So I’m a few years behind the times. One of my goals this year is to read as many of the books I own and haven’t yet read as I can. One of those was Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.
I already knew the big controversy and everything about the Holy Grail supposedly being the truth about Mary Magdelene as Jesus’s wife and mother of his children. The church cover-up, the Priory of Sion, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei, yada yada yada. Yes, I watched those late night specials that got to the “truth” of the Da Vinci Code all those years ago when the book was fresh.
And, yet, I couldn’t put it down. Not because I thought Dan Brown was providing me with some incredible insight into a new Christianity that might come to recognize “the sacred feminine,” but because it’s a hell of a chase story. It’s the simple things that make it a page-turner: murder most foul, close escapes, an American “wrong man” teaming up with a beautiful and smart French woman, shadowy characters whose intentions may or may not be malicious, clever chase sequences, and vivid descriptions of exciting foreign locales. More than anything, it reminded me of The Bourne Identity.
It was fun, and even though I knew what the secret of the grail was, I didn’t know what the characters would do with that knowledge once they secured the proof and found the grail for themselves. More than anything that kept me going. It always comes back to Faulkner and the human heart in conflict with itself, I suppose.
Afterwards, I had to look at all the paintings Brown describes in the book as well as read up on all of the various churches. I wasn’t surprised to find that many of the details in the book were simply made up or that much of it is based on conspiracy theory, but then I never expected it to be anything other than just clever fiction.
Still, it got me harking back to my art history classes in college, falling in love with a lot of that Renaissance art again. And, it does make one think about the structure and history of the church, which has got me going reading more history of the early Christian period as well as finally getting around to reading the Bible. King James, of course.
James Brush is a teacher and writer who lives in Austin, TX. He tries to get outside as much as possible.
James, I wish you’d posted your intentions earlier. I, or perhaps some other sympathetic reader, would have reminded you that your time on Earth is limited… 😉
I don’t know what they taught you in those “art classes in college” (I am just quoting you, not making fun of them); I hope they were good. But anyone who has actually studied Art History (“majored” in it, as the Americans call it, I believe) could tell you that the Saint-John-was-a-lady (and not Saint John at all) thing is hilarious bunkum. Well… just bunkum; it’s only hilarious to any Art History freshman who knows that Saint John was traditionally depicted in an “effeminate” manner, CENTURIES before Leonardo (NOT “da Vinci”) became a twinkle in Ser Piero’s eye – and for reasons that have nothing to do with any “conspiracies”.
I am not even mentioning 😉 the fact that the man’s writing is on the level of an unworldly eight-year old (who doesn’t know what a “monogram” is, for example). Or that he seems to have surprisingly little cognizance of Paris. (Maybe he just isn’t good at reading maps?)
I would be amused, weren’t it for the world-wide enthrallment with his, ahem, novels. It is not fun to know that the human civilisation has degraded to the point where the likes of Dan Brown can become “colleagues”, as it were, of Tolstoy, Mann, Faulkner, Marquez… of actual WRITERS. Literate people who not only had something to say, but also knew how to say it.
Even those looking for “fun” could do much better by turning to, say, Queneau or Perec – or even Twain or Kishon, if it’s humour what you want.
And if you want “mystery”, but you’ve read all the Agatha Christie works… why not try the Bible? 🙂
One thing is certain: Dan Brown is not worthy of your time.
Never Mind, Thanks for visiting and your comment. I’ll repond to some of your points.
Yes, I am aware of the St-John stuff. I know,too, that it’s unwise to interpret yesterday’s work by today’s standards, but I am also willing to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy a story. I loved the X-Files, but that doesn’t mean I believed any of it. Being reminded of classic works that I had once studied simply means that I went back and spent some time enjoying them again. Isn’t that what it’s about anyway?
Not having been to Paris (other than to change trains when I was 14) his lack of knowledge of Paris wasn’t important to me. I was aware the entire time that I was reading fiction. I don’t expect Philip Dick to provide accurate descriptions of Mars either.
Should you go back and explore the blog, you’ll notice I post about most of the books I read including those by Marquez and Christie. The others I’ve read, but not since I’ve been blogging. Reading is fun, you see, and I’m happy to report that I long ago managed to put aside any snobbery about books. I’ll try anything. I’m kind of adventurous that way. Life’s too short not to be.
Sorry you didn’t enjoy The Da Vinci Code. I did, and that doesn’t mean I actually took it as fact. IT just means that the few hours it took to read were pleasantly spent. Cheers.