If Uncle Screwtape had thumbs, he’d be giving The DaVinci Code two thumbs up.
"Now, Wormwood, before you object to my calling this book ‘non-fiction’ — since it is technically classified as ‘fiction’ — let me say that it is essentially non-fiction, at least as far as our purposes are concerned. That’s because it’s principle delight for our side is that in the tacky plastic shell of some below-average ‘fiction’ the book parades as ‘fact’ a veritable phalanx of practical propaganda and disinformation that would make our dear Herr Goebbels (Circle Eight, third spiderhole on the right) jade green with envy! Souls by the boatload are blithely believing almost all of the deliciously corrosive non-facts that are congealed everywhere in it, like flies in bad aspic, and it is that precisely which most recommends this glorious effort as worthy of our dedicated and especial study.
"But where to begin in describing to you its myriad delights? First, a brief synopsis of the plot: a museum curator is murdered by a fanatical albino Christian bigot (nice opening, no?); the curator’s granddaughter and an American ‘symbologist’ (don’t ask me, I haven’t the time) try to find the real killer and are launched on a wildly implausible and fantastically cryptical search for the proverbial Holy Grail, all the while chased by angry gendarmes and the aforementioned unhinged albino. In the process they (and the lucky reader) discover that: the Church is murderous and evil; the Bible is a hoax; Jesus is not divine, but merely a married mortal and an earnest proto-feminist (!); there is no such thing as Truth; and oh, yes… is the truest kind of prayer. Can you stand it? A virtuoso performance, no? It’s as if the author’s somehow squeezed all of hell into a walnut shell. And oh, yes, one more historical ‘fact’: Leonardo DaVinci’s homosexuality was ‘flamboyant’! Do tell."
GET THE STORY. (Warning: Put down the coffee mug and clear the throat first. JimmyAkin.org takes no responsibility for the state of your keyboard, monitor, or respiratory system if you read this while drinking or eating.)
(Nod to Mark Shea for the link.)
I’ve read a number of Screwtapian musings by writers attempting to channel C. S. Lewis, but this is the first one I’ve read of which I think even Lewis himself would approve. Eric Metaxas nails Screwtape. Read the whole thing.
Someone needds to write an essay titled “Dan Brown’s Crimes Against Literature.” (this is a takeoff of Mark Twain’s “James Fenimore Cooper’s Crimes Against Literature”)
Somebody has! 🙂
Ah, i’d forgotten that one! Very good.
BTW, the correct title is “Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offences” and is found here:
http://www.online-literature.com/twain/1317/
Thanks for the link, SDG 🙂
BTW I haven’t read the Da Vinci Code, either, so that makes at least five of us.
Annalucia,
Add me. I’ve never read it. Nor will I see the movie. I read “Demons and Angels” right after a trip to Rome. It was a good story. Nothing more.
Fr. Philip
Based on the sub-hack literary incompetence of The Da Vinci Code, I’m surprised Angels & Demons rates even this level of approbation.
Am I the only one who finds that particular literary critique wrong-headed? Sure, Brown might not be a great writer, but if those standards were applied to every book, I doubt very many would stand the test.
For example: His complaints about a “thundering gate”. If a man is shouting, does that not make him a shouting man? Or is it the air in his lungs that’s really doing the shouting?
Also, with his complaint about Brown’s repition of the word curator: It’s just a tag to refer to the character. I write fiction myself, and if I’m writing about a starship captain, I might refer to him as “John Marcus Carc”, “the captain”, or “he”. If I’d writing about his first mate, it might be “Krock”, “the Rulkin”, “the first mate”, or “he”. I don’t see the problem with using one or two tags besides the name, assuming they aren’t awkward and the character’s identity isn’t confused….
As a writer, I’m a pretty demanding reader, but I doubt I’d enjoy any books if I nitpicked them like that.
Sean, I just finished reading the whole book and one of the most annoying things about Brown’s writing style is its useless repetition. I mean, if a truck happens to have bullet-proof tires, that is pretty special and tends to stick in the mind of the reader. But Brown mentions this more than once in the span of a few pages. I personally felt like I was being talked down to throughout the whole novel.
He also has an annoyingly limited vocabulary. Any clean area is “immaculate” and his characters are constantly “amazed” or “in amazement”. When asked about being sued by the writers of Holy Blood, the press quotes him saying he is “amazed.” (He amazes easily, apparently).
You think with a million bucks he would be able to afford a thesaurus or something.
I also take issue with his use of the word “immaculate” because, for all his carrying on about Church’s misogynistic “suppression” of the Sacred Feminine, he never once mentions the Mother of God who we also call the “Immaculate Conception.” His penchant for the word almost comes across as a deliberate taunt, though I am sure it is just the product of a limited mind.
Incidentally, the fact the truck tires are bullet-proof never come into play in the novel, so it amazes me why he seemed so bent on bringing that idea across.
In true propaganda form, though, he repeats some his most baseless facts the most. Perhaps this is just because he actually does want to talk down to the reader. Perhaps he is following the Hitlerian principle of a lie (or completely un-researched conjecture) told often enough gains the force of truth. Particularly distressing was his take on the Church and science and Newton’s supposed membership in the Priory of Sion.
But that is more of a Catholic thing and not a secular criticism.
In completely secular terms, the story is rife with inane contradictions. Why would a devout leader of a conservative and orthodox Catholic group try to blackmail the Church with the faith-destroying secret of the grail? How is it a group as secretive and cryptic as the Priory of Sion uses its own initials for its “secret” symbol? If everyone already knows the grail is Sophie and her bloodline and the Church is not interested in killing anyone anymore and the secret is not really secret, and nobody really gives a flip, why does the Priory continue to exist to protect that secret? If the secret treasure is right out in the open for everyone to see in the Louvre, then why did I have to read 450 pages of novel only to discover it always was on display? Why didn’t the curator just point to the darn pyramid in the Louvre when he died instead of sending Langdon and Sophie on a whirlwind of adventure all over France and England? If the Priory had no intention of revealing the secret, why didn’t their members just say so to poor Silas instead of taunting him with words like “You can’t stop us!” or “I’ll never rule the universe with you!”? For that matter, what exactly was Teabing trying to reveal that was not already revealed?
I mean, if he ever read a Jack Chick tract, he would know the Eucharist is just pagan god-eating sun worship. Woop-dee-doo!
Not only was the novel blasphemous, but it was slow, dull, poorly written, contrived, condescending and utterly pointless. I was actually disappointed by the ending despite the unending screed.
I haven’t read the book–I can’t tell how well written it is. Word repitition and harping on things like “bullet-proof” are certainly bad writing, and I don’t doubt anything you say about it. But I still don’t buy that using tags like “curator” and “masterpiece” = bad writing. Or that a gate can’t do a little thundering. On the other hand, that article does note some things I would agree with–the “chillingly close” voice fifteen feet away, for example.
I’m not trying to defend Brown…just saying I don’t accept the terms on which that particular article attacks him.
I was browsing in a bookstore with two of my sons when my 11-year old asked me, “Dad, what is the Da Vinci Code?” I told him it was a made up conspiracy story. I then mentioned the movie National Treasure and asked him if he thought that was true. He said no, not really. I said the Da Vinci Code is similar.
speaking of the late Herr Goebels, misinformation, disinformation and propaganda, he must be giggling like a girl scout and dancing pirouettes when it comes to the Bush White House.