The da Vinci Con
I have just finished reading The da Vinci Code, finally succumbing to the relentless hype. It was a thoroughly mediocre book - slightly below average writing combined with slightly above average plot structure. I certainly wouldn't have called it a definitive literary work of the last decade, yet it became one of the best selling books of all time (it's still on the New York Times best-seller list at #3).
How did a slightly above average novel become a literary juggernaut? The sheer genius of Dan Brown (or, possibly dumb luck).
Brown apparently researched the book in quite a lot of depth. I hesitate to use the word thoroughly because the historical accuracy of the novel is sketchy. But I think the most important question isn't whether or not the historical facts are accurate, but whether or not Brown intended the historical facts to follow the versions accepted by many scholars. Brown may have thoroughly researched the topic of the Holy Grail and the early beginnings of the New Testament, but decided that in order to make an entertaining book that would sell well, he needed to use a slightly altered version of history. His version of history is not fictional, rather, it is simply not the version most religious "experts" or historians prefer. Many people have published books or articles about the nature of the Holy Grail or the history of Christianity. Many of these books offer different versions of history or different interpretations of past events.
The sheer genius (I will use the term and give Brown the benefit of the doubt) of the matter is that Brown only stipulated 3 things as absolute fact - the first page of his book lists these facts:
1) The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments know as Lew Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
2) The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous 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.
3) All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.
Notice how absolutely none of these are wrong. Furthermore, notice how none of these contradict historical findings or current theories of the history of the Catholic Church or the New Testament. These facts are absolutely true.
The genius? He put these facts (again, the only facts Brown endorses as true) at the beginning of the book, suggesting that the rest of the book contained nothing but absolute fact used to create a fictional story.
The result? Intense interest from the public because of the ensuing controversy these "facts" created.
The controversy created a must-read aura about the book. The Vatican condemned the book, which only made more people read it (including Catholics). It became a cultural phenomenon that begged to be analyzed and re-analyzed by experts in history, art, and religion. This analysis, and the resulting debate about the accuracy of the book, created a whole cottage industry surrounding The da Vinci Code. For example, there are at least a dozen books in print which de-construct the book piece by piece, debunking the facts as they were laid out in the book. This cottage industry began to get more people (such as myself) interested in the book.
In other words, by claiming a basis in history, and more specifically claiming a basis in the dark history of one of the world's largest and most powerful organizations, Dan Brown created self-reinforcing publicity for his book. In other words, the book itself became a marketing tool - the interest and controversy it generated pushed it into the international spotlight.
All because of Brown's claim that the book was based in historical fact. This is true, based on one of the many interpretations of history which, as has been stated, is the art of the interpretation of the interpretations of events. Brown says that his book is simply an alternate version of history, something he is allowed to use in a work of fiction.
Now, if you have not read the book and this discussion make you want to pick it up, my point has been proven.
Genius, I tell you.
P.S. I am well aware that Brown's true reasons for writing this book were much more than fame and fortune. Brown is a Catholic, and it was a way for him to address the "imbalance" he sees in modern religion - the suppression of the role of women. This was his contribution to religion, specifically Christianity, in that it was his goal to initiate some debate about the nature of faith and the patriarchal nature of the major religions. He has said that apathy is one of religion's worst enemies, and he is absolutely correct. This was his way to try and combat that enemy. He has obviously done a remarkable job.
How did a slightly above average novel become a literary juggernaut? The sheer genius of Dan Brown (or, possibly dumb luck).
Brown apparently researched the book in quite a lot of depth. I hesitate to use the word thoroughly because the historical accuracy of the novel is sketchy. But I think the most important question isn't whether or not the historical facts are accurate, but whether or not Brown intended the historical facts to follow the versions accepted by many scholars. Brown may have thoroughly researched the topic of the Holy Grail and the early beginnings of the New Testament, but decided that in order to make an entertaining book that would sell well, he needed to use a slightly altered version of history. His version of history is not fictional, rather, it is simply not the version most religious "experts" or historians prefer. Many people have published books or articles about the nature of the Holy Grail or the history of Christianity. Many of these books offer different versions of history or different interpretations of past events.
The sheer genius (I will use the term and give Brown the benefit of the doubt) of the matter is that Brown only stipulated 3 things as absolute fact - the first page of his book lists these facts:
1) The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments know as Lew Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
2) The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous 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.
3) All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.
Notice how absolutely none of these are wrong. Furthermore, notice how none of these contradict historical findings or current theories of the history of the Catholic Church or the New Testament. These facts are absolutely true.
The genius? He put these facts (again, the only facts Brown endorses as true) at the beginning of the book, suggesting that the rest of the book contained nothing but absolute fact used to create a fictional story.
The result? Intense interest from the public because of the ensuing controversy these "facts" created.
The controversy created a must-read aura about the book. The Vatican condemned the book, which only made more people read it (including Catholics). It became a cultural phenomenon that begged to be analyzed and re-analyzed by experts in history, art, and religion. This analysis, and the resulting debate about the accuracy of the book, created a whole cottage industry surrounding The da Vinci Code. For example, there are at least a dozen books in print which de-construct the book piece by piece, debunking the facts as they were laid out in the book. This cottage industry began to get more people (such as myself) interested in the book.
In other words, by claiming a basis in history, and more specifically claiming a basis in the dark history of one of the world's largest and most powerful organizations, Dan Brown created self-reinforcing publicity for his book. In other words, the book itself became a marketing tool - the interest and controversy it generated pushed it into the international spotlight.
All because of Brown's claim that the book was based in historical fact. This is true, based on one of the many interpretations of history which, as has been stated, is the art of the interpretation of the interpretations of events. Brown says that his book is simply an alternate version of history, something he is allowed to use in a work of fiction.
Now, if you have not read the book and this discussion make you want to pick it up, my point has been proven.
Genius, I tell you.
P.S. I am well aware that Brown's true reasons for writing this book were much more than fame and fortune. Brown is a Catholic, and it was a way for him to address the "imbalance" he sees in modern religion - the suppression of the role of women. This was his contribution to religion, specifically Christianity, in that it was his goal to initiate some debate about the nature of faith and the patriarchal nature of the major religions. He has said that apathy is one of religion's worst enemies, and he is absolutely correct. This was his way to try and combat that enemy. He has obviously done a remarkable job.