Burnt Orange Report

I was with you right up to "a bunch of overweight and undereducated housewives in sweatpants and sensible shoes run out to read it up between loads of laundry and episodes of their favorite soap operas." The mustard seed of truth in that characterization doesn't keep it from being elitist, which on a more-or less leftist blog is as welcome as a fart at a formal dinner party. Next time, no, please.

thank you, estiv. that passage was not only totally offensive, it smacked of white male elitism.

not only that, but this is probably one of the most condescending posts i've ever read on BOR.

let's see, you insult millions of women by labelling them "undereducated oprah lovers", then you go on to call them fat, etc etc. hey, way to reach out to those "security moms". you're really gonna win votes by calling them fat and undereducated. you should be glad that they're reading any books at all, whether you think it's throwaway fiction or what have you. an hour spent reading a trashy novel is better than an hour spent in front of fox news.

adding to the misogynistic pile on, you call someone who decided to openly ask why there aren't more women priests "stupid". you also call a high school teacher "stupid" because he states that the church has a history of supressing female participation in the upper echelons of the church.

i'm sorry andrew, but only the most bible-beating of bible-beaters would deny that christian churches have historically repressed goddess worship, or that they've historically supressed female participation in leadership positions. who are you kidding?

i may agree that the da vinci code is a peice of crap, but this post is filled with hate and misogynistic stereotypes. i really would not have expected to read something with this much bitterness on BOR. really unbelievable man.

Oh come on now... I wasn't calling that guy stupid for thinking that the church has repressed women (they have)-- he's stupid for having to read the Da Vinci Code to know or care about it. The point of the post (perhaps I didn't make this clear) is that our country has such a lack of class and education that moronic drivel is the only thing that moves people.

And as for the accusation of elitism, guilty as charged. I am an elitist. I think that there are clearly some people that are smarter than others, some are more fit for leadership than others. This book is filler for the masses, not something to stir the soul of great men and women. Its pervasive influence on our culture is yet another sign that the wrong people are running the show. That isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, or shouldn't be at least.

And as for calling me a misogynist, I think that there is little grounds for that. I suppose I could have been nicer, but I think I was going for a mental image and for shock value. I succeeded in that regard, but I apologize if I offended you. That was not the point.

Andy dear, in reference to your comment;

"..The point of the post (perhaps I didn't make this clear) is that our country has such a lack of class and education that moronic drivel is the only thing that moves people."

SHOCKING! HOLD ON! The Earth is shaking under such an astute and provocative thought! WOW! That was indeed a divine inspiration! Now, if you will excuse me, I have TIVOed MUST WATCH TV; "American Idol", "Lost" and the highly educational show on MTV called "Cribs". And, oh yes, I must download some rap-trap off Bearshare tonight as well.

I guess my point Andy is that America has been dumbing-down for several years now. Your comment above seemed somewhat dated and silly. And I sort of LIKED the book actually! Personally, it would be a terribly boring and eccentric world if only people like you existed. I suppose we would all be stuck reading James Joyce whilst we sip our green tea.

I borrowed the book from a friend at work. Could not put it down. You are correct that the level he wrote some of the descriptions was not at the top of the scale but that did not take away from the book. I would suggest you do some more studying on discovered documents. Paul at one point seemed to be following Jesus's example as far as women were concerned. Then back to the basics, men in charge. I enjoyed the novel. That's what a novel is supposed to do. Sorry you did not like it - I did. My opinion matters to me more than your opinion matters to me. Nancy

I'm trying to understand what motivates somebody to devote over 1000 words to debunking The Da Vinci Code, of all things. Cripes, next you're gonna tell me that the Bermuda Triangle doesn't exist and all those Penthouse Forum letters are made up.

And just some advice...you might be more l33t than 99% of the population, but if you keep calling them "the masses" you aren't likely to get a chance to lead them anywhere. There's nothing the masses hate more than condescension.

I liked the book, and Angels & Demons, for what they were: entertaining fluff. Sometimes I eat Big Macs, too.

If you want really mind-bogglingly bad, try Digital Fortress. Now THAT was a big pile of poop.

The Penthouse letters are made up? All my boyhood fantasies of straight men "doing it" with other straight men while their girlfriends watched were made up?

Wow. I must be really stupid! :)

"And as for calling me a misogynist, I think that there is little grounds for that. I suppose I could have been nicer, but I think I was going for a mental image and for shock value. I succeeded in that regard, but I apologize if I offended you. That was not the point."

This is the usually non-apology of a straight white guy getting called on anything: "I didn't mean it and I'm sorry if I offended you," suggesting that it's just YOU who have the problem.

Sorry, it's not that everyone's too sensitive. It's that you were incredibly offensive. "Going for shock value" isn't an excuse - if it was, why not some nice racial epithets next time?

I had to double check to make sure I was still reading Burnt Orange Report. This post is such a departure from the usual quality of the blog.

Come on, Andy's not an elitist. No elitist would ever refer to the "masses" - its the "hoi polloi." The term "masses" is for elitist wanna bees.

Well I never, and I mean never, agree with Andrew Dobbs but I actually liked this post. I listended to the DV Code on tape while I drove home to Phoenix from the Holiday Bowl two years ago and thought it was entertaining but entirely foolish.

Either way, I thought the post was funny, correct and interesting. Then again, I am a conservative of the South Park/Simpsons variety so I revel in elitist offensive condescension. Perhaps Andrew is coming around to our point of view. You certainly must be careful what you post on a liberal blog lest you offend the delicate sensibilities of your constituents, all of whom think in politically correct, focus group tested, unoffensive, newspeak terms that make everyone feel feel just great about themselves. People are not stupid they just understand different things at a different level. Sure. Lawn mowing is the same as brain surgery just different.

Best line of the post had to be "sensible shoes". Great stuff. If you ever want to defect from this Orwellian world of Liberalism, The West Campus Insider would love to have such a prominent contributor.

Then again, what do I know? I am just an ignorant "straight white guy" looking to oppress wherever I can. Call me Constantine.

Wow. It's easier to invent things to respond to than to actually respond to what people say, I guess.

My first thought on reading Mr. Dobbs' post was that it sounded like the mind set of a college student: somewhat literate, but much too "righteous" in tone for a non-student. I feel that, as a college professor, I am on pretty solid ground here: I daily see students who allow their egalitarian ideals to morph into total intolerance for any opinion other than their own.

If Mr. Dobbs truly feels that the best seller list has traditionally contained literature from the likes of Henry Miller, James Joyce, etc., then I fear he is even more naive than the "masses" he feels compelled to ridicule.

The important thing, in my view, about the "Da Vinci Code" is that it provoked a discussion of religious history, albeit one that was propelled by a work of popular fiction.

In closing, I would ask Mr. Dobbs to examine the works of scholars of religious history--Elaine Pagels comes screaming to mind. Ms. Pagels is Professor of Religion at Stanford, and her studies of the Gnostic gospels have certainly inspired the discussion that Mr. Dobbs seems to dismiss.

Actually, Mr. Dobbs, there are people who have been discussing these very topics of religious history BEFORE the "Da Vinci Code!"

My two cents...

ok, i'll bite.

"he's stupid for having to read the Da Vinci Code to know or care about it." do you have any idea whether he questioned his faith before reading the DVC? nope, you just make an assumption that fits your (admittedly) elitist attitude.

"The point of the post (perhaps I didn't make this clear) is that our country has such a lack of class and education that moronic drivel is the only thing that moves people." and who are you to judge what is classy? who are you to blanket an entire segment of our population with stereotypes? people of all different classes and walks of life have been touched by DVC - so what if it's "moronic drivel"; at least they're THINKING.

"And as for the accusation of elitism, guilty as charged. " well no shit.

"I think that there are clearly some people that are smarter than others, some are more fit for leadership than others. This book is filler for the masses, not something to stir the soul of great men and women." wow, the audacity. i suppose you put yourself into the "great" category. time to get off your high horse andrew. you are no more special or classy than any one of us, and this post proves it. you're the elitist type that the right wing uses as an example of all that is wrong with liberalism. i hope you're enjoying the view from your ivory tower.

"Its pervasive influence on our culture is yet another sign that the wrong people are running the show." really? how so? there are so many things you could have used to make this point, yet you pick DVC. you know, chris bowers had a thread over at mydd a few weeks ago about how we liberals need to stop pretending that we're not aware of popular culture. you should really go read it because it directly speaks to why your picking on a book is both silly and detrimental to our cause.

"And as for calling me a misogynist, I think that there is little grounds for that." wrong, there are plenty of grounds for that. your phrase "a bunch of overweight and undereducated housewives in sweatpants and sensible shoes run out to read it up between loads of laundry and episodes of their favorite soap operas." is one of the most sexist things i have *ever* read on a blog. and only someone with a bit of pent up hostility towards women would think that saying something like that was even remotely acceptable. it was condescending and misogynistic. if you don't see anything wrong with stereotyping half the population, then i might be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

"I suppose I could have been nicer, but I think I was going for a mental image and for shock value. I succeeded in that regard, but I apologize if I offended you. That was not the point." with all due respect, that's a lame excuse, but john already made that point upthread.

and you know, when the only person defending you on this thread is a right winger, maybe it should give you pause to reconsider. really andrew, i would not have come down so hard on you were it not for the incredibly offensive tone and attitude you've taken towards women in this post. i don't expect you - as a self-described elitist - to "get that", but i've tried to explain it.

I enjoyed the book. It was an easy read, and when I read it, I needed an easy read. Fit the bill.

As to the religious history of the story. Regardless of its accuracy (or lack thereof), it doesn't really matter in a book that does not purport itself to be anything other than a fictional mystery.

For those that, after reading the book, took an interest in religious history, how can that be a bad thing? As a result of this book, many people took a new interest in the world around the, and the historical events of Christianity, that before were either accepted as fact without verification, or were just ignored.

For 15 minutes, people all over the country diverted their attention from American Idol, Survivor, Faux News, and television in general and, heaven help us all, read a book.

If nothing else came of it, that alone is worth the words on the page.

great review!!! I don't see the condescention that others have commented on. I think you are right on target. This book has caused a HUGE uproar among Christians who think that the book is an attack on their faith, when the truth is that its so absurd that only a fool would think that its some sort of serious comentary on Christianity. Its a work of FICTION, yet people who apparently demand to fit themselves into some sort of permanent victim role, want to turn the book into an attack against them. Its just crazy. Anyone who would contort a work of fiction into a serious threat to their spiritual beliefs needs to reexamine their faith. True faith would not be shaken by even meritorious claims, let alone by a work of professed fiction.

Part of the problem are the "pharisees" of today in the Christian media who never miss an opportunity to remind people that *they* are the defenders of the faith and that *they* will protect the people from such terrible attacks like Dan Brown's heretical book that threatens to unravel the entire fabric of decent society with its horrendous "lies" (if you tell people that what you are saying is fictional, is it still a lie?). "...just send more money and we'll fix that Dan Brown and his ilk. ...and remember, Jesus won't let you into heaven unless you send the money. ...and a lot of it."

anyway, thanks for the great post. I really LMAO at most of it.

peace,
dude

Focusing on the content of the post rather than its rhetoric (I thought it was amusing and, although overgeneralized, at least close to the money,) I'd say this was a great post, but I also agree with Professor Mike in that it's hardly shocking that ficticious drivel masquerading as a 20/20 exposé rivets the American public.

I should add that I agree with most of the original post. I think the point could have been made much more strongly with a bit less snottiness and lot less clueless sexist stereotyping. But I think the point was well taken.

If you think I am right winger you should see the rest of the people in my party. I am in the McCain/moderate end of the governing coalition.

Besides, you really should not just pigeon hole me like that and attempt to reduce my individualism and self expression down to some harshly delivered and simple phrase. Such prejudiced rhetoric that undermines one's very humanity has no place in contemporary discourse. It is little more than, well, ideological misogyny. I expect more sensitivity from BOR threads. Gosh.

JamesBurnham, you need to get a dictionary and look up the word misogyny.

This is hilarious. When I read this post, I was astonished to see a conservative take on an issue for once...but, here in the comments thread, the lockstep leftist ideologues rally by heaping intolerant abuse on poor Mr. Dobbs' head. Shades of Larry Summers, daring to speak something politically incorrect!

Whew, thanks, for a minute there this post made me think BOR had become rational!

As to the religious history of the story. Regardless of its accuracy (or lack thereof), it doesn't really matter in a book that does not purport itself to be anything other than a fictional mystery.

By that logic no one has a right to deride the Turner Dairies. Hey, it's only fiction, right? If stupid people take it seriously, that's their business...

Give me a break, I was being mocking - that gives you literary liscence

I can't believe the outrage in these comments. Perhaps it just stings because what BOR wrote is the truth. I do think the book is so popular because it is a new idea to so many people of this country, since religion is so blindly followed without thought or study.

Are our standards so low that we have come to accept six grade level writing as our best writing? Count me out. I still appreciate language and feel that grammar should be taught in school. I for one am ashamed at how this country mocks intelligence, like being able to think and write well is a bad thing. What does it say about a culture when some of the most popular books are children's books (Harry Potter)?

We have some brilliant writers out there who aren't getting the time of day. How many Americans know Richard Powers, Hunter S. Thompson (RIP), or Tom Wolfe? Why aren't they on the perpetual best seller list? I guess there's just too much thinking involved. We can't be bothered with that.

Is it elitist to think?