Da Vinci Code

[Child of Immanuel]

I promised a friend that I'd read it, otherwise I'd never have touched it. Anyway, it's fairly good as a story, though Brown needs to learn to write better, but there's not a single fact, historical or otherwise, in it. Quite infuriating.

[dinadan]

Umm...there are plenty of "facts" in the book. Just not in his interpretations of the paintings. I felt that the book would have been stronger had he drawn on paintings that do have occult ties--like "Et in Arcadia Ego" by Teniers (who is mentioned in the Saunier documents). The truth is, the whole "Jesus had children" thing is old hat in terms of heresies--the Cathari and the Albigenesians believed it way back in the 12 century. As to whether or not there is a Templar/Priory of Sion conspiracy covering it up, well, that's debatable. But, some of the things Brown uses, like the Opus Dei, do exist; now, they may not be as nefarious as he believes, but their existence is a "fact."

But, getting deeper into this (and I've been having this debate with a friend of mine), Brown isn't trying to write a historical novel. He's writing fiction, and unless he claims otherwise, then he's not responsible for including any facts at all. Indeed, even if he says something is a fact within his book, then you are supposed to take it as a fact of the fictional world in which the story takes place--it's like Tolkien saying in the appendices of the Lord of the Rings that he "found" the Red Book of Westmarch and translated it. In the fictional world of the book, that is a fact. Now, it doesn't matter if he borrows from the real world and bends the truth--he's just telling a story.

And yes, I felt that it was an interesting story, but the writing isn't top notch. But then, consider the fact that the mass market public doesn't know the difference between what makes "good" and "bad" writing, it doesn't matter. He's better than some mass market writers *coughcough Tom Clancey coughcough*, so I suppose with time he might improve.

[calixar]

Read his intro to the book again, when he says in interviews that he did not claim the assertions were true, he's lying.

But you're right... there are facts in the book. Like, bullets can kill you.

His scholarship was horrendous, to the point that he even contradicts himself.

[dinadan]

I'm staring at the intro right now. I mean, yes, he says that his descriptions are accurate--but does that mean he's claiming that they are true? I don't think that's quite the same thing. To my knowledge, Brown has never claimed to be writing truth, only a good, fictional story. And, until he says "Yeah, everything I wrote about really exists" then we have to keep evaluating his work as fiction, not as conspiracy theory. And, should he make such an assertion, then we are presented with two possibilities: Either he is telling the truth, or he is a madman. Even then, it's not like him saying something makes it true. I think people have gotten really bent out of shape about this because it asks them to questions the foundations of their belief system--I don't think that Dan Brown is asking your to substitute his book for your beliefs, despite the fact that there are people who have gone off half-cocked and started churches based on this (not that that's new...like I said, this stuff is old-hat heresy). But, that's no different than those crazy Tolkienists in Russia. And crazy readers' aren't an author's fault. I think my point is that when you pick up a book in the fiction section, you ought to have the good sense to realize that your willing suspension of disbelief that you need to enjoy a novel beings and ends with the covers of the book.

Plus, even if we were to begin evaluating it as a conspiracy theory, that doesn't mean that a conspiracy exists. The possibility of a thing to exist is not proof of it's existance. But, it makes for an entertaining exploration of an idea--a possibility. Good storytellers blur the lines between reality and make-believe and make us think about reality in ways that we might not have before--and if Dan Brown has done that so well that reasonable intelligent people aren't able to escape the fiction, then does that make him wrong? I don't think so. I think that because he's based his story around heresies that have been around a long time, with a history to them, that he has piqued people's interest in them--but it's not his fault that we don't talk about this stuff anymore. If Dan Brown's books are saying "you need to know more about this thing you pay lip service too" then so be it. I'm cool with that.

[calixar]

It is not unreasonable for people, reading about historical situations and real locations, to expect a certain amount of accuracy.

It is also, then, not unreasonable for people to see a statement such as there are "exactly 666 panes of glass" in the Louvre pyramid and accept that as the truth. But it is not the truth. There are 673.

People see the statement that the ancient Olympic games were on an 8-year cycle and devoted to Venus, explaining why there are 5 circles in the modern Olympic logo (a nod to the pentacle, symbol of Venus). It's a lie. The ancient and modern games both were/are a four year cycle and the ancient was devoted to Zeus.

Conspiracy or not... Dan Brown is extremely irresponsible. The book is chock full of nonsensical statements like the above. All of them are, it seems, deliberately fashioned to prove a false point. I've read the book, enjoyed it as a novel, but came away thinking that he is not a liar or a madman, but either a liar or an idiot.

This isn't a matter of people having their faith challenged. It's about the truth and responsibility. I've seen TV documentaries about (such as one on the History Channel recently) made by people who are not even remotely Christian, and they're as annoyed about it as I am, and largely for the same reasons.

[dinadan]

*shrugs* It's fiction--by definition not real. I don't see the problem. In the fictional world of the novel, the Lourve pyramid might have 666 panes of glass. I mean, I could go on a literary threory rant about the principles of metafction, but most of that would just be technobabble; it's easier just to accept that an author creates a world, and in that world they are free to make any claims they want.

[calixar]

If, in the intro, he had said, "This is a fictional world I created and not the real world," I'd agree with you.

What does he say, however?

FACT:
The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975, the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci. The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.


The two bits I bolded are the first two lies of the book.

The Priory of Sion of 1099 was a monastic community... not a secret society. The current Sion has no real connection to it.

Almost all of the artwork and such are depicted highly inaccurately... including the ARCHITECTURE of the Louvre Pyramid, which has 673 panes, not 666.

These statements in the introduction are what make the book a book of lies and not fiction.

[dinadan]

You're creating a distinction that doesn't exist. An author does't have to say "I'm creating a fictional world" because that is implied in writing fiction. I mean, it's a definitional thing. So yeah, he may be twisting real world facts to fit his story--so what, it's not like Dan Brown is the first to do that.

[twyrch]

dinadan said:

You're creating a distinction that doesn't exist. An author does't have to say "I'm creating a fictional world" because that is implied in writing fiction. I mean, it's a definitional thing. So yeah, he may be twisting real world facts to fit his story--so what, it's not like Dan Brown is the first to do that.

Kind of like Harry Potter. It takes place in London, England... a real location... but the entire book is fictional.

[dinadan]

Exactly. Or like John Grisham's books; entirely fictional, but uses real-world basis for those fictions.

[twyrch]

dinadan said:

Exactly. Or like John Grisham's books; entirely fictional, but uses real-world basis for those fictions.

Or Terry Brooks, Running with the Demon series... Takes place in real places.... Seatle, WA... Rockford, IL... Wales... etc.

SRL does the same thing with SoA... Takes place in London... Scotland...

Just because an author references things which are "real" doesn't make the book Non-Fiction.

[dinadan]

I think the problem people have with Dan Brown is that so many people take what his books says as gospel truth; and that's not his fault.

[scothia]

dinadan said:

I think the problem people have with Dan Brown is that so many people take what his books says as gospel truth; and that's not his fault.

Perhaps not entirely his fault, but he definitely has ridden this rocket ship to his advantage and does not dissociate himself from any mistaken view of history caused by his work of fiction. I get the impression this is Brown's payback to the religion of his youth; although I have no verification this is true. Just a hunch.

[dinadan]

He's written a best-seller...why should he distance himself from it just because people went insane over his book?

[calixar]

No, no, no... read the introduction again! You're not paying attention.

This is the actual text of it:

FACT:
The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975, the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci. The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

If not for that last sentence, what you are saying about a fictional world would be true. He tells a deliberate lie here, saying that the way he has depicted the world is FACT.
By his own words, he is not changing things... when in fact he is.
This is why I call his book "lies" and not "fiction."