of books written by guys who not only lived in other parts of the world than me, but were writing in completely different time periods. I was so fascinated by the fact that while these genius fellows had long since kicked the bucket, their ideas were still alive and valid in their writings. It was in my reading and writing about these guys and their works in college that clued me into something I never realized about myself: I love ideas and I love writing about them! Not only did these authors enlighten me to this new aspect of my soul, but they also guided me in the pursuit of what ideas sculpt and study, namely humanity and the human condition, a topic at which I could only hope to reach a fraction of their boundless insight.


So when I first started writing seriously, with a mind to someday pursue as a profession, I started with short stories, personal narratives, and some vague attempts at poetry. These early efforts eventually led me to give a crack at a novel, which I suppose you could call a success since I did write a 400 page document, or a failure seeing as how that particular 400 page mountain just lies in a pile collecting dust in my room! The truth is I just didn't know how to get someone to read my work who possessed the know how and the connections to guide me along in the path to published author heaven (actually the real truth is I couldn't get anyone at all to read it accept my friends and my sister). So, I guess you could say I was wandering aimlessly in the wastelands of wannabe writers when an old college buddy of mine, Dave Cottingham, and I started hanging out again. You see, back in the day, Dave and I had really been big into acting, we took lessons from the same guy and sometimes we would talk afterwards about ambitious dreams and goals. One day Dave tells me about this crazy idea he has to start making his own independent films, right here in Kentucky. So, curious young man that I was, I hung out on the sets, met a guy who was directing their pictures named Russell Johnson, and in general just being a nuisance. Then pesky life got in the way and took me to various other places in the country for a while until I finally came back, which brings me back to my story. Dave has a little short movie called Hidden Truth that he and Russell came up with, I read it, and I like it, and then an idea hits me: In the contests I'd sent my work to, my highest scores were consistently in dialogue, so why not read the Syd Field textbook and try and write a screenplay?

So in an act of grace (one for which this layman writer will always be appreciative) Dave let a developing prose writer try his hand at screenplay...and I've been hooked ever since! In fact, over the past year and half or so, I've written about five screenplays and although I am without doubt only a learner in the screenwriting game, with each successive script I can feel my comfort, confidence, and ability growing, and I can't tell you how humbled and proud I am to be working with Dave and Russell, not to mention grateful, for the numerous opportunities they give me along with the patience they extend to me every day. I am truly excited about the stories and ideas that we are going to be creating for you over the next year or two!! So be ready! Twenty One is coming strong in '06 and '07!

And as for this blog, what can you expect? Well, I like to talk alot about philosophy, ideas, storytelling, sports, books, current events, and of course: movies! I'd like to try and include a review of a film, whether old or new, independent or studio, every week, but who knows! I may throw in a book review here and there as well. So anyway friends, forgive my long winded introduction, though don't expect these to get any shorter, and I hope to talk to you again soon!