On Da Vinci Mania
Published May 29, 2006
I saw The Da Vinci Code in theatres the second week of its release. I arrived 20 minutes before the show started and had to join a line (specifically for this movie) already over 100 people deep to get in. A week and a half before the movie (of which a complete analysis will later be written) was released, I was at a Barnes & Noble. An entire table was covered with the book, different sizes and colors of the book, books written about the book, and Dan Brown's other books (made famous after The Da Vinci Code was published). The games section featured titles such as Da Vinci's Mystery and Crack Da Vinci's Code — these games were entirely unaffiliated with Dan Brown and the original book.
Looking back on the initial release of the book (which has now sold over 40 million copies and been printed in 44 languages), Dan Brown wrote the fictional story as a tool to get the masses to read his theories (rooted in research) on religion. The immediate and immense popularity of the book rendered Brown successful in that sense. While the Catholic Church has not been overthrown from within, The Da Vinci Code has gotten people questioning the Church and Christianity in its entirety. Few people believe that Mary Magdalene is buried underneath the Pyramide Inversée at the Louvre, but the thought that it could be helps keep the topic in people's minds.
After my visit to Barnes & Noble, I was certainly worried that Brown and his publisher were losing sight of The Da Vinci Code's purpose and just trying to cash in on its success. While that is certainly a factor in Da Vinci Mania, the movie actually made me believe that Brown was still on a mission. Every time I expected Sophie and Robert to exchange intimacy, there was none. The movie did not get sidetracked from the central plot with made-for-Hollywood romance, but instead followed the same zany path as the book in delivering Brown's religious theories.
I do fear that the popularity of The Da Vinci Code has caused readers and viewers to forget its purpose. Many people said the movie was "fascinating," and "made me think," but most of those thoughts were lost by the time they pulled into the driveway. My friends, generally pretty intelligent, were lost when I tried to have a deep discussion about the religious meaning and implications of the movie. To most, The Da Vinci Code will simply be an exciting thriller.
In that lies the paradox of The Da Vinci Code: Brown wrote a thriller plot to get people to read his non-fiction studies but the people often choose to look no further than the plot. Congratulations?
- On Da Vinci Mania
- Published: May 29, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Books: Mystery, Books: Religion, Culture: Religion, Video: Action
- Writer: Shane S-T
- Shane S-T's BC Writer page
- Shane S-T's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Occultism does not equal intellectualism--how Dan Brown gets it wrong (correction)
I have written before on my blog http://www.theosophy_talks_truth a yahoo group
about the mistakes that Ken Wilbur made
in his books when he uses physics to bolster his points. I can say the same but more about the novel writings of Dan Brown.
There are many books out there that discuss how badly he dropped the ball when it comes to the "occult" in his books. He seems to confuse intellectualism with occultism. He does not get symbols right. He has literally created something out of nothing. And that violates the law of conservation of matter!! There is no such thing as a "symbologist." Scientists do not recognize symbols as a source of knowledge. They create symbols as tools to help them and others to communicate, pure and simple.
Everyone knows that astrologers use the symbols for the planets and that physicists use many symbols for their equations, but that is not an occult thing to do people. It is simply a shorthand--a language of communication. A language which is obviously a "closed book" for Brown. Symbols are merely good tools not occult wisdom. And that is where Dan Brown strains the
context.
Science however does recognize "patterns." The study of patterns, as I propose in my upcoming book "Dinner With da Vinci" (available July 15th),is a bonifide part of science. Even the fibonacci sequence he touts is really about how patterns in nature are formed and the numerical sequence is correctly written: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8... but he does not use the ellipses nor the zero. I do not see the hoopla about symbols, it is practically meaningless to a real scientist like myself. Brown is obviously an English major who gets in over his head when he tries to take on the world of the occult.
Heloise
I come from a long lineage of Masonry. Having read the book, it sounded a lot like conversations I had overheard, and books laying around the house I had read...
Ohhh Ahhhh!!! EerieWierd!!!
I don't think Brown did anything beyond what Masonry has had laid out for centuries.
Therefore I actually suspect that Dan Brown isn't original in his "theories" about anything.
The bible is the truest form of information given to man. Its to bad people dont use it to educate ourselves.
It's official folks: "Dinner With Da Vinci: The Road Royale Through Rebirth" has been published (July 15, 2006) and is now available online
At Amazon
Netemara aka Leslie J. McClinton
Unleases the rebirth genie from the bottle.
Heloise
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/48458)
Occultism does not equal intellectualism--how Dan Brown gets is wrong
I have written here on my blog theosophy_talks_truth before about the mistakes that Ken Wilbur made
in his books when he gets into talking about physics. I can say the
same but more about the novel writings of Dan Brown.
There are many books out there that discuss how much he dropped the
ball when it comes to the "occult" in his books. He seems to confuse
intellectualism with occultism. He does not get symbols right. There
is no such thing as a "symbologist." Scientists do not recognize
symbols as being a source of knowledge. They create symbols as tools
to help them and other to communicate, pure and simple.
Everyone knows that astrologers use the symbols for the planets and
that physicists use many symbols for their equations, but that is
not an occult thing to do people. It is simply a shorthand. Symbols
are tools not occult wisdom. And that is where Dan Brown strains the
context.
Science however does recognize "patterns." The study of patterns, as
I propose in my book "Dinner With da Vinci" is a bonifide scientific
study. I do not see the hoopla about symbols, it is practically
meaningless to a real scientist like myself. Brown is obviously an
English major who gets in over his head when he tries to take on the
world of the occult.
Heloise