Da Vinci, Codes, Books, Movies, Speculations, Lies and Bad Writing
A recent online article argued: “Why Da Vinci Is Better as Book.” Four of the reasons listed revolve around the comical line: “In print, you can imagine Tom _______ instead of Tom Hanks.” Moving from Tom Cruise to Tom Selleck, to Tom Arnold, and Tom Green, the author is apparently not a Tom Hanks fan. Regardless, the article begs the question of whether or not the Da Vinci Code is a good book. What I find telling is that the article begins by stating, “No, I didn’t read “The Da Vinci Code.” Yes, I admit it, my literary habits, if you can call them that, tend to run more toward comic books.” I’m not sure this is a man who is fit to say that any story is better as book than film.
I finally read the book this weekend. It’s been in my “to read” pile for some time and as the furor grew, I kept thinking “I need to actually read it,” so I did. Others have addressed the key complaints: Jesus’ divinity was imposed, He married Mary Magdalene and fathered, etc. These have been dealt with, so I won’t address them. Rather, I’d like to think about other issues raised by this phenomenon. First, the blurring between fact and fiction, the possibility that the Christian repsonse has actually helped the book’s sales and influence and last, I’d like to ask the question, “is it a good book?” (is it a good story, are the characters sufficiently developed, are words used well, does the author develop concrete imagery, those types of questions).
First, the Da Vinci Code book and movie are part of a growing number of works blurring the line between fact and fiction. We’ve seen this trend gain tremendous headway particularly on television with the rise of “reality TV.” I’ll admit, I do watch Survivorman, Deadliest Catch and Dirty Jobs when I get a chance. But these shows present “reality” as entertainment. When the concept has been transferred to the page, we find authors presenting fiction as reality. The most notable recent example of this has probably been that of James Frey.
Frey’s “memoir” A Million Little Pieces fell into just that as allegations of fabrication and plagiarism emerged. After much scrutiny, according to Wikipedia, “Frey acknowledged that he either embellished or outright fabricated many elements of the book.” That’s a real problem for a book claiming to be a memoir. Many here will rightly point out that the Da Vinci Code is not a memoir and openly claims to be fiction, therefore any concerns in this area are unfounded. I wish they were.
Dan Brown cleverly plays the same game as James Frey, but Brown gets away with it because he claims the book is fiction. However, complicating matters is the fact that Brown feels compelled to open the book with a list of “facts.” These include pointing out that the orgianizations chronicled in the book (Priory of Sion and Opus Dei) are real, which therefore implies that the claims made by these groups in the book are also factual. These “claims of fact” are not part of the story, but preface it and therefore, color many’s perception of all that follows.
Second, I think that it is entirely possible that the Christian response to the book has actually boosted its sales (and thus its possible influence) tremendously. As I’ll discuss in a moment, it’s not a good book in the same way Tale of Two Cities is a good book. When literary critics gaze back, they will not see the Da Vinci Code. When cultural historians do the same, they just might see it. It is entirely possible that Brown chose his content specifically because of the “uproar” factor. Though we can not know that for certain, it was indeed a bold move.
Churches have devoted entire seminars and/or Sundays to the book. Christian authors have spilled much ink, Christian commentators have filled many airwaves, Christian magazines have devoted their cover stories to it. What better press could an author hope for? I’ve written elsewhere that about the possibility of boycotts. While I’m not sure that boycotts are the answer, I’m also becoming convinced that the “Christian response” has actually boosted the sales of a sub-par book with controversial content.
Had we simply and quietly addressed some of the key claims without denouncing and demonizing the book and author, I wonder if things might not have gone a bit differently. Instead, we see photos of book burnings and that’s just the type of image that sells and that stirs someone to become curious about a book they may have otherwise ignored.
Last, I want to briefly consider the literary merits of the book itself. I’ve made no secret thus far that I don’t consider it to be well-written. The story concept is fairly compelling, containing murder, conspiracy, chases, everything the modern man needs to be entertained. But this ultimately becomes part of the problem. It is not about literature, it’s about entertainment.
Modern fiction (for the most part) has tried to adapt itself to the television culture. The result has been fast-paced books with lots of action and short (sometimes very short) chapters that serve not to develop characters, but to move the plot. Da Vinci Code fits the bill perfectly. The characters are developed by their actions rather than dialoge or monologue. The result is that there is no connection other than that we know Langdon is supposed to be the “good guy” and that’s who we’re supposed to root for; there is no depth and therefore, the only drive for Langdon is that he is a “historian” who cares about the truth.
The language itself is sparse, but not in the sense that makes Camus’ The Stranger so compelling. Instead, it’s a “just the facts ma’am” approach that is not interested in developing concrete images or characters, just moving the plot, focusing on many shallow action words, trying to force suspense rather than letting it develop naturally. Overall, I would have to say that it’s poorly written but cleverly marketed and that’s a shame that such a project receives such success.
After having read the book for myself, I’m not surprised at its success. The characters are shallow, the action is fast-paced, the emotions are few, the plot is predictable and it is chock-full of controversy; just what every “average American” desires, an easy-to-read shallow book saying that belief in Christ is unfounded! I’d be surprised if it didn’t sell well.
It seems odd to me that besides the overly obvious (and necessary to address) issues raised by the book, I’ve not read any reviews of its poor artistic merits. It’s interesting that Christians, even in their response to something like this, continue to believe that the message overshadows the medium. Don’t get me wrong, the fallacies presented in Dan Brown’s “work” must be addressed, but this is not even a book of which I could say “I disagree with what he said but he said it well,” and I’ve not heard any Christians point out how poorly written it really is. i pray that we may come to hold everything up to the excellencies of Christ (who is God); even our literary notions.
For those of you who have read the book, I’d love your thoughts, on the content and presentation.
- Read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
June 5th, 2006 at 8:48 am
WEll..I read the book,I admit that I don’t read alot,but this book was very interesting.Not that I believe in his “theories”,it is just that I was driven by curiosity to know what will happen next,the action was developing at very very high speed,revealing shocking content.
I believe in Dan Brown’s intellegence to know exactly what any average reader would want to read.Our daily lives move at very high speed,we tend to love watching reality shows,and this book is a blend of both.
But i don’t agree with you that the book “is not well-written”.i found the whole book very coherrent developing the action on different levels,yet he was able to stick to the point and then develope the conclusion,with no deviations.
About the development of the characters,well I think that the action was more important and that is why the whole concentration was on it.He is investigating to find the truth about a murder,which will uncover shocking secrets.He wasn’t telling the story of a certain character,instead it was clear that he was more concerned by the action itself.
I believe that literature presents a slice of life with some imagination,which doesn’t only have to be concerned with our characters but our actions too,and that is exactly what Dan Brown did.
June 5th, 2006 at 8:51 am
I think I agree with your conclusion. It’s not a quality book like Melville or Twain, etc, but it is a fast, fun read. Twas a very enjoyable read, at least for me.
And I agree. Christians just mock themselves when they get all worked up over a work of fiction. Feel free to debunk any fictional “claims” if you want, but to sensationalize it just makes the church look goofy, seems to me. (And it seems to me that fiction doesn’t make “claims” it makes plot twists.)
June 5th, 2006 at 9:11 am
I agree with all your conclusions about The Da Vinci Code. But I’m little bit surprised you choose to put a link toward Amazon.com in order people can buy the book while you say in your post:
I’m not saying that’s a contradiction of your part. It just made me smile to see the link at the end of the post.
I find your blog and your Church’s Website really well done.
I really enjoyed the emphasis (in your blog) you put on the Art and the Culture, and specially when you address these topics in a theological manner.
June 5th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Daniel;
I’m glad you noticed that! I originally did it just as a joke, playing off of that exact line, but the more I thought about it, there are a great deal of Christians who oppose things without ever looking into it themselves. That’s part of why I finally read it myself. That becomes a fine line, because, of course we don’t look into everything (pornography for example), but I do want to challenge myself and other believers to think critically and actually form biblical opinions.
Thanks so much for your comments!
June 5th, 2006 at 9:41 am
That’s what I thought when I saw the link there.
And it is probably the hardest choice Christians teachers must often do: encouraging believers to think critically while at the same time not publicizing heretical works like The Da Vinci Code. How this could be done? There is the question.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:24 am
I just don’t know that one can label any fiction as “heretical.” It’s fiction. It’s plot points are problematic for some, but even taking it seriously, to treat it as some sort of threat to the church which has endured centuries off and on of deadly persecution is just weak.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I Don’t believe Dan Brown was doing only a fictional book when he wrote The Da Vinci Code. That’s why I can claim his book is a “heretical” one. In fact I even go so far as to say that he is a false teacher. Greek philosophers used to teach their ideas by stories. And I believe Dan Brown did exactly the same.
I don’t ask people to share my opinion on this issue, but when brothers and sisters in Christ come to me and seem really confused because of what they read in the Da Vinci Code, I cannot just tell them, “Don’t worry, it’s only fiction! Go home and sleep well tonight!” They need more than that. Indeed, they need the true teaching of Christ and his apostles. Even if the Da Vinci Code were only a fictional book, we cannot ignore the fact that it is still producing so many bad things in the life of so many people.
June 6th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
“Don’t worry, it’s only fiction! Go home and sleep well tonight!”
But that is exactly what you should tell them. Despite all the credibility many in the church have given it, the book is only fiction. A fun read with plot twists that disagree with the faith of some, but so what? It’s fiction.
Why all the energy spent on this book of fiction? Why not some of Mark Twain’s work, which was at times vicious towards the church (and viciously funny)? Or how about some of the televangelists’ serious work? I’d submit that they do much more serious harm to the church than this trifle ever could.
Set the record straight where you disagree with Brown? Sure, if you want. But don’t do it in such a way as to elevate Brown’s book to a “threat,” to the Church Everlasting, as if it could be.
June 6th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Dan,
I wish I could agree and simply remind all who are concerned that the book is merely fiction. However, I think the problem is larger and indicative of a breakdown in cultural sources of authority and truth. In other words, I might venture to say that we have moved away from the short-lived ‘postmodern’ phase of creating our own truth on an individual basis (although the slogans are still very much alive - think ‘true for you but not for me’) and into one in which we extract truth from the simplest or most available source. It should be no suprise then, that the simplest and most available source happens to be entertainment! Thus, we extract ideas that support a somewhat in-flux tapestry of truth that seems to exist in a two-dimensional way, rather than building a structure of truth that is necessarily relational (think of a structure built upon objective truth which supports minor but still necessary ’sub-truths’).
In any case, I agree that a pop-cultural phenomenon like The Da Vinci Code should not present such difficulty to a tradition which emerges from objective and transcultural truth. However, it seems as if the book is indicative of and contributing to the larger threat I described above.
Now, in regard to the self-destructive witness of the church itself, I certainly agree wholeheartedly. I hope that this experience will teach us a much needed lesson in stewardship of the message and person of Christ we claim to live by.
June 6th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Dan,
I’m really sorry but I just cannot completely agree with you.
I cannot say if Dan Brown intended to write a fictional book or a historical one when he wrote the Da Vinci Code since I cannot enter his mind. But what I’m sure of is that the book he wrote doesn’t teach the truth. In 2 John 1:7, John tells us that,
When Dan Brown tells us that Jesus was only human he is denying the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Indeed, if Jesus is not God who became man there is no Incarnation at all. And I believe no true Christian would say that Christ is not divine but only human, not even in a fictional way. It is on that very basis I can say Dan Brown wrote not a heterodox book but a heretical one.
Maybe your are right and the Da Vinci Code is only a big fiction intended to entertain people. But for me this is not the heart of the matter. Some Christians are very confused when they hear about the Da Vinci Code or read the book or see the movie. To tell them that all of what they read or saw is only fiction just doesn’t work for the most part. They need more than that.
I really enjoyed what CB had to say on this issue. The way people today are looking for entertainment and how they beleive so naively what they watch, hear or read(?) is alarming.
June 6th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Sorry but in the previous post you should read , “It is on that very basis I can say Dan Brown wrote not a ORTHODOX book but a heretical one”. I do not know how I did that mistake but I feel better now since I made the appropriate change.
June 10th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Nearly a year ago, my friend Stephanie encouraged me to read The Da Vinci Code with her. She’d read it before, and loved it, and wanted me to experience it’s awesomeness. At the time, being an agnostic, I was intrigued to find out about any possible Bible/Christian discrepancies, and agreed to read it.
You can ask my friend, or anybody I know, what my reaction to the book was. Simply stated, I thought it sucked. Royally. My main line was, “What person who works as a GOVERNMENT code breaker can’t figure out what the RED ORB is that’s missing from Sir Isaac Newton’s tomb?!?” Granted, that insultingly simple code was found later in the book (and people may say, “Sure, that was dumb, but what about the rest of the book?”), the whole book follows a general tack of B-Horror-Movie-Script literature styling. I made about 40 different cringing faces reading it. It was just sad. Scary-sad.
Many folks I knew who followed the same agnostic beliefs as I did thought the book was awesome. “It’s the church, man…it’s the church…” they’d say, “always trying to control people.” Maybe they were in love with the idea of the book, I don’t know. I felt like the lone person on the non-Christian side of the fence that supremely disliked the book.
Now that I’m a Christian, these same people are trying to make it seem like I don’t like the book because I’m a Christian and the book is “against the Bible.”
Hate to break it to them, but Dan Brown probably wouldn’t be able to make it as a writer for ads in Mad Magazine. Straight up,The Da Vinci Code was just sad.
June 10th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Sara;
Thanks so much! After finally having read the book for myself, one of the things that I just couldn’t fathom was that no one was saying how poorly written it really is. Everything about it shallow and simply a prop to move the characters through predictable plotlines. The “B-Horror-Movie-Script literature styling” is a perfect description.