Thursday, December 30, 2004
The Da Vinci Code: The Secret Review
Well, the fine folks at Amazon.com just aren't going to publish my review of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. They told me
Dan Brown's prose in The Da Vinci Code is pretty much on the level of what you would expect from Robert Ludlum. This would be just fine. I have really enjoyed Ludlum over the years. But there are critics out there who want us to think this guy is the next Hemingway or Fitzgerald. And he just ain't. He is really isn't even the next Robert Ludlum.
The research into the background of The Da Vinci Code is pretty much on the level of those Bermuda Triangle books that publishers were cranking out back in the seventies. This would be OK too. Those books gave me all the material I needed to write my best grade-school research paper ever. But Dan has to ruin it all by putting in that statement on the front page, and I quote: "All descriptions of art, architecture, religions, secret rituals, secret handshakes, and organizations of middle aged guys who wear funny hats and ride scooters in small town parades are all accurate." OK, not an exact quote, but you get the picture. If he hadn't gone and said that, he could get away with peddling his fantasies as entertainment. But he did say it. And then he said it again in front of the "Today Show" cameras not too long ago. So the "just a story" defense won't cut it.
He clearly knows nothing about Constantine. He apparently has never read any of the "secret gospels" that he seems to have discovered all by his lonesome. He knows nothing about Mary Magdalene, or, rather, he knows far too much, since none oof the sources he "quotes" know anything about her either.
Or maybe he does know about all these things, but he's just a big liar. This would explain a few things. Like how he can tell the world that Opus Dei is out to get anyone who reveals the truths that he has revealed, and then, instead of hiding out from O.D. like poor Rushdie from the Ayatollahs, he lives the good life in broad daylight.
Now let's not go to the "just a story" gambit. Dan has already ruled that out himself, remember?
Plenty of folks have written factual refutations of Dan Brown's "accurate descriptions." If you want one from a source with impeccable academic credentials, check out Prof. Bart Ehrman's Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code. If you want to know what a real writer and a real scholar can do with much of Brown's background material, check out Umberto Eco's excellent Foucault's Pendulum.
|
Your review ... was removed because your comments in large part focused on your personal opinions of the subject matter, rather than reviewing the title itself.My inner culture warrior is begging me to write about how this is one more instance of the neo-pagan, New Age, reality-TV-watching, French-loving assault on traditional values and Christianity. But, I have to disappoint him because there are plenty of reviews already on Amazon's Da Vinci Code site that actually say pretty much all the same stuff I wanted to say, though they lack my scintillating style. So, this affront to my creativity is purely that and nothing else. And it's really not much of an affront either. My brief exchange with these guys over all this has been completely pleasant. They just have a little bit of inconsistency in the application of their editorial policies, in my opinion. So my inner culture warrior must wait to fight another day. My inner child, on the other hand, assures me that he is not crying, he just has the sniffles. Because he's allergic. To something. Anyway, I still want to see this thing on the internet, so here it is (sniff sniff):
Dan Brown's prose in The Da Vinci Code is pretty much on the level of what you would expect from Robert Ludlum. This would be just fine. I have really enjoyed Ludlum over the years. But there are critics out there who want us to think this guy is the next Hemingway or Fitzgerald. And he just ain't. He is really isn't even the next Robert Ludlum.
The research into the background of The Da Vinci Code is pretty much on the level of those Bermuda Triangle books that publishers were cranking out back in the seventies. This would be OK too. Those books gave me all the material I needed to write my best grade-school research paper ever. But Dan has to ruin it all by putting in that statement on the front page, and I quote: "All descriptions of art, architecture, religions, secret rituals, secret handshakes, and organizations of middle aged guys who wear funny hats and ride scooters in small town parades are all accurate." OK, not an exact quote, but you get the picture. If he hadn't gone and said that, he could get away with peddling his fantasies as entertainment. But he did say it. And then he said it again in front of the "Today Show" cameras not too long ago. So the "just a story" defense won't cut it.
He clearly knows nothing about Constantine. He apparently has never read any of the "secret gospels" that he seems to have discovered all by his lonesome. He knows nothing about Mary Magdalene, or, rather, he knows far too much, since none oof the sources he "quotes" know anything about her either.
Or maybe he does know about all these things, but he's just a big liar. This would explain a few things. Like how he can tell the world that Opus Dei is out to get anyone who reveals the truths that he has revealed, and then, instead of hiding out from O.D. like poor Rushdie from the Ayatollahs, he lives the good life in broad daylight.
Now let's not go to the "just a story" gambit. Dan has already ruled that out himself, remember?
Plenty of folks have written factual refutations of Dan Brown's "accurate descriptions." If you want one from a source with impeccable academic credentials, check out Prof. Bart Ehrman's Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code. If you want to know what a real writer and a real scholar can do with much of Brown's background material, check out Umberto Eco's excellent Foucault's Pendulum.
