Posted on 04/30/2006 7:44:23 PM PDT by Coleus
I was recently browsing Dan Brown’s web site to gather information in preparation for the one thousand theater protests against The Da Vinci Code movie, planned by the American TFP. Since I hope to organize several protests, I felt obliged to get to know the real Dan Brown. I wanted to hear, from his own mouth, why he wrote The Da Vinci Code and whether he believes the information contained in it.
As I was clicking around, I came across a section containing TV and radio interviews that utterly shocked me. While the articles I had read, left it rather dubious whether or not Dan Brown considered his book historically correct, here he clearly claimed that the theories set forth in The Da Vinci Code are accurate. Whereas former articles suggested that he was Christian and somewhat ambivalent to the Catholic Church, here he demonstrated a clearly anti-Catholic bias.
As I listened to these interviews, I was filled with the desire to spread the information I was gathering to the hundreds of protest organizers across the country, so I transcribed the more useful quotes in this article.1 Thus, I hope it will help these organizers tackle some of the more difficult questions they may encounter.
History or Fiction?
One argument protest organizers are certain to come across states that The Da Vinci Code is fiction and therefore harmless. Common responses to this argument include showing that even a novel can be harmful or explaining that fiction does not give one the right to slander or blaspheme. However, such a line of reasoning presupposes that Dan Brown’s book was intended as fiction. This is a presupposition that he, himself, refutes.
In the book, Dan Brown leaves the historicity of The Da Vinci Code ambiguous. Although the book is termed a “novel” on the cover, the first page informs readers that: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”2
However, Dan Brown is not nearly so restrained in later interviews. When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”3
Similarly, in an interview with “Good Morning America” when asked: “if you were writing it as a nonfiction book, how would it have been different?” Dan Brown responded: “I don’t think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe and two years of research, I really became a believer.” In the same interview, Dan Brown strove to substantiate his theory about Our Lord and St. Mary Magdalene being married. He claimed: “The people who ask me how much is true need to realize that this theory about Mary Magdalene has been around for centuries. It’s not my theory. This has been presented, really over the last 2000 years, and it has persisted.”4
In another interview labeled “Chronicle,” Dan Brown claims that he wanted his book to be more than just entertaining, but educational as well: “I wanted to write a book that while it entertained at the same time, you close that last page and go ‘Wow, do you know how much I just learned? That’s fascinating.’ That is really what I set out to do.” In that interview he reiterates his belief in the book’s historic value: “When I started researching Da Vinci Code, I really was skeptical and I expected on some level to disprove all this history that is unearthed in the book and after three trips to Paris and a lot of interviews, I became a believer…”5
Finally, there is a Time magazine article republished on Dan Brown’s web site calling The Da Vinci Code a “historical” thriller, “purporting to expose a centuries-old Vatican conspiracy to conceal the marriage and offspring of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.”6
It is therefore clear that Dan Brown considers the religious heresies expounded in The Da Vinci Code to be the Gospel truth and not just fiction.
Catholic Bashing
I have also heard Dan Brown described as Christian. However, the extent to which he truly believes in Christ, or any absolute truth, is called into question by a lecture he gave to the New Hampshire Writers Project. He said:
We were born into a culture. We worship the gods of our fathers. I humbly submit that if all of us in this room had been born in Tibet, probably a lot of us would be Buddhists. I think the chances are pretty good and I also think that we would hold on to all that Buddhist philosophy with all the passion that some of us might hold on to our Christian ideals.
He reaffirmed this viewpoint later in the lecture, saying: “Again, we worship the gods of our fathers. It is truly that simple.”7
Some believe that Dan Brown is ambivalent to Catholicism. However, twice in this lecture he made statements, critical of the Church. The first one lashed out against the Catholic belief in the infallibility of Church doctrine: “The world is a big place and now more than ever, there is enormous danger in believing we are infallible. That our version of the truth is absolute.”
Ironically, Dan Brown is not so relativistic in his own opinions. His opinion of Catholic doctrine on women priests is rather absolute. Later in this same lecture, he stated in a pontifical tone:
Prior to 2000 years ago, we lived in world of gods and goddesses. Today we live in a world solely of gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power and our male-dominated philosophies of absolutism have a long history of violence and bloodshed, which continues to this day…the fact remains, in the major religions of the world, women remain second-class citizens. Why can’t there be women priests? Why is this even an issue?
The Real Dan Brown
After hearing the real Dan Brown in his own words, I saw clearly something that the media are not telling us. Dan Brown is not an innocent fiction writer with an overactive imagination. He is a man with an agenda. He is committed to harm the Church and promote his Gnostic and neo-pagan religious beliefs. He wants to persuade others to accept his false view of history.
That is why, as faithful Catholics, we must reject The Da Vinci Code. We must confront the growing tide of blasphemy and send a strong message that Catholics will not stand by while the Faith is dragged through the mud. We must make it clear that we will resist this attack on the Faith with the absolute certainty that the Church, our immortal Mother, will weather this storm unsullied.
Perhaps Dan Brown knows this as well. During of his lecture to the New Hampshire Writer’s Project, he finished by cynically quoting a British priest who said: “Christian theology has survived the writings of Galileo and the writings of Darwin, surely it will survive the writings of some novelist from New Hampshire.”
At least I can say that on this matter, Dan Brown and I see eye to eye.
___________________
1. The interviews themselves can be viewed at http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/breakingnews.html.
2. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, Doubleday, New York, 2003.
3. http://www.danbrown.com/media/multimedia/final/larger/today_show2.mov
4. http://www.danbrown.com/media/multimedia/final/larger/gma_cbds.mov
5. http://www.danbrown.com/media/multimedia/chronicle/large/chronicle_edited.mov
6. http://www.danbrown.com/media/morenews/time041505.htm
7. http://www.danbrown.com/media/audio/DVC_NH_talk.mov
Good, you do that. Dan Brown will thank you as his bank account gets even bigger thanks to the free publicity.
But you should save your valuable time for those who believe as you do. Again, thanks all the same.
I always kinda wondered about Golda Meier and Lyndon Johnson as well.
"Half of renaissance art's men, particularly the saintly holy men, have an effeminate look....don't ask me why, God knows. John too was traditionally always thought to be a very young man (perhaps even a teenager) and its hard to paint a teen male, no beard and fresh faced, without him looking girlish I suppose."
Exactly. And that is besides the point that DaVinci was not present at the real Last Supper.
It is also besides the point that DaVinci made sketches of his paintings prior to painting them and included labels of the figures.
This figure was sketched and labeled as John. There was no "Mary" included in the sketch.
Well, that's not Dan Brown's objection, is it?
His objection is that there's entirely too much devotion and deifying of Jesus.
Lighten up....
"His objection is that there's entirely too much devotion and deifying of Jesus."
Yes, it's all about girl power.
You should add to your "historic" commentary that "...it can also be observed that women of the time period spoke very few words, but made frequent use of an apparently effective mating call sounding something like "weeeeeoooooooooooo".
> The percentage of increase will be low.
Well, sure. If this was some tiny little indie film that nobody had heard of, and which would be seen by maybe a few thousand, then protests could double, triple the number of attendees. But this movie was already going to be seen by most moviegoers anyway. Protests will bump that number up, but there's only just so much higher you can go when you already have most of the market signing up anyway.
> you have completely bought into the conventional wisdom....
It's "conventional wisdom" for a reason: protests like this make movies more popular. Look at "Life of Brian" and "Last Temptation of Christ." Both movies were aided by the efforts of protestors who didn't really know what they were protesting (neither movie was in any way blasphemous.... "Temptations" biggest sin was in being friggen *boooorrrring*). Protests against "Passion of the Christ," while harder to quantify, certaintly did not hurt that movie, either.
You may well be an atheist but the sage advice you are offering is precisely the advice that the late John Cardinal O'Connor of New York gave to his flock when they were planning protests against Last Temptation of Christ (apparently another Mary Magdalene sex fantasy film by ex-"Catholic" seminarian Martin Scorcese, one of the usual suspects). Many Catholics were upset and outraged at the advice that protests would only swell ticket sales. Most Catholics paid heed to Cardinal O'Connor, bought no tickets and helped Last Temptation to bomb at the box office (the only language Hollywierd partially understands). Protests were relatively few and so were ticket sales.
Brown's book is a much bigger seller than Nicholas Kazantzakis's Last Temptation of Christ (which got Mr. K excommunicated by the Greek Orthodox Church IIRC) and the film will probably make money whatever we do but Donahue of the Catholic League will tell us everything we need to know about this film and soon enough it will occupy the ash heap of history.
Thanks for your kindness and consideration for those of us who believe what you do not believe and please accept our prayers for you and yours as our gratitude in an angry world which seldom witnesses such consideration as you have given.
‘Wow, do you know how much I just learned? That’s fascinating.’ That is really what I set out to do.”Dan, I'm reminded of some lyrics from One Night in Bangkok
"And thank God I'm only watching the game -- controlling it --"Dan, you're not in control. But I think I know who's using you.
Your pastor sounds like a very wise pastor.
"This is nonsense. "Code" was a very enjoyable work of fiction. Everyone with half a brain realizes it is a work of fiction. It's not a Manifesto, it's not attempting subvert Christianity, it's just a good book by a smart guy.
The Exorcist had people believing stupid things for years. Trust me, it's a blip, not a movement."
I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I found it to be utterly simplistic, poorly written, and the style laughably over-dramatic and the characters stiff and cliched. His previous book, the "pre-quel", was just as bad. He may be pedigreed, but I'd say he's a stale, hack fiction writer - and as a fan of Rosicrucian/Templar/conspiracy theory, he simply stole the ideas and work of others and put a different cover on it.
Watching him in person in interviews, his personality is just as dull and stale, so it's no surprise he has no talent at conversation, personality, or creating tension between personalities. His characters herk and jerk their way from one scene to another - Nancy Drew had more personality.
I was an art major in college, and I can tell you, Dan Brown slept his way through art history, if he even took any. He knows little about art, cannot describe it, and shows no passion, love of, or admiration of it. which is scandalous considering it's the focal point of his book. He uses some of the greatest works ever created as trite plot props, mere scenery. He sets his scenes in some of the most vibrant, rich, history drenched locations in the woirld, but he gives them a passing glance - I doubt he even visited half the locations he describes, some of the descriptiosn he does shove in are so ham-handed.
The guy is a hack.
Read Emberto Ecco's "Foucault's Pendulum", and see how a true master does it. If you enjoyed Brown's book, you'll be astounded by Ecco, for his depth of research and creativity, and his sheer talent at WRITING (even more amazing when you find Ecco's native tongue is Italian).
Because crap like this influences poorly catechized, weak-minded people, which can send people into a spiritual tailspin that can take decades to correct.
I spent months of coffee breaks trying to straighten out a young Catholic colleague who knew very little about her religion. But after months of work, she read the "DaVinci Code," and asked, "but what if it is true?" "What do you know about Opus Dei? Do they really do that?" Etc. It took a solid week of work to resolve the issue. But the seeds of doubt worked their way in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.