The power of fact-based fiction

I've just made a connection. Bear with me. It was a total ah-ha moment for me.

You know how when The Da Vinci Code was published, and the movie released, everyone was abuzz over the questions and theories raised by Dan Brown's story? These theories were mostly not new: many had been around a long time but were brought together, interconnected into a compelling and suspenseful story alternately enjoyed and decried by much of the world. Historians who had been quietly researching these things for years knew the ins and outs enough to tease apart the fact and the speculation, recognizing when a theory is feasible and when one is disproven or a long shot at best. By now, most of us know that his theories make fun stories but aren't exactly provable, and are in some cases quite debunked (according, admittedly, to other human beings with flawed knowledge but who are far more knowledgeable in that particular field than he). But for most of the world who hadn't bothered to study most of the themes and theories in his story, the ideas seemed new, shocking, eye-opening, and illustrative of plausible conspiracies and connections they'd never thought of, except for people in smaller circles where some of these lesser-known ideas were promulgated, such as LDS people having no problem with the possibility that Jesus had a wife and being rather surprised at what a stink so much of Christendom was making over that specific notion.

But I was a bit flabbergasted as I heard conversations on various media and in person which discussed this work of fiction by a novelist (a bright one who researches, but a novelist nonetheless) who, by definition, doesn't have time to painstakingly research every nuance of every implication of his (or, more accurately, other people's) findings. They were discussing it as if he were a religious historian and anthropologist who had just written an exposé detailing his life's work. I kept thinking, "Folks, it's a novel with facts, theories, and historical tidbits (sometimes speculative) woven in, not a research dissertation!"

He raises fascinating questions and thought-provoking theories within engaging stories which could be perceived by some as plausible but which are, nonetheless, creative efforts to put the pieces together, nothing more. He brought to popular culture ideas which previously were known mostly to those with enough interest to dig them up and research them, themselves. He doesn't have time to research every detail, or he'd never publish anything, but he raises the ideas, lets people chew on them and enjoy the story, and leaves the sorting out of the rest to those who are well-positioned in the respective fields to do so. He might consult experts, having them review his story for any glaring errors, as I expect any good writer would do, but his point, I think, is not to present a completely balanced exploration of theories but to tell a compelling story which will entertain people while making them think critically about certain things. Many of the details and connections are subject to artistic license, which he openly acknowledges.

In Deception Point, for example, an incidental detail in the story includes a bit of blood trickling down into the sea from someone's cut (it might have even been a single drop, if I remember right), resulting in a nearly immediate roiling frenzy of hammerhead sharks and the eventual demise of a character due to their awakened, ravenous appetites. He used language specific to shark physiology, which would lead most people to believe he knew what he was talking about, and since it's clear he has researched his novels, most people would probably assume details such as this are factually accurate. This gave me pause as I thought, "Hey, first of all, the blood particles have to dissipate enough to even be detected, so even though they can detect small amounts of blood, it would not be instantaneous, and secondly, as far as I've studied, sharks may respond visibly but wouldn't frenzy over a few drops of blood without any other stimuli to indicate prey is present." Nevermind the part about someone getting torn apart bite by bite: maybe these sharks were so hungry they'd eat anything and skipped the whole first strike being a test bite, going right to tear-a-chunk-of-flesh-off-nom-nom-nom bites. It seemed to me he hadn't read the book I read by one of the world's leading hammerhead shark researchers or seen the same documentaries or articles about shark behavior. But that's what authors do: know enough to maintain credibility and plausibility, and fabricate or intensify reality to create an engaging story. If I wrote a novel, even with great attention to detail, could I possibly get everything exactly right and spit out a new novel every year or two? I certainly doubt it.

So what I'm saying is: Dan Brown has a knack for taking researched facts and little-known tidbits of history and extrapolating interpretations and connections to create fantastically interwoven conspiracy theories and seemingly plausible cover-ups and plots, and even though he publicly states his works are fiction, many people still read him as a historian rather than a novelist. What, then, of someone who is similarly skilled at weaving stories from interconnected facts which, though technically accurate, are laced with exaggerated interpretation and extrapolation and then never even attempting to claim they're "fiction" but calling them "commentary" rather than "journalism"? Uh-huh...you've caught on by now. This, my friends, is how I see Glenn Beck. Fascinating theories which incite critical thought. Totally relevant questions to be asking. Interesting connections found. Often factually accurate if you don't bring in too much context except for the supposedly interconnected context on which he wants you to focus your attention: the supposedly secret codes and plots he is bringing to light. But often off-base in the interpretation of facts, the imputed motives, and the overall theories.

I'll admit the idea for this post was sparked by reading an article on NPR, which we all know is a pseudointellectual arm of the radical left-wing media machine... *yawn*




Incidentally, I just looked up a couple of resources and found this fun video from MythBusters which seems to suggest there may be a difference in reactions of sharks to human versus fish blood/fluids, a distinction I don't remember reading about. Hey, I didn't claim to be an expert... :-)