Wonderful post beethoven
on one hand a gullible maggot/sheep or on the other a murderous fiend who actively tries to push down the plights of women forcing them into roles of insubordination, and placing guns to their heads if they don't have 10 babies each
I've seen this debate so many times--it's used a lot to talk about why large groups of people do horrible things. I've seen it used in trying to explain why the Nazi state happened. Were the people just automatons or did they want a genocidal, fascist regime? I can see how if one's affiliations are brought into play (as in your case) it can leave one feeling attacked no matter how one looks at it.
You also said:
so long as authors are open and honest when they portray any figure of authority as involved in some sort of conspiracy theory their works would undoubtedly become a valuable to the community for their literary worth
So then I gather that it's a matter of research and finding a figure/organization which is already questionable to avoid damaging their reputation and creating the situation Brown created for the real life members of Opus Dei.
I guess my question (purely speculative) would be then--in the abscence of such a figure (not specifically referring to the RCC but more generally), is how much more ethical would it have been to "make up" (in the Dan Brown case) an organization if one gets the 'background' of the religion right?
And no, I also don't think authors should steer clear of controversy and I agree with those that say that someone will always be offended especially when dealing with some heavy topic. But this is all theoretical. The practice of sitting at your desk and writing something just to wait for the shoe to drop is probably something else entirely.
alcyone
