In the past few weeks, as you might imagine, I have been repeatedly asked what attracted me to the Masons so strongly as to make it a central point of my book. My reply is always the same: “In a world where men do battle over whose definition of God is most accurate, I cannot adequately express the deep respect and admiration I feel toward an organization in which men of differing faiths are able to ‘break bread together’ in a bond of brotherhood, friendship, and camaraderie."

Please accept my humble thanks for the noble example you set for humankind. It is my sincere hope that the Masonic community recognizes The Lost Symbol for what it truly is…an earnest attempt to reverentially explore the history and beauty of Masonic Philosophy.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
He's not only attracted to the subject of the masons, man , but he also adores the subject. Intensely. He did not want to paint you masons in a more controversial light. He freaking loves you guys He's intrigued with Masonic philosophy, obviously. However it's the stuff of novels, mate. Illuminati, bloodlines, masons. He's making readers excited with these subjects. It's an artistic endeavor. And he's a philosopher . So he writes about what intrigues him: masonic philosophy.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
... He did not want to paint you masons in a more controversial light. He freaking loves you guys ...

I don't disagree, but I guess what I was getting at is that in Angels & Demons he made up a bunch of BS about the Illuminati that wasn't true, and yet he claimed it was at the beginning of the novel; in The Da Vinci Code he carried on the hoax of the Priory of Sion which was started by Plantard in the 50's and 60's, but known to be false, yet Brown again claimed it was all true. So naturally when we found out The Lost Symbol was dealing primarily with Masons, we were obviously concerned that he'd perpetuate some myth and insist it was fact, giving fuel to those who misunderstand or hate us already.

[edit on 10/9/2009 by JoshNorton]

Originally posted by JoshNorton
...but I guess what I was getting at is that in Angels & Demons he made up a bunch of BS about the Illuminati that wasn't true, and yet he claimed it was at the beginning of the novel; in The Da Vinci Code he carried on the hoax of the Priory of Sion which was started by Plantard in the 50's and 60's, but known to be false, yet Brown again claimed it was all true.

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Its been quite some time since I read those books, but isn't the operative concept here that they are works of fiction? Whilst such operations in suspension of disbelief can have a powerful effect on the collective psyche, as soon as you open a text marked "fiction" all bets are off. Even those things he states at the beginning of The Da Vinci Code are invalidated by what the book is. Was Brown actually saying that, or was it merely a part of the fictional narrative? And if so where is the demarcation line where such a text begins and ends?
I can see your point to a degree, but no account can be made for people who take such things for fact.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Actually, you see my point entirely. It's unclear to the average reader where exactly the fiction starts and the framework ends. If the first lie is the line that says "every group or ritual contained in this book is true", you can see how there may be some people who still take that as fact because it sits between the title page and the narrative proper.