SecretMethod70

I have a friend who is a librarian (masters in information services IIRC) and has, from what I've seen, a solid head when it comes to what is quality literature and what is not (both fiction and non-fiction). She has essentially echoed these points to me regarding The Da Vinci Code. Basically, she enjoyed the story but did not think very highly of Brown's execution at all. One thing I remember her specifically mentioning was the fact that so often she DID figure things out long before the characters would, and this was a great source of annoyance for her that something was so obvious (from a character perspective, as opposed to a reader perspective) and the characters would still take a great deal of time before discovering it. She also grew tired of redundency in the novel as well. But, she did find the fiction itself to be entertaining. (I'd give my own opinion, but I have not read the novel yet due to time, more important books I'd like to read, and the fact almost all my friends who have read it have commented on the terrible writing style of the author.)I think the reason this book has caused so much controversy is precisely the point SirLance and Carno allude to: many people who have read the book DO take some of it as fact. When it comes to things involving religion, people have a tendancy to think entirely irrationally, and that goes for people who defend it and people who like to criticize and question it.

People who feel the need to defend it are speaking out in hatred of The Da Vinci Code for being anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Jesus, you name it. It's a work of fiction! I don't think I need to elucidate why their reactions are mostly irrational.

But wait. It says in the beginning that it's a work of fiction but the descriptions of documents, etc are factual. Problem is they're not (as SirLance pointed out, for example). If you want a quick overview of just how untrue the whole deal regarding the Priory of Sion is, there is a good summary of the hoax if you have access to the April 30, 2006 episode of 60 Minutes. In fact, I'd bet the transcript can be found online.

Still, let's be totally honest here, most people get their ideas about history, etc from sources in popular culture...and when they read a book that says it depicts documents accurately, MANY people do allow things written in the book to cross the barrier from fiction to fact. Well, Dan Brown is hardly a historian. Just as those who feel the need to defend religion see what they want to see, those who feel a need to criticize it do so as well. There is cognitive dissonance everywhere.

It is because of this that my librarian friend (who does not adhere to any particular religious mindset) recommended another book to me to be read alongside The Da Vinci Code. Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code is written by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, who is a highly respected religious historian and the chair of religious studies at UNC-Chapel Hill. To sum his opinion up in one sentence: the book is highly entertaining and *highly* flawed in it's history. He did not write his book out of any theological agenda (he is agnostic), but he wrote it out of the recognition that no matter how much we all say "I know it's fiction," we still have a tendancy to let the things we may read effect our feelings and opinions on matters. There's not much better evidence for this than the fact a number of museum guides in Europe had to actually be trained in responding to questions regarding the works of art featured in The Da Vinci Code because, as the book became popular, more and more people asked about the claims that were made.

Since I have no delusion that more than maybe 2 of the people who read this will actually look at that book, I highly recommend this interview with Dr. Ehrman. Another good link to check out would be his list of the main 10 factual errors in The Da Vinci Code.

Point is, there's not much basis for hating the book itself (unless you think being poorly written makes it worthy of such a strong emotion as hatred). There is basis, on the other hand, for being frustrated by the effect the book has had in terms of spreading terribly inaccurate information into the minds of so many people and in creating a movement of people who feel the need to defend their religion. Both groups feed off the other: taking as fact what is not causes people to feel the need to defend and the staunch defense makes more people become interested in reading it. After all, perhaps the lady doth protest too much, right? Not really.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling