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
P.S. I think that's true; my desire to work in the job I want has driven me to write long, LONG after I should have given up, and I've had some success in selling my short fiction. Has nothing to do with any belief in a god; it has a lot to do in my desire to write and my belief in my talent.
Well, I'll take that as a compliment. :)
I prefer to just call them Commies. But then, I live in Boston, and they grow like mushrooms up here.
Liberals are anything but what their name implies. They are Totalitarians who want an all-powerful state, rather than a free nation in which people decide how to live their own lives. The reason they cringe when they hear that is in part because that means people have to accept the tough part of living one's own life--the hard times.
No one likes going through hard times, but those are the things we must endure. The Commies among us claim to hate money, yet their solution to everything is to take money from me and give it to someone else.
I fail to see what's liberal about any of that.
There are many many people who thought Bill Clinton was a great President, because - rather than think for themselves - they bought the MSM hype.
Your comments demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension skills. In post #154 I stated that I thought the books were poorly written ("amateur at best" were the exact words I used). Entertained? Not the least little bit.
You can't say you love Jesus as the Son, and God the Son and then enjoy Him being maligned
Well, that's the big difference between you and me. I didn't feel He was being maligned. The Catholic church, yes, but Jesus, no.
Here's a novel idea (yes, the pun was intended). Since Dan Brown's books are so offensive to you, don't read anymore of them. As far as the ones you have already read that are offending you so much, hey, why not act like a Christian, and FORGIVE him his trespass, as you would have your trespasses forgiven.
Seriously, if you wanna know my personal beliefs, I really don't think Jesus is at all concerned with debates about his marital status. If anything, He's probably just as perplexed as I am about everybody's sudden concern over the possability that He had a wife.
Seeing as how my resources are limited, I'm forced to give precedence to any causes before I go jumping on the bandwagon. Even if I was retired and didn't have to work for a living, I don't think I would have time to jump into the middle of the fray with every cause of the moment, tempest in a teapot that comes along. Trying to convince people that abortion is wrong seems like a more pressing issue for me to spend my time on. Don't you have anything better to do with your life? It certainly doesn't appear so.
Can't get all worked about a fictional book/movie, though.
FRegards,
Chill out Mr. Say what you want, but you don't know me and I don't know you except for what you write here so don't go making ASSumptions about what I do with my day. Sorry to offend you but I won't ever back down from defending the holy name of Jesus. You can disagree with me all day long over what the book and movie is or isn't, but I am giving my viewpoint that anyone who calls himself a Christian wouldn't give a dime to read about his Lord being, well, uh, maligned. BTW, you insult the BODY OF CHRIST---THE CHURCH, you insult the head JESUS CHRIST.
You didn't write the book and you are not who I'm raging against, so chill out when I say I'm mystified by Christians who cavalierly wave their hand and say, "Oh its just bad fiction". Do I want to burn someone for heresy? No. I just want everyone to be a child of salvation, not a child of damnation
You started it. Don't forget, you even admitted that you were saying something that you felt would offend me, but you didn't care. Turn about is fair play.
BTW, you insult the BODY OF CHRIST---THE CHURCH, you insult the head JESUS CHRIST.
That would be true if I was Catholic, but I'm not. Also, I didn't insult the Catholic church. Dan Brown may have, but I didn't. I just said I didn't think it was something to get so worked up about.
It says in the Bible that the only path to Heaven is through Jesus. I just don't see how a true Christian church can ignore that and pray to a bunch of saints.
Now, we are on even ground. You said something with the express intent of offending me, and I have now returned the favor.
Seriously though, even if the Catholic church isn't heading down the correct path to salvation, it's at least heading in the right general direction. I feel the same way about the Mormons. They may be off the mark a little bit (according to my own beliefs), but at least they believe in Jesus, and aren't praying to a head of lettuce. Even if your beliefs are a little different than mine, we're both still on the same team. But I really do think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Remember it's only to pimp a book.
Did I say that the BODY OF CHRIST was the Catholic Church? You infered it. And yes, it is. But it isn't all of it. If you are follower of Christ then you are part of it, and if you want to be on my team like you say you are, then for-crying-out-loud, be offended! Not by me but by people mocking Christ, calling into question every precious thing we know to be true THAT WE AGREE ON, mixing truth with lies and calling it good. He has been blasphemed, denied, scorned, mocked, lauged at, denigrated, WOW, this sounds like crucifixion all over again
First off, if you can imagine Christianity to be a big swimming pool, then I'm still down in the shallow end, with floaties on my arms while I learn how to doggie paddle.
Second, I asked a serious question of you, ie why this book was so offensive to you. You responded by deliberately attempting to offend me. (And you call yourself a Christian). Well, if you wanna win over any converts to your side of the debate/argument/what ever you wanna call it, deliberately attempting to offend someone isn't the way to do it. Why not try logic and reason, backed up with facts? At this point, all I know for certain is that A) I read the book and didn't think it was any good, and B) I have absolutely no desire to attend the same church you do. I'm not a great christian, or even a very good one. I'm a struggling christian at best. Being around people such as yourself who are so quick to hurl offensive statements at the slightest perceived provocation would most definitely turn me around and have me heading for the door. I'm still shopping around, trying to find a good church to affiliate with, and obviously after our discussion here, I can cross the catholic church off the list of possabilities.
Third, If I don't believe the the Catholic church is the embodiement of Christ, then why should I feel a need to get worked up over somone making disparaging remarks about the Catholic church? Not trying to get you riled up, just asking a serious question here, because I really don't believe that the Catholic church is the only/one true/best pathway to Heaven.
I see the novel as harmless and Brown being an inferior novelist (though his success is undeniable). Theologically, the RC church (which I'm on the verge of leaving under good terms) has survived much more serious threats than anything posed by Brown.
Having said all that, it's noteworthy that much of the premise (and title) of the book is based on, or at least supported by, Da Vinci's painting.
As is common knowledge, LDV was a genius and pioneer in many areas to include the visual arts. We are all familiar with his successes, but hear little of his failures, one of which includes the very painting in question.
Fresco painting (of which there are two general variants, secco and buon) consists of an application of pigment in a water based binder into and/or onto the plaster surface of the wall, ceiling or other architectural structure. It provides great permanence but the artist is limited with some of the optical properties of the image by the inability to apply glazes, varnishes, scumbles and other translucent effects.
Traditional oil painting has all the above visual advantages, but due to the properties of (linseed) oil based paints is best applied to gessoed panels or stretched canvasses.
Davinci tried to, in 'The Last Supper,' combine the best of both worlds...the media of the original was purely experimental and, with regards to permanence, quite a failure. It is a restorer's nightmare, and has been, 'touched up,' by countless hands over the centuries...
...in other words, there's no way of knowing how masculine or feminine the character in question originally appeared, or how close the image that we know today is to what had been originally rendered by the original artist.... ....Note that Da Vinci never used the same technique again, nor were the techniques Da Vinci used for this painting ever adopted by any others..... Due to the continuous maintenance, restoration and buttressing over the course of years, the painting is probably as close in appearance today to it's original appearance as the New Orleans levee system of today is to that originally conceived in the nineteenth century.
I truly am sorry you are offended, and I have completely failed to convey who I am and what I am in how I feel about Christ. I don't mean to sound righteous as I mentioned before, but that's the way you take me. I am no further along than you I am sure. I am sure I know the way to heaven and for me the path is through the Catholic church but if I have turned you off by my rhetoric and now you feel like you are further alienated from it, I have failed. Most importantly, I ask your forgiveness for causing offense. This whole deal has been boiling up for a while, and you were handy, and you asked me a question, giving me the opening to get up on my soapbox, which accomplished nothing
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.