The DaVinci Code is a book in which Dan Brown recycled the exact same plot from his previous three books[1], but instead of implausible NSA supercomputers, secret meteorites planted in the Arctic by government agencies, or the Vatican funded Illuminati, the bad guy [2] is a super secret society which wants to hush up the truth about the Holy Grail. The only thing protecting “The Truth” is our hero and (another) super-secret society [3] which has protected the secret for two thousand years.
Did I mention that Dan Brown has meticulously researched [4] this book, and every word in the (numerous) lectures is true [5]?
BTW - What the FUCK is a symbologist? Seriously - is Symbology a serious study anywhere outside of Dan Brown’s mind?
[1] To call these novels would be an insult to novels everywhere.
[2] Who betrays our hero at the last minute. (surprise! - again)
[3] Founded in the twentieth century by a con-man.
[4] For unusual values of meticulous and research.
[5] For unusual values of true.
I’m not kidding about recycled plots. Dan Brown has used the Exact Same Plot in four novels - down to where the hero gets betrayed by the trusted ally in the third to last chapter and the tacked on love scene in the last five pages. My god, this man is a hack.
THE DA VINCI CODE does purport to be fact-based fiction. Lots of non-C’tians do take the alleged “facts” seriously- those being that 1) original C’nity regarded Jesus as merely human, 2) that the doctrine of His Deity was invented at the Council of Nicea as was the New Testament canon, 3) that the Nag Hammahdi writings are a truer source of Jesus’ teachings than the four Gospels, 4) that JC was married to Magdalene who was also his Sex-Priestess & they were the ancestors of the Merovingian dynasty which was desposed by the Roman Church to wipe out the competition, and that the survivors founded the Prieure d’Sion to keep it going, yadda yadda yadda.
Points 1, 2 & 3 are attacks on Christianity.
Some nominal C’tians/church members have turned from the faith, thinking it has been refuted by TDVC.
I haven’t checked the minister’s site in the OP, but TDVC is not an irrelevant issue to Christians who are concerned about the actual teachings of the faith.
If you’re teaching The Da Vinci Code at your church, you’ve got more problems than the Internet can handle.
Of the 200 million people in the U.S. who purport to have some kind of Christian faith, I’d venture to say 180 million of them hold some kind of misconception. There are scores of other books that say more factually incorrect things, and I don’t understand what it is about TDVC that pisses people off. The people who read TDVC and take it seriously are the people who aren’t going to go to church and get their religion straight anyway, so there’s no big loss here.
What do opponents of TDVC want to do? Get all the other mullahs together and declare a fatwah on Dan Brown?
Yea but there is support for points 1,2,3 amoung many biblical scholars. I don’t know about the fourth point, but don’t the dead sea scrolls and the excluded gospel of Thomas support 1,2,3?
Now there’s an idea. I’d support this, not because any attacks on Christianity (it’s been chugging along for nearly 2000 years just fine), but because I spent two friggin’ days READING THAT BOOK.
I’d call a fatwa on my MIL for giving me that book, but I think Mrs. Magill wouldn’t like that.
It would be if there were people who seriously believed a coyote strapped jet-skates to his feet or painted train tunnels on rock walls to attempt to catch a bird, who outwitted him at every turn.
There are people who believe that obviously false (to me and probably you) urban legends are true. If we made fun of everyone who tried to set them straight…we’d be making fun of nearly everyone here I’d bet.
There is no legtimate support for point number 2 (that Jesus’s divinity was invented at Nicaea). Nicaea was where some differing viewpoints regarding the nature of his divinity were made orthodoxy, but the belief that he was divine certainly goes back to the first century.
True, true…and I’ll admit that after I posted I wished I had used the word “inaccuracies” rather than “anomolies.” since anomolies can happen, but inaccuracies are false. People who believe the coyote/jet-skate or painted train tunnels are (IMHO) similar to people who believe other absurdities (although I admit I was thinking more of the “accordian effect”). Still silly, to quote Mssrs. Python.
Sadly, I believe you’re right about this, as ludicrous as it sounds. I mean, how rediculous is it to “expose errors” in a fictional work to begin with? It’s FICTION! It’s supposed to be fiction. Factual inaccuracies are part and parcel of such a work. To point to it and say “here is what is not true” is tatamount to pointing at an episode of “Barney” and saying “here is why dinosaurs aren’t really purple and speak English.”
It’s ridiculous, and people who need it clarified cannot be the sharpest knives in the drawer.
As steveG1 and the OP noted, it’s a work of fiction. There is nothing to debunk. Debunking a work of fiction is like shaving a bald person. There ain’t no hair there.
Nevertheless, your point is well taken. Some people are too dim to bother to tell the difference between fiction and fact. In the interest of “fighting ignorance,” perhaps debunking fictional claims is necessary.
Still sad, though. If the claims are presented as fake, debunking should be a waste of time. Unfortunately, it probably isn’t.
I almost mentioned that “N is for the Nine Billion Names of Cecil,” but then remembered that was an Arthur Clarke reference (the other formative author of my youth).
As I’m sure you know, there is an academic field pertaining to the study of signs and symbols, and it’s called semiotics. I can only assume that Dan Brown chose “symbology” because semiotics is too hard a word for his target readership. It might also be out of fear that Umberto Eco, a real semioticist and fine author, might come round to Brown’s house one night and give him a well-deserved ass-kicking.
Dan Brown loves to jump from one side of the fence to the other as to how much of his book is “based on researched facts”. I’ve seen taped interviews where he goes off on how, as he did the “research” for his book (which seems to have consisted mainly of reading the aforementioned Holy Blood, Holy Grail), the hidden truths became clearer. He also has a section in the first couple of pages of the Da Vinci Code that states:
Given that the contemporary Priory of Sion was cooked up by a French con artist / embezzeler in the 1950’s, his “FACT” is clearly false. The book includes descriptions of a “Priory of Sion” sex ritual, which is thus also false. Brown loves to play on the fact that he’s uncovered certain truths, yet has the fallback position of “it’s all just a novel” when called on the overwhelming errors contained in his books.
My main beefs with Brown as an author are:
He’s an abysmal writer.
Ever since I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, I’ve always thought that the “Jesus/Mary Magdalene/Merovingian/Rennes-le-Chateau/Priory of Sion/Sang Real/San Graal/Holy Grail” subject would make the backdrop for a wonderful novel in the hands of a skilled writer. Dan Brown has pretty much poisoned the well for any future author for decades to come.
