The Da Vinci Code: A Guilty Pleasure?

[Desdichado]

Angels & Demons comes first chronologically, but it makes little difference; other than a paragraph or two referring quite vaguely to it, it is completely irrelevant to The DaVinci Code. Rather, read one, enjoy it for what it is, and then when you read the other one you'll most likely see that he followed a formula so strictly that you can accurately predict almost exactly what will happen based on whichever book you read first.

 

[nikolai]

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.

You are right. I am wrong. I missed the claim that about the founding of the Priory. He does say that this was in the 11th century, and that is a load of nonsense.

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.

I wouldn't go this far. I do think it's perfectly okay for authors to lie to readers. There's a long and distinguished tradition of trying to pass off texts as things they are not. Frankly, just because he has a page saying FACT, doesn't mean it's contents have to be true. There's nothing to say the Da Vinci Code starts after the FACT page, as opposed to before it. I wouldn't want people to form a false impression of history, but if they do I think it's probably because of their standards, rather than Dan Brown.

I also think it would be difficult for a book like The Da Vinci Code to be written and not conflate bunk with legitimate history at some point. There has to be a bluring of the conspiracy with the real world, so it's just a question of where the jump from what's true to what's un-true takes place. That's my opinion, but I appreciate it's unlike to change anyone's mind.

 

[ragboy]

Read it. Hated it. It was as simple, repetitive and ridiculous as a Dr. Seuss book. And Dr. Seuss does it much, much better.

All this talk of historical accuracy/inaccuracy from a scholarly standpoint isn't really the issue, as far as I'm concerned. What concerned me the most about this book was the way it unapologetically took a religion and lied about it, then mocked its adherents over and over and over. I have nothing for or against the Catholic church, but if this book had been a historical fiction where the 'scholarly' protagonist had copious (fictional) evidence that the Holocaust never happened, or that the 500 year bondage of Africans wasn't really all that bad, or any number of 'sensitive' histories, he would have been pilloried. He took a very big, very timely target and raked it through the mud supported mostly by the pseudo-science found in Holy Blood Holy Grail and other silly sources. So, all those people that don't know the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Bhagavad-Gita can now wander around quoting from Brown's 'scholarly' work about how vile and twisted the Catholic church (and by extension Catholics) are.

Aside from that, it was just execrable fiction.

 

[Mark Chance]

I also think it would be difficult for a book like The Da Vinci Code to be written and not conflate bunk with legitimate history at some point. There has to be a bluring of the conspiracy with the real world, so it's just a question of where the jump from what's true to what's un-true takes place. That's my opinion, but I appreciate it's unlike to change anyone's mind.

I could accept that if, IMO, it wasn't so obviously the case that Brown is deliberately trying to mislead people into believing that bogus scholarship like Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the ludicrous works of Margaret Starbird (which Brown apparently takes to heart) has any academic merit.

In the "fact sheet" reference to the Priory of Sion, Brown references a proven fraudulent document as his source. This is on par with an anti-Semitic author using The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a reference for a fiction tale about evil Jews trying to take over the world. Except, of course, that a major publishing house like Doubleday wouldn't touch such a book, even with someone else's 10-foot pole, but if the target is subject to an acceptable prejudice, all bets are off.

And, not only all of this, but Brown is a lousy writer.

 

[ergeheilalt]

It's a little too late now, but there is a 20/20 special on the accuracy of the claims in the Da Vinci code for those interested.

Erge

 

[Mark Chance]

It's a little too late now, but there is a 20/20 special on the accuracy of the claims in the Da Vinci code for those interested.

Ah, yes, that bastion of journalistic integrity.

If their TV report is anything like their internet summary, I'm glad I missed it. That ABC News can do this sort of report and not actually interview a single credible historian is par for the course for ABC. (Margaret Starbird gets a plug without being skewered as a fraud? Holy Blood, Holy Grail gets a mention without noting that the book is historical nonsense?)

But then, in a shocking display of sensible reporting, ABC did manage to come up with this piece that does a fair job of dissecting Brown and company's absurd claims.

 

[Sarigar]

Read it. Hated it. It was as simple, repetitive and ridiculous as a Dr. Seuss book. And Dr. Seuss does it much, much better.

All this talk of historical accuracy/inaccuracy from a scholarly standpoint isn't really the issue, as far as I'm concerned. What concerned me the most about this book was the way it unapologetically took a religion and lied about it, then mocked its adherents over and over and over. I have nothing for or against the Catholic church, but if this book had been a historical fiction where the 'scholarly' protagonist had copious (fictional) evidence that the Holocaust never happened, or that the 500 year bondage of Africans wasn't really all that bad, or any number of 'sensitive' histories, he would have been pilloried. He took a very big, very timely target and raked it through the mud supported mostly by the pseudo-science found in Holy Blood Holy Grail and other silly sources. So, all those people that don't know the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Bhagavad-Gita can now wander around quoting from Brown's 'scholarly' work about how vile and twisted the Catholic church (and by extension Catholics) are.

Aside from that, it was just execrable fiction.

As I said, I enjoyed it, my sisters enjoyed it, and my parents enjoyed it. We're all Catholic. I don't want to turn this into any semblance of a religious discussion, I am just wondering how many Catholics are reading this book, and how many are not? I don't take anything in the book personally, and I might even support a few ideas presented. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his ideas are real.

 

[ragboy]

As I said, I enjoyed it, my sisters enjoyed it, and my parents enjoyed it. We're all Catholic. I don't want to turn this into any semblance of a religious discussion, I am just wondering how many Catholics are reading this book, and how many are not? I don't take anything in the book personally, and I might even support a few ideas presented. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his ideas are real.

Yea. I didn't take it all that seriously, but it was just surprising how much disdain seeped from the page. I'm not a Catholic or even a Christian, but it concerned me from a sociological perspective. Like I said, if the 'target' of the book had been some other 'group,' the guy would have been drawn and quartered. He was smart enough to choose a very BIG target (especially with what's going on with the big C right now) and then, as has been mentioned earlier, smart enough to mask his claiims of 'fact' and generate just enough controversy to get every man woman and child on the planet to buy his book. Who's his agent, that's what I want to know?

 

[nikolai]

What concerned me the most about this book was the way it unapologetically took a religion and lied about it, then mocked its adherents over and over and over... if this book had been a historical fiction where the 'scholarly' protagonist had copious (fictional) evidence that the Holocaust never happened, or that the 500 year bondage of Africans wasn't really all that bad, or any number of 'sensitive' histories, he would have been pilloried.

In the "fact sheet" reference to the Priory of Sion, Brown references a proven fraudulent document as his source. This is on par with an anti-Semitic author using The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a reference for a fiction tale about evil Jews trying to take over the world.

I don't think what Brown is in any way comparable with (fictional) holocaust denial or advocacy of slavery. I also don't think referencing a false history about the Priory for backstory is like using the Protocols to try and stir up anti-Semitism. I really think you're both overstating your case.

What Brown did amounts (in the eyes of believers) to heresy and blasphemy. I really can't see why, in the modern world, this is scandalous and something to get worked up about. Is promoting some set of religious views at variance with orthodoxy (if that's even what Brown is doing) wrong?

 

[WayneLigon]

I may eventually get around to reading it. Whether or not Brown really actually beleves what he has written is truth (and is not simply doing it for the marketing possibilities, which is probably far closer to the truth) is pretty irrelevant to me. It's a conspiracy theory novel and don't all of you remember that the heart of any good conspiracy theory is that everything you've been fed is a lie? All history, all you've been taught, all that you've read or researched, whatever, is a lie from beginning to end. It doesn't matter if you've gone and looked stuff up yourself: all printed material is tainted at the source. All you think exists about religious orthodoxy and faith and history and all that is a lie as well. Usually it's the Illuminati or one of the other hundreds of secret societies, but sometimes Antarctic Nazis and Greys figure in as well.

Go pick up Kenneth Hite's Suppressed Transmission stuff to get a huge helping and sampling of the various (obviously conflicting) conspiracy theories in an easy-to-read and -manage does.