Monday, April 05, 2004
The Da Vinci Code
At some point I’ll be adding to the sidebar a list of the latest books I am reading/have read, following the practice of many other web loggers. In the mean time, I have just finished Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. Brown is a master plotter who knows how to combine conspiracy theories, short chapters, attractive locations, and quick action to keep you hooked. His writing style is pretty bad, but perhaps appropriate to his quick-read thriller medium. I’d reserve my criticism for his research, or at least his use thereof. Here he seems to rely more on the ignorance of his reader than his reader’s suspension of disbelief.
Brown likes to make his plots revolve around word games, and one example should suffice to illustrate my point. In The Da Vinci Code, the main characters are sent on a sort of treasure hunt for the Holy Grail, the clues for which are embedded in various works by Leonardo da Vinci, such as the Mona Lisa. One clue Brown constructs is an anagram of the Mona Lisa--AMON L’ISA—supposedly representing “the male god Amon” and “the female god, Isis, whose ancient pictogram was once called L’ISA.” Leaving aside da Vinci’s potential knowledge of Egyptian gods, the interpretation of “L’ISA” looks a bit suspicious to me. Regardless, the anagram of Mona as Amon is preposterous. Although Brown acknowledges that the French call the Mona Lisa La Joconde, he does not similarly tell us that the Italians call it La Gioconda. Further the name “Mona Lisa” was coined by Giorgio Vasari thirty-one years after da Vinci’s death. Furthermore, in Italian, it is “Monna Lisa”, from “Madonna Lisa Giocondo”, the wife of a wealthy Florentine, whom Vasari thought was the subject of the painting. Dan Brown weaves his conspiracy theory by taking such liberties with language and history.
His other technique reveals how he exploits ignorance. As with his earlier novel, Angels and Demons, Brown constructs his plot around the activities of secret societies who oppose the cultural hegemony of the Catholic Church. At the beginning of each novel he inserts a statement of factuality about the accuracy of his descriptions as well as of the existence of the secret society (the Priory of Sion in the case of The Da Vinci Code). Needless to say, he fails to acknowledge that the organisation is not represented factually in his novel; but the unwary reader may think it is. The history of the Priory of Sion hoax is well documented. I could provide other examples of Brown’s historical inaccuracies, but I think I have made my point sufficiently. At some later point, I may address his treatment of the history of the Holy Grail since, as a medievalist, I should have some input on that issue.
For now, I am content to ask a few questions about literary technique? Is historical inaccuracy for the sake of entertainment justified? If so, to what extent? More interestingly perhaps, what does Brown’s technique say about the nature of literary belief? I am tempted to see the technique as sleight of hand, or what Tolkien terms “magic”: the manipulation of language in order to influence someone’s belief about their own reality. Clearly, the spell (in both the older and newer senses of the word) is broken by a knowledge of language, history, and art, but, if the reader has no such knowledge, can a cheap thriller be induced to believe its alternate reality is their own?
As a side note, I am intrigued by the fact that The Da Vinci Code pits the Priory of Sion against Opus Dei, a conservative wing of the Catholic Church which (according to Brown) engages in “corporal mortification”. For further information, here’s a recent article on Opus Dei from the Catholic Weekly America magazine. The article includes some interesting discussion of Opus Dei’s refusal to make its constitutions available in any language but Latin, for which see my discussion of Harrius Potter. Along with Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ, the presence of Opus Dei in The Da Vinci Code may represent the growing importance of conservative Catholicism in America. This development is also documented in an article entitled “The New Catholic Orthodoxy” in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education. The article is subscription only (so no direct link), but here are some snippets:
The significance of Catholicism in American society may well be changing in the coming years.
Brown likes to make his plots revolve around word games, and one example should suffice to illustrate my point. In The Da Vinci Code, the main characters are sent on a sort of treasure hunt for the Holy Grail, the clues for which are embedded in various works by Leonardo da Vinci, such as the Mona Lisa. One clue Brown constructs is an anagram of the Mona Lisa--AMON L’ISA—supposedly representing “the male god Amon” and “the female god, Isis, whose ancient pictogram was once called L’ISA.” Leaving aside da Vinci’s potential knowledge of Egyptian gods, the interpretation of “L’ISA” looks a bit suspicious to me. Regardless, the anagram of Mona as Amon is preposterous. Although Brown acknowledges that the French call the Mona Lisa La Joconde, he does not similarly tell us that the Italians call it La Gioconda. Further the name “Mona Lisa” was coined by Giorgio Vasari thirty-one years after da Vinci’s death. Furthermore, in Italian, it is “Monna Lisa”, from “Madonna Lisa Giocondo”, the wife of a wealthy Florentine, whom Vasari thought was the subject of the painting. Dan Brown weaves his conspiracy theory by taking such liberties with language and history.
His other technique reveals how he exploits ignorance. As with his earlier novel, Angels and Demons, Brown constructs his plot around the activities of secret societies who oppose the cultural hegemony of the Catholic Church. At the beginning of each novel he inserts a statement of factuality about the accuracy of his descriptions as well as of the existence of the secret society (the Priory of Sion in the case of The Da Vinci Code). Needless to say, he fails to acknowledge that the organisation is not represented factually in his novel; but the unwary reader may think it is. The history of the Priory of Sion hoax is well documented. I could provide other examples of Brown’s historical inaccuracies, but I think I have made my point sufficiently. At some later point, I may address his treatment of the history of the Holy Grail since, as a medievalist, I should have some input on that issue.
For now, I am content to ask a few questions about literary technique? Is historical inaccuracy for the sake of entertainment justified? If so, to what extent? More interestingly perhaps, what does Brown’s technique say about the nature of literary belief? I am tempted to see the technique as sleight of hand, or what Tolkien terms “magic”: the manipulation of language in order to influence someone’s belief about their own reality. Clearly, the spell (in both the older and newer senses of the word) is broken by a knowledge of language, history, and art, but, if the reader has no such knowledge, can a cheap thriller be induced to believe its alternate reality is their own?
As a side note, I am intrigued by the fact that The Da Vinci Code pits the Priory of Sion against Opus Dei, a conservative wing of the Catholic Church which (according to Brown) engages in “corporal mortification”. For further information, here’s a recent article on Opus Dei from the Catholic Weekly America magazine. The article includes some interesting discussion of Opus Dei’s refusal to make its constitutions available in any language but Latin, for which see my discussion of Harrius Potter. Along with Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ, the presence of Opus Dei in The Da Vinci Code may represent the growing importance of conservative Catholicism in America. This development is also documented in an article entitled “The New Catholic Orthodoxy” in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education. The article is subscription only (so no direct link), but here are some snippets:
“After a quarter century in which no new Catholic colleges were established, most of those being founded now are led by traditionalists who feel the majority of America's 230 Catholic colleges have strayed from the truth of the Catholic faith….
Dissatisfied with existing Catholic higher education, the new colleges aspire to train graduates who will raise a strong and orthodox Catholic intellectual voice in the debates over stem-cell research, gay marriage, and other social issues. They strive to maintain a conservative campus life, where students and faculty members attend Mass frequently, premarital sex is strictly forbidden, and gay support groups have no place.”
The significance of Catholicism in American society may well be changing in the coming years.
Comments:
Post a Comment
 |
|