The Da Vinci Code: A Guilty Pleasure?

[Ghostknight]

Hey, I enjoyed reading the book. So it wasn't a great work of literature, but at least it was fun to read (but seriously, the Newton clue was so obvious I felt like smacking the characters!)

As for the Priory of Sion, whether or not it was actually around in the 11th century is immaterial, I'm still thinking of using it in an Ars Magica campaign! (Hey, google has 15600 hits on it, some claiming it as being from the 11th century, some as from disaffected French Politicians, some that it was breakaway French hermeticists- hey, lots of fun here!)

Here are a couple of links to those SUPPORTING the Priory going back to the 11th century

Article 1

Article 2

and a rather thorough bashing of it at Wikipedia

 

[Desdichado]

I remember picking up Angels & Demons. That's the only book I've ever bought and taken back asking for a refund. I made it two pages in before deciding that I could not stand the writer's style. I've avoided Dan Brown like the plague ever since.

I actually somewhat liked Angels & Demons although after reading that, The DaVinci Code seemed pretty trite and formulaic.

 

[DanMcS]

I actually somewhat liked Angels & Demons although after reading that, The DaVinci Code seemed pretty trite and formulaic.

I read TDC first, and enjoyed going through and trying to solve all the little word-game puzzles and such. In A&D, the puzzles were mostly geographical or architectual, featuring places and buildings I had never seen, so those weren't nearly as fun for me.

 

[takyris]

I don't think these are fair criticisms. Brown's claims of fact are fairly minimalist. They're limited to the existence of all the architecture, art works, and secret organisations in the real world.

Your Priory of Sion example doesn't work. You first say "according to Brown's "fact" page, the Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real organization" and then comment that "the Priory of Sion was a club founded in 1956 by four young Frenchmen". So you accept that the Priory did exist? Which is all that Brown's fact page claimed.

By this logic, if I opened a short story by saying "While this novel is a work of fiction, nikolai is a real handle and does indeed have the avatar mentioned, and ENWorld is a real website. PirateCat and Morrus are actual administrators," I would then be just fine having my protagonist infodump on the sidekick with the following:

"Many people don't know about Nikolai," Hero said, "but he's actually a convicted drug user and is on the FBI's watch list for terrorist activity. ENWorld, although ostensibly a roleplaying site, has an active undercurrent of online drug sales and terrorist propaganda. One of the moderators is well-known for advocating hijacking airplanes as a political tool to prove that United States anti-terrorism tactics are futile -- his handle, PirateCAT (Countering Anti-Terrorism), is a slap in the face of all recognized authority figures, and it's an open secret that the EN in ENWorld stands for Eventual Nihilism."

"But I thought it was just for roleplaying," Sidekick furthered the main character's infodump by saying in confusion.

"Take a closer look at Nikolai," Hero said. "Feel free. You can visit the website yourself any time you like. His profile avatar, a maze, is a popular prison-gang tattoo, used to symbolize the Brotherhood of Morrus, which advocates misleading legitimate authority figures for the sheer pleasure of frustrating authority. They have to be subtle, however. You'll note that political discussions are overtly forbidden, although plans for criminal activities, written under the auspices of gaming material, are discussed almost casually. Few people outside ENWorld know that the phrase 'Eberron: Dragon a challenge for level 13 PCs? (Help! Game Monday!)' is a coded warning that on the coming Monday, a flight (dragon) leaving Los Angeles (Eberron) will be hijacked in an attempt to crash it into the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (number 13 on the list of nuclear targets during the cold war). It's all there if you look for it. Nikolai is a terrorist, and judging by the number of posts he's made, he's quite active in the organization."

Sure, it's a work of fiction, and my fact-sheet is completely legit: ENWorld does exist, Piratecat does exist, and Nikolai does exist.

But could putting it in this real-world context be potentially misleading?

 

[nikolai]

takyris; that was absolutely hilarious.

...Sure, it's a work of fiction, and my fact-sheet is completely legit: ENWorld does exist, Piratecat does exist, and Nikolai does exist.

But could putting it in this real-world context be potentially misleading?

I get what you're saying, I do think there are problems with the analogy though. For a start you'd have to include a "All the characters and events in this book are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental" at the begining of your book. The Priory in the DVC does have a direct connection to the history and purpose the real priory fabricated for itself. I'm sure we'd both agree authors should be allowed to use real organisations in their books, even if all their activities aren't true to life.

So I agree your example of a real world context could be potentially misleading, but don't think Dan Brown's is.

P.S. - PirateCat, Morrus; we've been rumbled, suggest we move to Plan B, trace takyris' connection, and send in the Black Helicopters.

 

[takyris]

takyris; that was absolutely hilarious.

Glad I didn't give offense. I mean, I figure you wouldn't be too put off, what with that prison tattoo avatar and all... (cough)

As far as the "all events fictitious" thing, I agree with you in principle. However, I still remember being mightily honked off upon reading some continuation of the Riftwar Saga that brought back Macros the Black (um, spelling up the wazoo here, it's been awhile). And in this later series, he said, "Hey, remember all that stuff I told you about being tens of thousands of years old and from another dimension, cursed to never die? Yeah, I made all that up. I'm actually a 400 year-old guy from Churt," or something like that.

In theory, this is a legal infodump. In practice, it made me put the book down in anger, because in the earlier book, all the things he told our heroes were not lies. It's possible, sure, that the author had this in mind the whole time and this was some great trick. "Haha, the Merlin figure will tell them a big lie here in the main series, and then, on the off-chance this gets picked up for another sequel series, I can let him reveal the truth!" It is indeed possible. However, 1) Feist doesn't bluff that well, 2) My Sense Motive is pretty high, and 3) The way the original story was told, as a story and not a dialogue, made it clear that this was supposed to be an infodump, not a clever lie. If it was supposed to be a clever lie, you'd be giving the reader little clues here and there, bits of eye contact, description of what Macros is doing as he talks, that kind of thing.

So -- in theory, this is just a surprising development. In practice, it violated the reader-author contract, in my opinion, and screwed up my enjoyment of the series. Even going back to the first novels didn't work anymore, because the "Oh, this is all a lie" stuff is still there. It's like watching "The Empire Strikes Back" and thinking, "Why doesn't Yoda just tell Luke that his midichlorian count is more than high enough to lift the X-Wing out of the swamp?"

It's not the same situation, of course. But I think it's analogous. Brown didn't make up authority figures to say, "Hey, this stuff is true!" He used real-world people. And when his publisher, who should know this stuff, hears their names, he says, "Wow, this stuff is all true," instead of "Wow, those guys are all in the New Age Mysticism section at Borders, not the History section. You don't have any credible sources." He plays all kinds of cute little "break the fourth wall" tricks to tell the reader that this is not just fiction -- this is based on factual stuff, even though the characters aren't real.

Then there's his website:

Q: HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
A: The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Louvre pyramid, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpretted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that the theories discussed by these characters have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

Q:SOME OF THE HISTORY IN THIS NOVEL CONTRADICTS WHAT I LEARNED IN SCHOOL. WHAT SHOULD I BELIEVE?
A:Since the beginning of recorded time, history has been written by the "winners" (those societies and belief systems that conquered and survived). Despite an obvious bias in this accounting method, we still measure the "historical accuracy" of a given concept by examining how well it concurs with our existing historical record. Many historians now believe (as do I) that in gauging the historical accuracy of a given concept, we should first ask ourselves a far deeper question: How historically accurate is history itself?

Q:HOW DID YOU GET ALL THE INSIDE INFORMATION FOR THIS BOOK?
A:Most of the information is not as "inside" as it seems. The secret described in the novel has been chronicled for centuries, so there are thousands of sources to draw from. In addition, I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me. One academic told me her enthusiasm for The Da Vinci Code was based in part on her hope that "this ancient mystery would be unveiled to a wider audience."

Q;HAS ANYONE IN ORGANIZED RELIGION COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF YOUR NOVEL?
A:Yes, many people in organized religion have come out in support of this novel, and, of course, many have come out in opposition as well. The opposition generally comes from the strictest Christian thinkers who feel the idea of a "married Jesus" serves to undermine His divinity. While I don't agree with this interpretation, this is immaterial because the dialogue itself is a deeply empowering and positive force for everyone involved. Suddenly, enormous numbers of people are passionately debating important philosophical topics, and regardless of the personal conclusions that each of us draws, the debate can only help to strengthen our understanding of our own faith. Much of the positive response I get from within organized religion comes from nuns (who write to thank me for pointing out that they have sacrificed their entire lives to the Church and are still considered "unfit" to serve behind the altar). I have also heard from hundreds of enthusiastic priests. While many of them disagree with some of the ideas in the novel, they are thrilled that their parishioners are eager to discuss religion. Father John Sewell of St. John's Episcopal Church in Memphis stated it particularly eloquently in the press recently, saying: "This [novel] is not a threat. This is an opportunity. We are called to creatively engage the culture and this is what I want to do. I think Dan Brown has done me a favor. He's letting me talk about things that matter."

http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

I'll heartily agree that he's being very careful -- for example, I would've sworn that "organizations" was listed as "true" in that first question until I read it again and saw that he was careful only to list architecture and art as being a true, factual thing -- but I also think that he's doing his darndest to build up the mystique in a manner that is more than a little dishonest.

But that is solely my opinion, based as it is on overhearing a number of workmates talk about how life-changing this book was and how many powerful secrets it reveals and how it could totally undermine the Catholic church...

 

[nikolai]

I'll heartily agree that he's being very careful... but I also think that he's doing his darndest to build up the mystique in a manner that is more than a little dishonest.

I'm not sure that Dan Brown actively planned the whole thing; I think if he was that clever the book would be a whole lot better than it is. I think, like most people, he has strange and not very well thought out views on religion, but he was trying to write a thriller, not actively trying to convert people. From what I've seen he's as bewildered by the success of the book as everyone else.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1252937,00.html

"I would love to say [it] is due solely to the writing and storytelling," he told USA Today. "But I think people are reacting to the subject matter: ancient histories and codes. That's what is capturing people's imagination."

But that is solely my opinion, based as it is on overhearing a number of workmates talk about how life-changing this book was and how many powerful secrets it reveals and how it could totally undermine the Catholic church...

I find this whole religious controversy aspect, all very strange.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1252937,00.html

It has caused panic among the clergy in the United States. The Rev L Garlow, co-author of Cracking Da Vinci's Code said: "I don't think it's just an innocent novel with a fascinating plot. I think it's out there to win people over to an incorrect and historically inaccurate view, and it's succeeding. People are buying into the notion that Jesus is not the son of God."

I think the book probably has had the unintended effect of pointing people succeptible to conspiracy theories in that direction.

But the big thing it's done - regardless of the truth of what's in the book - is bring to lots of peoples' attention the question of the authenticity of the Bible, and the nature of the authority of scripture. Most people ordinarily wouldn't look twice at anything close to that sort of thing, but have been given an approach to it in a very accessible form. People actively choosing for themselves between alternate interpretations of religion is always going to be a power-keg for any sort of established church.

 

[Sarigar]

Dan Brown is a genius. No matter if you like or dislike his books, there are enough people buying TDC to enthrall most readers, and upset most critics. Sometimes its not about the content, just the timing, or knowing the audience.
BTW, I liked both of his books. Most literary types take themselves waaaaaay too seriously.
Also, one persons views of history, even facts, can be very different than someone elses. Whether the common concensus shows this to be wrong or right can still change overnight if some new primary source is uncovered or discovered. I have not seen DB's website, but I probably have not seen his source material either. Even the primary sources in textbooks are out of my reach, so how do I know whether they are correct or not? It all comes down to the experts, and believe me, most of them do not agree.

 

[Mark Chance]

I don't think these are fair criticisms. Brown's claims of fact are fairly minimalist. They're limited to the existence of all the architecture, art works, and secret organisations in the real world.

No, they're not limited to such things.

Your Priory of Sion example doesn't work. You first say "according to Brown's "fact" page, the Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real organization" and then comment that "the Priory of Sion was a club founded in 1956 by four young Frenchmen". So you accept that the Priory did exist? Which is all that Brown's fact page claimed.

Actually, the example works quite well, because Brown does more than just claim the Priory of Sion was a real organization. He claims it is a real organization that has existed since the 11th century and has included luminaries such as Da Vinci as members.

Here's another example of bogus information from Brown's "fact" page: "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great." The truth of the matter is quite different. The process by which the canon of Scripture was formed was largely complete by the time of Constantine (the early fourth century), and he made no contribution to it. There were a few Old Testament books (known today as the deuterocanonical books or "apocrypha") that continued to be discussed after Constantine's time, into the late fourth century - further illustrating that Constantine did not collate the Bible. No Bible scholar holds that Constantine played such a role in the development of Scripture. Again, Brown has misrepresented the truth.

Brown tries to pass off bunk as legitimate history, all the while resorting to cop-outs ("It's fiction!") and demonstrably false cliches ("Only winners write history!") to cover his backside.

Now, maybe I take history too seriously, but judging by the number of historically illiterate folks I've bumped into who actually think Brown has any academic credibility, perhaps some seriousness - and some authorial honesty - are in order.

 

[jesseghfan]

I am considering picking up these books.

Which do I want to read first, Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons? As I understand it, they share characters . . . so I guess which comes first chronologically plot-wise?

Thanks.