Thoughts on Brown's silliness
The Da Vinci Code isn't a threat to Christianity. It is, however, a threat to intelligence.
Historical fiction is great, but it should use what is known of histoy, and build on what is unknown. The usual goal of historical fiction is to in some way make history present in a narrative form, supplementing what we don't know with plausible (or even sometimes controversial) plot-driving material.
But the DaVinci code gets basic history wrong all over the place. The only people who can find it interesting are those who have almost no knowledge of history (at least Church History) to begin with.
It would be nice to think that Dan Brown is just uninformed himself. But he claims factuality and in-depth research. Either he did the research and is a liar, in that he is intentionally misrepresenting known facts. Or, he didn't do the research and is a liar, because he didn't do the research he claims he did.
Sure, it's fiction. But Brown claims it is fiction wrapped around a bunch of real facts and history. The only really plausible explanation is that Brown knows that the average American is ignorant of basic history.
I don't mean to be cynical -- at least not in pursuit of cynicism for its own sake. But I have a hard time believeing that anyone who is familiar with the relevant history could ignore what they know and think his story had even artistic merit.
And this brings up another point. It isn't well-written. I mean, what is a symbologist? Robert Langdon is supposedly a "Harvard symbologist." But Harvard doesn't have any such department. It isn't an academic discipline. I don't know if it is any sort of discipline.
I find the word "symbology" irritating, anyway. It is usually misused in place of "symbolism." I have seen it used here and there, to refer to some analysis of a symbol within a symbolic system. But I think it is a word that would be better not to exist. It isn't even properly coined. If it were, it would be "symbolology." However, I do know that it has usage in a few contexts.
But the usage of the word is limited to the place of a symbol (or class of symbols) within a symbolic system. It doesn't apply to the general study of symbols. And the way Brown uses it implies that all symbols exist under a universal symbolic system, and have some sort of static, established meaning cross-culturally. But symbols aren't even interpreted the same way by all people within a given culture.
Leonardo Da Vinci, for instance, would not have even known of a concept of the "sacred V of the feminine" or whatever. It wasn't a concept in his culture of time. It is a pretty modern concept, the way it is used in Brown's book. I have not seen any art historian who interprets Da Vinci's The Last Supper in the way that Brown says is obvious. Not even one. But Brown portrays his strange interpretation as if it were a well-kept secret in the art world.
I know... I keep hearing people who say, "Relax, it's just fiction. Nobody would take it seriously." But since this book came out, I have hear people matter-of-factly spout out some claim of Brown's as if it were true. I hear people claiming that Constantine "founded the Catholic Church," or that he determined the canon of the New Testament. Or that "The Church" has unfairly called Mary Magdalene a prostitute to hide her role in the Apostolic community.
But the Orthodox Church has always called her "The Holy Myrrh-Bearer and Equal to the Apostles," and has never connected her with the "Woman Caught in Adultery" in John's gospel. St. Mary Magdalene's association with prostitution is a later Western idea not found anywhere in the Eastern Church.
But to Brown, the only Church is the Western Church. And he counts on people's ignorance even on this tradition in order to spin his stupid tale.
St. Constantine didn't found any Church, or any movement within it. He converted to Christianity, and issued the Edict of Milan, ending three centuries of violent and horrible persecution of Christians by the Empire. He didn't make Christianity the official religion. He didn't create any doctrines. He didn't have a say in the New Testament canon. In fact, he thought himself to be such a sinner that he didn't take communion until he was on his deathbed. He and his mother, St. Helena, also funded the resotration of many Christian holy sites that had been destroyed by the Romans. It was Theodosios, a good 50 years or so after Constantine, who made Christianity the official religion of the Empire.
Brown's book is popular not because it is smart or interesting, but because it plays on the long-standing trend of American anticlericalism, and the reasonable assumption that most people won't be able to spot how historically inaccurate it is. It has a veneer of history, which makes it attractive -- because it provides all the fun of thinking without the actual process of having to think. It gives a person clever and provocative things to say at parties, but doesn't reqire them to be clever or to have found an actually provocative historical fact in order to say it.
I'm not offended in terms of his claims against "organized religion" Christianity. Surely, there are things to criticize there. I'm just saddened that the lack of knowledge that an enjoyment of his book is predicated upon is so widespread that his book has become a best-seller, and stands to be a blockbuster movie.
Historical fiction is great, but it should use what is known of histoy, and build on what is unknown. The usual goal of historical fiction is to in some way make history present in a narrative form, supplementing what we don't know with plausible (or even sometimes controversial) plot-driving material.
But the DaVinci code gets basic history wrong all over the place. The only people who can find it interesting are those who have almost no knowledge of history (at least Church History) to begin with.
It would be nice to think that Dan Brown is just uninformed himself. But he claims factuality and in-depth research. Either he did the research and is a liar, in that he is intentionally misrepresenting known facts. Or, he didn't do the research and is a liar, because he didn't do the research he claims he did.
Sure, it's fiction. But Brown claims it is fiction wrapped around a bunch of real facts and history. The only really plausible explanation is that Brown knows that the average American is ignorant of basic history.
I don't mean to be cynical -- at least not in pursuit of cynicism for its own sake. But I have a hard time believeing that anyone who is familiar with the relevant history could ignore what they know and think his story had even artistic merit.
And this brings up another point. It isn't well-written. I mean, what is a symbologist? Robert Langdon is supposedly a "Harvard symbologist." But Harvard doesn't have any such department. It isn't an academic discipline. I don't know if it is any sort of discipline.
I find the word "symbology" irritating, anyway. It is usually misused in place of "symbolism." I have seen it used here and there, to refer to some analysis of a symbol within a symbolic system. But I think it is a word that would be better not to exist. It isn't even properly coined. If it were, it would be "symbolology." However, I do know that it has usage in a few contexts.
But the usage of the word is limited to the place of a symbol (or class of symbols) within a symbolic system. It doesn't apply to the general study of symbols. And the way Brown uses it implies that all symbols exist under a universal symbolic system, and have some sort of static, established meaning cross-culturally. But symbols aren't even interpreted the same way by all people within a given culture.
Leonardo Da Vinci, for instance, would not have even known of a concept of the "sacred V of the feminine" or whatever. It wasn't a concept in his culture of time. It is a pretty modern concept, the way it is used in Brown's book. I have not seen any art historian who interprets Da Vinci's The Last Supper in the way that Brown says is obvious. Not even one. But Brown portrays his strange interpretation as if it were a well-kept secret in the art world.
I know... I keep hearing people who say, "Relax, it's just fiction. Nobody would take it seriously." But since this book came out, I have hear people matter-of-factly spout out some claim of Brown's as if it were true. I hear people claiming that Constantine "founded the Catholic Church," or that he determined the canon of the New Testament. Or that "The Church" has unfairly called Mary Magdalene a prostitute to hide her role in the Apostolic community.
But the Orthodox Church has always called her "The Holy Myrrh-Bearer and Equal to the Apostles," and has never connected her with the "Woman Caught in Adultery" in John's gospel. St. Mary Magdalene's association with prostitution is a later Western idea not found anywhere in the Eastern Church.
But to Brown, the only Church is the Western Church. And he counts on people's ignorance even on this tradition in order to spin his stupid tale.
St. Constantine didn't found any Church, or any movement within it. He converted to Christianity, and issued the Edict of Milan, ending three centuries of violent and horrible persecution of Christians by the Empire. He didn't make Christianity the official religion. He didn't create any doctrines. He didn't have a say in the New Testament canon. In fact, he thought himself to be such a sinner that he didn't take communion until he was on his deathbed. He and his mother, St. Helena, also funded the resotration of many Christian holy sites that had been destroyed by the Romans. It was Theodosios, a good 50 years or so after Constantine, who made Christianity the official religion of the Empire.
Brown's book is popular not because it is smart or interesting, but because it plays on the long-standing trend of American anticlericalism, and the reasonable assumption that most people won't be able to spot how historically inaccurate it is. It has a veneer of history, which makes it attractive -- because it provides all the fun of thinking without the actual process of having to think. It gives a person clever and provocative things to say at parties, but doesn't reqire them to be clever or to have found an actually provocative historical fact in order to say it.
I'm not offended in terms of his claims against "organized religion" Christianity. Surely, there are things to criticize there. I'm just saddened that the lack of knowledge that an enjoyment of his book is predicated upon is so widespread that his book has become a best-seller, and stands to be a blockbuster movie.