The Da Vinci Code, the book

With the movie coming out in just eight days, this is a good time to write my review of the book, which I finished reading last weekend.

The Da Vinci Code is a mediocre thriller/murder mystery about the murder of the curator of the Louvre, a college professor from Harvard named Robert Langdon, and a police cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, who is also the granddaughter of the murder victim.

I say it’s mediocre because the actions of the characters seem very unrealistic and the characters are also poorly developed, especially Robert Langdon who we learn absolutely nothing about despite the fact that he’s the main character. And regarding the mystery aspect of the book, the author Dan Brown purposely deceives you so that you have no hope of figuring things out for yourself.

I have to admit that I haven’t really read many thriller/murder mysteries. In fact, this might be my first. So maybe my above objections are par for the course and this book is actually a well written example of the genre. In any event, it sure isn’t literature.

The reason for the book’s popularity has nothing to do with the plot, but rather it has everything to do with what the characters have to say about Christianity and the Catholic Church. What we learn is that there exists historical evidence that Jesus wasn’t really the Son of God born from a virgin, but rather a regular person who was married to Mary Magdalene who bore Jesus a child. The New Testament wasn’t created until several hundred years after Jesus’ death. The Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, sponsored and strongly influenced by Roman emperor Constantine, is when the religion of Christianity as we know it today (in its Catholic incarnation) was actually created. At that time, the four Gospels included in the New Testament were edited to ensure that they agree with the story of Jesus’ divinity.

That Jesus wasn’t really God should come as no shock to the majority of the world’s inhabitants who already don’t believe in the religion, but it’s shocking indeed to people who believe. This is why Christian groups are trying to boycott the movie. It’s really too bad that the West had to cave into Muslims on the Danish cartoon controversy, because now Christians think that they too should have free speech antithetical to their religion banned.

There is nothing new in The Da Vinci Code, it’s a rehash of the nonfiction book Holy Blood, Holy Grail (which I haven’t read). However, The Da Vinci Code has sold a lot more copies, which is evidence that people would rather have their history served to them in the form of an easy to read novel rather than a long-winded tome.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the existence of a centuries old secret society known as the Priory of Sion, which was supposedly documented in detail in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, is believed by many to be a hoax. A secret society makes for a good addition to a thriller/murder mystery, which probably explains why Dan Brown made it an important element of The Da Vinci Code storyline. Nevertheless, if Dan Brown got his facts wrong about the Priory of Sion, this in no way invalidates that idea that Jesus was just a regular person and not a miracle performing Son of God, but some Christians don’t seem to understand that.

The idea of teaching through a novel is not new. The best example is the novel The Goal, by Eliyahu M. Goldratt, in which the manager of a factory saves both his factory and his marriage with the knowledge of just-in-time supply chain management he learns from a mysterious Israeli college professor. The Da Vinci Code has both a more interesting story and a more interesting (to Christians) set of facts to teach, which explains why it’s a huge bestseller while The Goal is only popular at business schools.

I predict that the movie, to be released May 19th, will be a huge box office success.

FOLLOWUP POSTS

The Da Vinci Code, the movie: watered down paganism

Comments

[Mrs. D'Arcy]

You are very right when you state that the Da Vinci Code is a "mediocre thriller/murder mystery". And you are correct in stating that "it sure isn't literature".

Where I politely beg to differ with you is in the "set of facts to teach". The Da Vinci Code is fiction, pure and simple. It has nothing to teach and should only be looked upon as a prime example of how not to write a decent novel.

There is more proof that Jesus was the son of God, than there is that Plato wrote the Republic. Yet, we take that as gospel.

I will also agree with you, that yes, The Da Vinci Code will be a box office success. I hope to be well entertained.

[Tiberius]

I would very much like to see the evidence, mentioned by the previous commentor, that Jesus was the son of an imaginary creature. A book that is supposedly the revealed word of that imaginary creature, does not apply.

I for one have not read the book, and will try hard to avoid the movie. Although I am experiencing schadenfreude over the Christians complaining about a fictional story based on their fictional story.

[Chris Knight]

Well, I *have* read Holy Blood, Holy Grail... and I've never seen a bigger rip-off of another book than I have with The Da Vinci Code. Just spent the past 2 days reading it and writing a review.

[nobody]

The first half the book is rather good. It almost read like a screen play. You can see the camera pan and scan from room to room.

The second half of the book is weak, to put it mildly. This book is the successor to Angels and Demons, but both books shares many of the same details. What is different between the books is that A&D is weak at the beginning but rather exciting towards the end.

It would not surprising is Dan Brown rethread the parts that worked from the two books and combined into another best seller.

[probligo]

Haven't read the book, and not one review I have read would persuade me to either.

No desire to see the film either.

I enjoyed "Sione's Wedding" too much. Oh, and that had religion in it as well - in the form of a Samoan pastor and a church wedding.

[John S.]

The real truth is that excluding the gospels, there is zero historical evidence that Jesus (or his 12 apostles) even existed.

[Steve Sailer]

Yes, "The Goal" might be the only business book I've ever finished during my long corporate career.

[keypusher]

Hi, like your blog. There really is no historical evidence that "[t]he New Testament wasn’t created until several hundred years after Jesus’ death. The Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, sponsored and strongly influenced by Roman emperor Constantine, is when the religion of Christianity as we know it today (in its Catholic incarnation) was actually created. At that time, the four Gospels included in the New Testament were edited to ensure that they agree with the story of Jesus’ divinity."

Below is a link to a pretty thorough debunking of Brown's book from the Skeptic, not a guardian of Christian orthodoxy.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v11n4_da_vinci_code.php

Of course, the fact that the Emperor Constantine didn't invent Jesus' divinity doesn't mean that Jesus really was divine. But the idea that Constantine imposed the idea of Jesus' divinity on Christianity at a church council is ludicrous on its face. There were delegates at Nicea who had been tortured and crippled during Diocletian's persecutions 20 years before for refusing to abandon their faith. Do you really suppose they would nod in obedience while the emperor changed their faith's very essence? Christians believed in Christ's divinity as far back as we can trace.