Lies, all lies!
I feel the need to respond in kind to Erin's "almost" bad review of The DaVinci Code, because it highlights a dangerous trend in modern entertainment: the feeling that if it makes millions happy (ala Brittany Spears, Kelly Clarkson, Country Music as a whole), it ain't all that bad. That's bullshit.
While the DaVinci Code might be entertaining, that doesn't make it worth reading. A book's ability to entertain doesn't make it a good book! If that were the case, Brittany Spears would be studied in music classes across the globe. She's entertaining as hell - especially to watch - but there's no substance and the only thing it does is leave pretty 12 year olds thinking they can "shake their money makers" and become famous (similar to your excellent observation that "suddenly, everyone's a religion scholar.") And it's not even sobbery on my part - one could make the accusation that I would only approve of artsy-fartsy films since I'm so hard on trite, pedantic crap, but that's not true. What makes something a "great book/song/film" isn't its ability to entertain, or even to say something important. No, what makes something great is its ability to make the two not only work together, but appear inseparable.
One of the great things about enduring works of art is not only their sophistication but their universality. One of the most popular modern books is J.D. Sallinger's The Catcher in the Rye. But it's popular because it's so well-written, and high-brow - not because it plays to the lowest common denominator and is an easy read. Books like the DaVinci code serve no purpose other than to dull the minds of housewives reading in bed - it's like Danielle Steel, only it does far more harm because you now have a bunch of pseudo-experts running around spreading inaccuracies. Tripe is much more harmless when we're conscious that it's tripe, but as it stands now, a former teacher of mine tried to relate this book as fact to me. So did a family member.
That's not good.
Books like this are slightly less malevolent than those written by people like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coultier, but they're all of the same variety: they make people experts on fictional interpretations.
While the DaVinci Code might be entertaining, that doesn't make it worth reading. A book's ability to entertain doesn't make it a good book! If that were the case, Brittany Spears would be studied in music classes across the globe. She's entertaining as hell - especially to watch - but there's no substance and the only thing it does is leave pretty 12 year olds thinking they can "shake their money makers" and become famous (similar to your excellent observation that "suddenly, everyone's a religion scholar.") And it's not even sobbery on my part - one could make the accusation that I would only approve of artsy-fartsy films since I'm so hard on trite, pedantic crap, but that's not true. What makes something a "great book/song/film" isn't its ability to entertain, or even to say something important. No, what makes something great is its ability to make the two not only work together, but appear inseparable.
One of the great things about enduring works of art is not only their sophistication but their universality. One of the most popular modern books is J.D. Sallinger's The Catcher in the Rye. But it's popular because it's so well-written, and high-brow - not because it plays to the lowest common denominator and is an easy read. Books like the DaVinci code serve no purpose other than to dull the minds of housewives reading in bed - it's like Danielle Steel, only it does far more harm because you now have a bunch of pseudo-experts running around spreading inaccuracies. Tripe is much more harmless when we're conscious that it's tripe, but as it stands now, a former teacher of mine tried to relate this book as fact to me. So did a family member.
That's not good.
Books like this are slightly less malevolent than those written by people like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coultier, but they're all of the same variety: they make people experts on fictional interpretations.