That Damn Book (And Film)

[poliphilo]

The Da Vinci Code comes too late for me. I did all this stuff in the 80s and 90s.

I'm not saying I was in the vanguard. As someone in the Observer pointed out this morning, people like Robert Graves and Margaret Murray were putting together theories involving the Great Goddess, the sex life of Jesus and centuries-old ecclesiastical conspiracies over fifty years ago.

And behind them lies Frazer's Golden Bough- one of the key texts of the early 20th century.

What was once the prattle of a few off-centre scholars and pseudo-scholars has finally gone mainstream.

There was a time when I hoped and half-believed it was all true.

But now I know it isn't.

There never was a Goddess worshipping Golden Age.
The Priory de Sion was the invention of a mid-20th century fascist hoaxer.
Opus Dei may be sinister- but it doesn't employ albino hit-men.

And so on...

That's what irritates me about Brown. If he'd done proper research- instead of cherrypicking the conspiracy websites- he'd have known that most of the ideas he's playing with here were shot to pieces ages ago.

Comments

[dadi.livejournal.com]

I got over Frazer in the early eighties. I like my conspiration novels all right, but I like them as NOVELS, not as gospels. And it truly scares me just how many of the youngsters (and not only) fall for this believing it the absolute truth, also because they really don't have any knowledge about history at all.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

And they're so incurious.

It's not as if the information were hard to find.

Websites debunking the Da Vinci Code are just a google-search away.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

I feel the exact same way. I was all into this stuff back in the 80s (still have a first edition paperback of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"), but my deeper study (and some good Guidance) led me to understand that 99.9% of all of it was fabricated. The Goddess stuff. The Jesus stuff. The 'witch cult' stuff.

I think it was the Woodcrafter connection with Gardener that finally severed the last thread. If there were actual Native American elements blended into the Wiccan mix, the claim of a 'pure, unbroken Tradition' is bunk.

I still get amusement from some conspiracy stuff, but I don't believe any of it. At least the Pagan stuff. It's the modern Dominionist Christian movement in the US that is proving to be The Real Thing.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The actual history is at least as interesting as anything the conspiracy buffs can come up with.

I found Ron Hutton's account of Wiccan origins in Triumph of the Moon absolutely riveting.

[methodius.livejournal.com]

What irritates me about Brown is not Brown -- after all there are lots of mediocre novelists about, and lots of mediocre conspiracy novels about. What irritates me is the hype about Brown's novel, which is the lower end of mediocrity. It's a long way from being the best of its genre.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

For some reason this particular book has hit a nerve. I don't really understand why. I wish I did.

Does it represent some sort of reaction to the rise of the religious Right?

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

Like sunfell I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail long ago, so Brown feels like a Johnny-come-lately to me. I think his book hit a nerve because unlike Baigent's book Brown's is written for mass consumption with an eye toward future film adaptation, much like John Grisham's pulp. And yeah, I don't think you can dismiss the fact that it has the religious right's panties in a twist as a selling point to some people.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The time lag is what gets me.

A theory emergies, is debated, disproved and laid to rest- and the experts move on.

And it's only then that the general public starts getting all excited about it.

[methodius.livejournal.com]

My son works in a bookshop, and he and his colleagues were always joking about the gullibility of the punters who came looking for The da Vinci code and spin-offs. They would overhear people in the art books section discussing repoductions of Leonardo's paintings and they would be saying things like, "Look, there's the knife."

When I said I wanted to read it to see what the hype was about, he advised me not to waste my money; he'd read a borrowed copy, and said it wasn't worth buying. He reminded me of my cousin when she worked in a public library, and she and most of her fellow-librarians described themselves as members of the "Mills and Boon fans Exterminators Club"

But I wanted to get some insight into pop culture, so I read it. Having read Baigent et al's The messianic legacy some 12 years earlier, much of it was predictable and derivative. Easterman's The brotherhood of the tomb (which is the same genre) at least had a few twists and turns in the plot.

But for me the worst thing about The da Vinci code was that it was so badly written, and so predictable in other ways as well. An expert cryptographer and "symbolologist" arguing for several pages about a transparently obvious piece of mirror-writing was one of the worst. When the bank official asks for the bank account number, the reader immediately things "Ah, so that's the number her grandfather wrote in his own blood on the floor of the Louvre", but the characters take another few pages to get it, while the reader impatiently wonders how dim-witted they can be, and wishes that Brown would get on with the story.

As for the hype and the popular success of the book, I doubt that it is a reaction to the religious right. I think it probably is the religious right -- it's the same stratum of society that is gullible about conspiracy theories, and flying saucer cults and the like. As Ronald Hutton points out in one of his books, you can't call them UFOs (which the cultists pronounce as "you foes"), because the cultists claim to have identified them -- as extra-terrestrial spacecraft.

I read a novel about flying saucers once, by Whitley Strieber. It was one of the few books in my possession that I sent into the wild with a BookCrossing label -- I'm very reluctant to part with books, but did not think I'd ever want to read that one again, and The da Vinci code seems to be of comparable worth.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm fascinated by conspiracy theories, cryptids, ghosts, UFOs and all that stuff.

But I want solid evidence and I want to hear the case for the prosecution.

There's no way I'm going to allow myself to be suckered into becoming a "true believer".

[methodius.livejournal.com]

When I was about 14 i loved a book in our schoopl library called Focus on the unknown. I suppose it was the equivalent of Baigent et al in a later age, but I found it much more interesting. I'd like to read it again, just to see if it was just because I was less critical at that age.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

The thing is, from what I've heard, Brown never set out to write anything other than a popular thriller. He doesn't believe any of this stuff. It's the fans who are scarily convinced it's all true. He's writing light fiction for heaven's sake.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I find the whole thing totally bewildering.

"It's in a book, therefore it must be true."

But then there are lots of people out there who seem to believe that Coronation Street is a fly on the wall documentary series.

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

This is what I don't get, either. It's a piece of fiction, for heaven's sake. I'm annoyed by the people who read what is obviously intended to be a fun thriller novel (which is what I enjoyed it as) and act like it's some kind of huge revelation on religion. But I'm equally--or perhaps even more--annoyed by the people who are outraged by the book and insist on pointing out every detail that Brown got wrong, and going into great detail about why this theory can't possibly be true.

Fiction, people. Fiction. Brown never said it was true. Why all the anger?

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

It turns out that he's a believer. I think you accused him of being one a bit ago and I picked on you for that, asking you how you knew that. Well, I read an interview with him, and he admitted that he is a believer.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

A believer in what exactly- the conspiracy stuff or mainstream Christianity?

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

Here's a website: http://catholicfire.blogspot.com/2006/04/meet-real-dan-brown.html

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

“Christian theology has survived the writings of Galileo and the writings of Darwin, surely it will survive the writings of some novelist from New Hampshire.”

I like that line, but at the same time I'd hesitate to even BEGIN to put a pulp writer in the same class as either Galileo or Darwin.

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

I think that's what they're saying. If it can survive geniuses like Galileo and Darwin, someone like Brown isn't going to be a threat.

It's not putting him in the same class, it's doing exactly the opposite.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Two years of research?

And there was I thinking he just got his wife to read the Holy Blood and The Holy Grail on his behalf...

If he really researched for two years and came out of it as a believer, then he's a bigger fool than I thought he was.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

I listened to the "Da Vinci Code" a few years ago and liked it well enough that I listened to another one of his books, "Deception Point". OMG! I listened to the first 10 minutes and was so horrified, I had to set it aside. I ended up listening to the whole thing, and although it wasn't all as inaccurate as the first 10 minutes, it was just bad. So bad it makes the DVC look like a work of art.

So, I don't think there is any limit to his foolery.

[queen-in-autumn.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes!

People keep asking me if I've read Code, and I'm always a bit embarrassed to tell them "no" because I feel like my reasons make me sound like a snob: this stuff about Magdalene and Christ may be 'news' for the general public, but this theory has been out there for ages, and I studied it years ago, and frankly I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.

Just last night, I said to a friend "Holy Blood, Holy Grail came out decades ago."

And of course there is the issue of being able to tell the difference between 'myth' 'fiction' and 'history' -- with the caveat that 'history' is often blurred by the first two.

Personally, I like the idea of Magdalene and Christ having been married, but that's all I take it as: either a story that can be well told, and as a myth that speaks to certain elements of my spirituality. All this conspiracy stuff is stupid. I think.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

It is rather disconcerting that so many church officials and religious organizations both Catholic and Protestant felt they had to respond to this in the first place. But then, a thorough grounding in religious history and doctrine has never been a prerequisite for membership in any religion, so a large number of people are prepared to accept any theory that's thrown at them (particularly a juicy one involving naughty bits that has religious authorities pulling their hair out). Like poliphilo said, the whole "It's in a book, it must be true" mentality as a social phenomenon is more interesting than the conspiracy theory itself.

Maybe the silver lining is that Da Vinci Code will inspire a few to delve deeper into the history of their faith?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I believe Opus Dei have been receiving millions of hits to their website and have come round to regarding the whole thing as a great opportunity to get their message across.

There's no such thing as bad publicity...

[methodius.livejournal.com]

Which is why Baigent et al sued Brown.

It's a win-win situation: sales of their books went up, sales of Brown's books went up, and it's grand pre-publicity for the film.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Well, yes; I find it perfectly plausible that Jesus was a married man. I remember being taught in theological college that it would have been downright scandalous for a 1st century rabbi not to have had a wife.

But there's no evidence. And it's very, very unlikely there ever will be. After all, there's no evidence outside the Christian scriptures for anything to do with the life of Jesus.

I haven't read the Code either. And for the same "snobbish" reasons. Also I understand it's very badly written...

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

Controversy's a powerful motivator. I read Code for the same reason I read the first Harry Potter book, because some religious types are up in arms about it, and being a graduate student of religious studies I need to stay abreast of these sorts of things. :P

Using the two books as my basis for comparison, I'd argue that Rowling is more competant as an author.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It's odd how certain books capture the public imagination.

Rowling is also a fairly derivative writer. She's not the first or even the second author to locate her fiction in a school for magicians.

Why, out of all the hundreds of perfectly competent popular novelists, have Rowling and Brown emerged as pack leaders? I wish I knew.

[methodius.livejournal.com]

I have to admit that I enjoyed Rowling's books.

Though I wouldn't class them as great literature, I think they're better written than a lot of kids books (Enid Blyton, for example), and they are certainly better written than The da Vinci code.

A couple of years before Harry Potter appeared on the scene, there was a dearth of good children's books. I browsed a few bookshops looking for some interesting ones, and the only things available were ones by R.L. Stine in the "Goosebumps" series. Have you read any of those? Absolute drek! And that was all that was available if you weanted to give a kid a book as a birthday present or something. Harry Potter was like the breaking of a decades-long drought.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I used to read my kids G.K. Chesterton and M.R. James.

They loved the Father Brown stories.

[intotheraw.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that it is a poorly written book aimed at the lowest level of intelligence.

I only read the book because I am in the academic game of religion, and wanted to figure out why people were so upset about it. The book was horrible, sure the plot was semi-interesting, I suppose. Maybe more so for those who hadn't read anything else like it before, but the style of writing was insulting. A cliff hanger every three pages is like foreplay without ever getting to the big bang. Only worse. The big bang was the notion that maybe Jesus might have been normal enough to have had a family *rolls eyes*. Really now, where's the controversy?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

There's got to be some reason why this book rings a bell.

Perhaps it's simply because organised religion- after years of apparent decline- is suddenly all over the headlines again.

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that it is a poorly written book aimed at the lowest level of intelligence.

Most bestsellers are.

[bodhibird.livejournal.com]

Shortly after reading this post, I came across this pertinent entry (http://www.wildhunt.org/2006/05/its-goddess-stupid-more-i-hear-experts.html) from a feed on my other LJ. At the moment, I am inclined to agree with him.

(I also have to admit that I'd like to see the movie, so I can get the story without putting up with the dreadful writing.)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Interesting. This aspect of the book has been downplayed in most of the accounts I've read.

Yeah, I mean to see the film. It's often the case that dreadful books make perfectly acceptable (even classic) movies.

[hardrada.livejournal.com]

Having read the Da Vinci Code, and enjoyed it guiltily, the way one enjoys a pot noodle, I decided I wanted more of the same, but with better writing and fewer inaccuracies, which I could admit to reading in mixed company. I lighted on Foucault's Pendulum, and decided it was one of the most wonderful books I'd ever read. No screaming factual inaccuracies that I could discern, and characters who were genuine, flawed and tragic. At the very end of the book, one of the characters reveals, through his diary, his own personal discovery of the Grail during his childhood. It's a piece of writing so beautiful, it brings goose bumps to my neck even now.

As for the Da Vinci Code, as much as I would love to pour scorn all over the whole work, and as much faith as I have in my own writing, I recognise implicitly that I couldn't write a thriller as compelling and readable. His writing is vain, shallow and profane. The statement "Have you READ the Da Vinci Code" is an instant confession of ignorance. But I still couldn't put the blasted thing down.

There is a certain genius in what he does, that triumphantly defies my intellectual snobbery. And I think if a writer could summon that same base appeal, and combine it with comparable depth and integrity, we will have another Shakespeare on our hands.

[hardrada.livejournal.com]

PS. In the same way that "His Dark Materials" went to the National while the Harry Potter franchise was playing its dreary through the cinemas, I would love to see a stage adaptation of "Foucault's Pendulum" to complement the Da Vinci Code film. Done correctly, it would run and run.

[methodius.livejournal.com]

I've recently re-read both Foucault's pendulum and His dark materials, and enjoyed both more on the second reading than on the first.

Foucault's pendulum is a good antidote for The da Vinci code and is certainly the best in the genre I have come across.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about Foucault's Pendulum. My son "borrowed" my copy and took it off to Japan with him and I'm feeling bereft.