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

[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?