regarding the code

the film adaptation of dan brown's wonderful creation, the Da Vinci Code, is facing criticism and potential boycotting from various religious forces around the world. the usual claims to the book were given to the movie: too blasphemous, too erratic, too wrong. in fact, one anti-porn group in the philippines claims it to be the "most pornographic and blasphemous film in history". come on, as if they're really going to show two old people doing it in the middle of a huddled circle - that's going to see people walking out of theaters faster than another shaq movie. (okay, i might be wrong.)

what these people don't realize is that dan brown did not write the book to forever change the world's outlook on Christian and Catholic beliefs. rather, mr. brown wrote the book for the same purpose as any other bestselling author would have written theirs: to entertain people and to provoke their thoughts. the book is art, not doctrine, and there is a distinction. there may be a fine line between the two that brown has probably crossed (what with the "fact" sections of the book), but he crossed that line in the name of artistic license.

i mean, come on. people love it when a literary curveball is thrown at them; it's what sells books in the first place. but when a book is clearly labeled as fiction, the smart are separated from the gullible - those who are smart enough to know that the book is just a story, from those who are gullible enough to forget that they are actually reading fiction.

so cut tom hanks, sony, dan brown, and everyone who worked on the project some slack. movies and literature are forms of art. brown just used the legend of the holy grail to make a good story, and make a good story he did - he wasn't banking on altering your perspective on Christianity and the Gospel because he knows you're smarter than that.

remember, it's art, not doctrine.