The mysteries of The Da Vinci Code
A few weeks ago I sat in a boutique picture theatre with 40 friends and acquaintances and watched the Ron Howard-directed movie that millions of people worldwide have been eagerly waiting for – The Da Vinci Code. A week later over half of us got together over coffee to discuss both the book and the movie.
I have to say, I thought it was a rollicking good story, with more twists and turns than the Rimutaka Hill Road. What an intriguing conspiracy plot. It got me eager to read the book that my daughter has been pressing me to peruse for quite some time. This I have since done. Dan Brown can sure tell a good story!
But the movie left me with one or two questions – in fact countless questions. No – not the type that would cause me to question the fundamentals of my faith. Questions of a quite different type, like:
- Why would anyone possibly take seriously the highly speculative storyline, considering it anything more than fiction? (though the book is much more “convincing”). I don’t mean this question to in anyway demean the story – just that it’s the sort of far-fetched intriguing thriller I would expect at the movies.
- Why does Dan Brown keep saying that’s it’s just a work of fiction, when he states many times that he actually believes the conspiracy theory that underpins and drives his book? Does Brown genuinely believe people shouldn’t take the book (and movie) too seriously, when in fact it promotes a view of history that (if true) erodes the foundation of Christianity?
- In fact, is Dan Brown’s whole purpose in all this, a conspiracy? By this I mean, that maybe, far from naively seeking to write a novel, all along he has viewed this as a powerful subversive attempt to undermine orthodox Christian beliefs? Or do we take him at his word that he had no idea where his research would lead?
- Why is this book so damn popular? I mean, 50-60 million copies is an awful lot of sales – though ironically the only book that has sold more copies in the three years since The Da Vinci Code was published, is the Bible! What is it about Brown’s work that attracts people to it like flies to a barbecue?
- Finally, as a card-carrying Jesus follower, what do I do with The Da Vinci Code? Ignore it? Laugh at it? Protest it? Abuse Brown? Write a tract denouncing the baseless historical ‘facts’? Or treat it as a wonderful opportunity to engage conversation with unchurched friends?
FACT OR FICTION? THAT IS THE QUESTION
This question intrigues me. What does Dan Brown really believe his book is? Fact or fiction?
On his website (www.danbrown.com) the author answers the question, “How much of this novel is true?” by stating:
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. These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters’ viewpoints may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters’ viewpoints and come to his or 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.
Well, that clarifies it, doesn’t it!? You would think so, but hold on a minute…here’s an interview with the host of The Today Show, who asks, “How much of this book is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?”, Dan Brown replies, “Absolutely all of it. Obviously Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies – all of that is historical fact.”
Then, speaking to an audience in his native New England, he states: “I’m one of a long line of people who have offered up this alternative history. The Da Vinci Code describes history as I have come to understand it, through many years of travels, research, reading, interviews and exploration.”
In yet another interview, when asked if he were writing this as a non-fiction book, how it would be different, he replies “I don’t think it would be different.”
Furthermore, he views the writing of this novel as part of his own spiritual quest. In his own words he notes, “I began as a sceptic. As I started researching The Da Vinci Code, I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a believer.”
Confused? I sure am. Maybe he’s not sure himself? I suspect he thinks he has written an historical novel – using fictional characters and storyline built on historical background facts? But how much does he really think is true?
Now I know there’ll be some among us who will take the highly cynical view that Brown knows quite clearly that most of the historical background behind his book is bunkum. They’ll suggest that his words about believing it’s historically accurate are just those of a clever marketer, who knows he’s onto a good thing and wants to maximize sales. Money is the real objective, so they say!
But I have to admit that I’m not convinced. While I accept that Brown may be as good an actor as he is a novelist, when I hear him speak I hear the words of genuine (if misguided) seeker, for whom this whole exercise has made a deep impression on him (yes – okay, and on his bank account as well!). I think he really believes this fringe and largely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
Having said that, I do accept that at the end of the day, his “becoming a believer” has cost him little, if anything. It doesn’t require him to change his life or to give up anything. It’s not a cause he would feel the need to die for (unlike those of us who are believers of the message being undermined). So it’s easy for him to be flippant with the truth.
But why, oh why, does it really matter what Dan Brown thinks?
It’s intriguing to me what Brown does in fact think. But the more critical issue is, how do readers interpret what he writes?
This is where it starts to get interesting – or disturbing. You see, it seems as though a large number of people who have read the book actually believe it’s historically accurate? (Various surveys done seem to indicate this). And having read some of the book I can understand why. Brown drops in ‘historical data’ with great ease and regularity. And it all sounds so plausible. Even on the page preceding the prologue he notes, under the title “Fact:” three critical statements. The first is about the Priory of Sion, the second about Opus Dei and the third stating “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” This sets up the reader right from the word go to believe the background behind the story.
Even many book reviews suggest they have bought into the ‘based on fact’ line. For example:
“A compelling blend of history and page-turning suspense.” (Library Journal)
“A fact-based thriller.” (popmatters.com)
“John Grisham teaches you about torts. Tom Clancey teaches you about military technology. Dan Brown gives you a crash course in art history and the Catholic Church.” (Stephen Rubin, president and publisher, Doubleday/Broadway Publishing Group)
(Now I know this last guy doesn’t really count. He’s the publisher of the book so I guess we have reason to be suspicious about his comment! After all, The Da Vinci Code has just brightened Doubleday’s future considerably.)
But all these types of comments, along with Dan Brown’s own stated views serve to reinforce the perception of many readers that what they are reading is historically accurate. As New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III states: “Were it not for the enormous impact of The Da Vinci Code, I might be tempted to laugh and shrug off such historical mistakes.”
Returning to the original question, “Does Dan Brown really believe his own “historical novel”? That, it seems to me, is the 60 million (or soon to be 64 million) dollar question. If he does, in fact, believe what he’s written, then we have to respect that, but challenge him on the data. If he doesn’t, then why is he pretending he does and attempting to lead readers to believe his made-up take on history? – both by the way he has written the ‘novel’ and by what he says in interviews.
God only knows! (Perhaps we should ask him?)
WHY SO POPULAR?
The second fascinating question for me is, “Why is the book so damn popular?”
Books are funny things. Some of the best writing hardly gets an audience, while every so often a book just explodes onto the market and defies all predictions and odds, becoming an absolute blockbuster.
So why is The Da Vinci Code the most recent and spectacular example of the latter? Here’s some possible reasons:
The first is an obvious one – The Da Vinci Code is a seriously good read. (In spite of what some literary critics think – the ones who always seem to have their noses put out of joint by how well popular writing does). By most accounts, Brown’s novel does what all good fiction should do – capturing the reader early on, creating a level of intrigue and interest that makes it nigh impossible to put down, throwing in plenty of surprises and twists along the way. Such writing takes great imagination and skill. Dan Brown has both in bucketloads.
Secondly, I suspect the savvy publishers helped kickstart it all. They reputedly gave away around 10,000 copies of the book to reviewers (both hardcopy press and internet)! A pretty smart move if you ask me (and an expensive one too!). It paid huge dividends. (Perhaps they’d read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, which is a study on what tips an idea or product over the edge and into the realm of a social epidemic?) If you can afford it, there’s nothing quite like getting advance, free copies in the hands of as many of the key influencers in the industry – formal and informal. That’s a great way to get the promo machine going. What’s intriguing here is not the tactic (review copies are standard practice for all publishers) but the sheer size – 10,000 reviews!!
Thirdly, there’s the fact that most of us just love conspiracy theories. Whether it be the ‘true’ killers of JFK, or the influence of the secret society, the Illuminati, there’s something in our psyche that wants to be in the know about something that is not what it seems to be at first glance. And there’s been just enough genuine conspiracies uncovered over the years for us to believe that many/most are in fact true cover-ups. We just love to believe that we really are being had!
Plus, we’re also deeply suspicious of institutions – particularly big, powerful ones. The reality is that those organizations and people who have accumulated vast amounts of influence, power and wealth are likely to do whatever is needed to conserve and grow that power. For the vast majority of the past 1700 years the Christian Church in the West has certainly accumulated plenty of this type of capital. Sounds a good target to me!
What makes this even more enticing is that Dan Brown openly states that he is, by personality, a sceptic. He started his research into this book expecting to gather evidence to refute the conspiracy theory. Instead, he ended as a “believer”. That’s got to be appealing to many. For Brown is an articulate, well-educated and thoughtful man, not given to excesses. He also says he’s not threatened by questions and has a thirst for the truth. If he could be so turned around by two years of thorough research, then there’s a good chance that it’s true. Right?
But perhaps there’s even more to this tidal wave of popularity than a great read, clever marketing and an intriguing, conspiracy-laden storyline. Does the book/movie actually interest so many people because their experience or views (rightly or wrongly) of the Christian Church are so negative?
In other words, is there a collective “we want to believe this is true” in our culture because of the perceptions people have of religion, the Church, Christianity etc?
I think New Testament scholar Scot McKnight states it well when he asks, “Why is it that so many, in spite of repeatedly hearing about the historical implausibilities and the impossible scenario Dan Brown created for history, want to believe the inherent story of this book? My contention is that we live in a culture that does not believe the Church for a variety of reasons: it uses a hermeneutic of suspicion; it learns that there are parts of the Church’s history that are not pretty; it hears facts about the priests and the pastors who have abused their calling and turned spirituality into crime; it knows of Christians who are hypocrites — and it simply says, “Well, maybe all along they’ve been a bunch of power-suppressing liars.”
Brian McLaren makes a similar comment – “I think a lot of people have read the book, not just as a popular page-turner but also as an experience in shared frustration with status-quo, male-dominated, power-oriented, cover-up-prone organized Christian religion.”
If this is the case, then an appropriate response to those in our worlds who have read the book and/or seen the movie, has to be much more than refuting the fringe and flimsy historical interpretation Brown buys into. It has to open up conversation that goes to the heart of why so many people want to believe that what he says is in fact true. This will require us to be honest about the Church’s failings and abuses, and to acknowledge that we often represent a Christ-ianity that is some distance from the message and lifestyle of our leader, Jesus Christ. The way we dialogue will determine whether or not the preconceptions of people will be challenged or simply reinforced. Dogmatic denial of the historical facts as presented, will not do it. We need to engage people in honest and non-confrontational ways about both the truth of the historical record and the shortcomings of our own capacity to live up to Jesus’ teachings.
ENGAGE IT OR IGNORE IT?
Which leads to my final question; one that I have struggled with a fair bit. I guess you know that I’ve largely answered it for myself – by booking a theatre out and organising a coffee and discussion evening! But that’s not to suggest that I feel I’ve fully reconciled regarding what the best response to the book and movie should be.
I’ve had brief conversations with friends who have decided to ignore and/or boycott Brown’s artistry, and I respect and have a great deal of sympathy for the stand (or non-stand?) they’ve taken. One of their reasons, if I understand them correctly, is the belief that to contribute anything to the “Dan Brown Benevolence Fund” (by paying to attend the movie or read the book) is simply to reward even further someone who has made a mint out of mischievously promoting mistruth. And it may well serve to treat seriously something that has so little plausibility that it should be consigned to the forgotten basket sooner, rather than later.
The problem I see however, is that whether I like it or not, significant numbers of people I know have read the book and many more were inevitably going to watch the movie. And if the research is accurate, a large number will assume that Brown’s take on history (and particularly on early Christianity) is largely true and accepted by the majority of historians. So I ended up deciding it was better to get amongst it all and use it as an opportunity to engage with people over the issues concerned.
How ‘bout you? What’s your response been? And what about your thoughts on the other ‘mysteries’ of The Da Vinci Code?
NOTE: If you do choose to engage the issue with people, as I’ve done, here are some questions and resources that might be helpful.
QUESTIONS WORTH ASKING FRIENDS
Why do you think The Da Vinci Code has been so popular?
How much of the background ‘history’ of The Da Vinci Code do you think is actually true?
Do you think the Christian Church has been engaged in a giant cover-up of the truth about Jesus? If so, why do you believe this to be the case?
Would you be interested in examining the historical evidence with me?
What do you think Jesus’ view of women was?
What do you think is the Christian Church’s view of women?
RESOURCES WORTH LOOKING AT
1. Dan Brown’s own website http://www.danbrown.com/index.html
This is an excellent website with a bucketload of worthwhile resources, including “frequently asked questions” and a stack of reviews, articles, audio and video interviews and talks of Dan Brown that enable you to get a good appreciation of who he is and why he has written the book.
2. Sharan Newman (a medieval historian) has written an excellent book called The Real History Behind The Da Vinci Code. Published by Penguin, it basically takes an encyclopedian approach, with entries on all the key historical characters, movements, pieces of art, secret societies, concepts etc mentioned in the novel. Newman is definitely not prone to over-reaction and she doesn’t exhibit any particular personal commitment to the Christian faith. So, on both these counts it’s a helpful read because one would think she doesn’t have any particular axe to grind, apart from being concerned to separate fact from fiction. And the best news, for those with Scottish heritage such as my own, is that it’s only $25.00. Available at general bookstores. I had this initially recommended to me by Alistair Mackenzie, a mate from Christchurch.
3. There’s a website set up by some American Christian leaders and thinkers, with a range of thoughts from various ‘experts’, suggested resources, a prayer network and other options. I’ve read some of the opinion pieces and they were quite good food for thought.
http://www.thedavincidialogue.com/index.cfm
4. Michael Green’s The Books The Church Suppressed: Fiction and Truth in The Da Vinci Code (Monarch Books). Michael is in his late seventies now but still displays the same sharp mind that produced the classic Evangelism in the Early Church. He gives a well developed history lesson of the early church period. Definitely worth a read.
5. Ex-legal journalist Lee Strobel and his Willow Creek mate, Gary Poole have written a small book entitled Exploring The Da Vinci Code. It comes with an associated DVD and study guide (Discussing The Da Vinci Code). There are four studies in all. The first one is probably the most useful and includes a DVD interview with Paul Meier, a Professor of Ancient History, who also happens to be a novelist, and a Christian. Meier is good and the interview exudes credibility.
Overall, Strobel and Poole’s material has some very good historical stuff – including interviews with several history and theology scholars. I can’t help thinking though that on some counts it misses the mark, by failing to acknowledge the shortcomings of the Church, and confusing those claims Brown makes which are clearly historically inaccurate, and those claims which are merely ‘contestable’.
5. A good blog article by Rikk Watts (Professor of New Testament, Regent College) on the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas, and its second century Gnostic roots. See http://www.regentbookstore.com/footnotes/
6. There’s obviously a heap of other material out there. It seems like most publishers have done very well in getting on the Da Vinci bandwagon! Let me know if there is stuff that you found particularly helpful.
Comments
One Response to “The mysteries of The Da Vinci Code”
Leave a Reply
I personally had been exploring for points for my personal
website and found your own post, “The mysteries of The Da Vinci Code :
Ruminations”, do you really mind in case I personally
work with many of your own concepts? I am grateful ,Federico