It’s no secret why Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code is the biggest mystery/thriller since the JFK assassination: it tickles the collective fancies of groups as varied as conspiracy theorists, art history buffs, puzzle enthusiasts and Europhiles.
But while Brown’s interestingly distorted view of the “real” history of the Catholic Church, and what it might say about the inherent lies built in to some of the building blocks of Western Civilization, seems to be the chief point of controversy and conversation regarding the book and upcoming film, that’s not why everyone from Birkenstock-clad Berkeley undergrads and Laguna Niguel soccer moms to blue-collar construction workers (the 18 that actually admit reading) and personal defense lawyers have gobbled it up like literary Viagra.
It’s the woman thing. The Da Vinci Code can easily be read as one long apology from the architects of a patriarchal worldview to the one group it has oppressed longer than all the others combined: women. And that’s why it has spread as infectiously as crabs on a Minnesota Viking boat party. The Da Vinci Code’s success isn’t only because it disses the Catholic Church; it’s also because it’s thoroughly PC and right in step with all the other cultural significators contributing to the increasing feminization of this society.
Though this country’s tanks, educational system, and banks may still be run by men who like telling dumb-blonde jokes on a golf course, laughing at the mud races while smoking cigars in the board rooms, or waging war for pure, old-fashioned, red-blooded American reasons, it’s good for business! Its culture is increasingly being dominated by a palsied, effete, left-leaning intellectual elite that seems terrified, if not embarrassed, of anything genuinely masculine. In that world, Oprah is a genius; cowboys aren’t just gay, they actually cry; and Tom Cruise, surely one of the most feminine leading men in the history of cinema, is the world’s biggest star.
In that light, it’s no wonder a book that questions all sorts of perceived examples of masculine hegemony (religion, history, government, and architecture) has been so embraced. Obvious examples from the book include the resurrection of Mary Magdalene’s royal bloodline and subsequent slander of her name by the church, the advocacy of a natural religion in which men and women are equally divine, and, most fascinatingly, the Church’s fear of the “sacred feminine,” which it characterizes as Satanic.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JP
You've GOT to be kidding me. It takes cajones to suggest that a book challenging the authority structure of the last 2,000 years as nothing more than lies for the benefit of politics is "politically correct."
That said, there is a lot of macho bravado competitive bullshi* in our culture, such as road rage, pro wrestling, George Bush's persona.. if that's the kind of crap that makes us "different," maybe that's why our country's citizens are now looked down upon by our global neighbors rather than looked up to.
2 - Amita
Spoken like the trying in vain to assert his masculinity-shithead you obviously are.
Your assessment of yourself as "I'm an opinionated, know-it-all, self-righteous bastard" is pathetically inaccurate. Except for the opinionated self-righteous bastard part.
And you're a theatre critic? For what? Theatre of the Absurd?
Don't be too threatened by the divine feminine worshipping neo-pagans kiddo. We don't take very many blood sacrifices anymore.
3 - lori
But ultimately his book is a piece of rehashed ideas and theories masquerading as a serious intellectual endeavor; and that makes it a lie, one that does as much harm in the gender divide as good.
It's FICTION fer Christ's (and Mary's) sake!
4 - Nik
*sigh* Repeat after me -- FICTION. Made-up. Not trying to be nonfiction. A *story*, if you will...
5 - Cass
"But ultimately his book is a piece of rehashed ideas and theories masquerading as a serious intellectual endeavor..."
You said it right here. I do not think the book is masquerading as "truth"; it's as fictional as they come. I do think he took a little bit too much of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (even if the courts of England found that he did not plagiarize). I read Brown's book last year, excited to see that something of the sacred feminine was coming out in the mainstream. But the book probably does more to hurt the cause than to help it.
The scenarios are so implausible; the dumbing-down of the "code", so that even a monkey could figure out the clues; the telling of the plot to (the apparently stupid) Sophie, rather than the showing; and the utterly predictable ending (I saw it coming halfway through the book)--it all made to be fluffy reading. After finishing the book, I was so disappointed that I had spent money on it. What a waste. I felt like I'd been had. Althought it was a quick read, that was mostly because I wanted to see what was going to happen at the end.
It does play right into the conspiracy theorists. I don't think I'll pay money to see the movie. Why would I want to be bored for 2.5 hours? Not to mention there are better books on the sacred feminine than this fictional representation.
I do hope that it makes people question what they believe and maybe make them research on their own. It's unfortunate that there are people out there who question nothing, and who feel threatened by this fictional book/movie.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Joel,
I've read lots of articles on Blog Critics and even written a few. I have never read such a pile of baloney on it as yours.
This is a very unPC description of the book The Da Vinci Code.
It is a formula book.
This is the formula: over-educated arts scholar gets involved with cute, well educated, orphaned piece of ass while trying to decode a series of artworks in order to solve a murder that he is called about in ther middle of the night. The artworks involve Christianity, and most particularly the Catholic Church. There is a fake villain who does evil and a real villain who looks like an angel and who does evil.
This was the precise formula he used in writing Angels and Demons. That book dealt with the Illuminati - this one deals with Gnosticism.
Dan Brown made only one mistake in dealing with Judaism - give the gentile a hand.
This has nothing to do with hating men, it has everything to do with applying a successful formula to make money. And Dan Brown is mzking money hand over fist. If I was a Catholic, I'd be as jealous as all hell that he pulled off this kind of a novel before me. But I'm not; I do not have the background he has to have achieved his success. He deserves every dime people are stupid enough to pay him.
7 - MerlinsElbow
It's pretty amazing that a fictional book can create so much chaos and varying opinions in literary and religious circles! People search too heavily into hidden meanings & mysterious symbology as it is! I think the great thing about Dan Brown's work is that it's making people consider different theological aspects of our civilization. I did not absorb it as a negative toward the Catholic church because it is FICTION and I tend to believe that all religions share one common denominator - our divine creator so none are necessarily wrong. I think there are points Mr. Brown makes regarding the fact that the divine feminine became camouflaged and lost which is certainly true and I hope, if nothing else, people consider that point.
8 - JR
Why "man-hating"? Why not just "woman-loving"?
9 - zingzing
if he wants to put an interpretation out there, let him put an interpretation out there. it's just as valid... in an english class sort of way... and more interesting than just another fuckin bullshit reactionary christian take on the fuckin bullshit piece of crap book.
10 - Michael J. West
Why is everybody always so shocked that people believe a fictional movie is true? How many of you thought the theories and evidence presented in JFK, much of which Oliver Stone invented whole-cloth, was true?
11 - Bliffle
Not very good fiction, actually.
12 - joel beers
It doesn't matter, to me, whether Brown's book is fiction or non-fiction (however, brown supplies his own noose by beginning this purported work of fiction with a page that reads: fact, and says all artwork, secret rituals, documents and architectures are acccurate).
What does interest me is why this book sold so incredibly well and why the film is the subject of so much intense debate. And I think, on some level, it's because it taps into the growing drift in this country of the demonization of men and the institutions which they've run for centuries, which I've already addressed.
Additionally, the book itself is part of a conspiracy theory of sorts, which is ironic as hell. this conspiracy theory taps into the whole victimization thing that the weakest bleeding-heart liberals love to bandy about: how women are victims of men; minorities victim of whites; third-world countries victims of america and her western allies.
I don't disagree with any of that: but the entire notion of victimization carries with it a perpetrator, someone who conscously acts in such a way to keep a person, a race, a country down. It's "The MAn" meaning an established order of things that works together to run a social order. We still like to think "The Man" is keeping us down, that there is a sinister cabal of people running this government and this world; that's why it's so terribly f'd up. That's why conspiracy theories--from UFO's to the Illumaniti--are so attractive, and why books like the Da Vinci Code atre so popular: they supply an antidote of sorts to a fear that beats in every human breast that there really is no established order, no one running the show. That this is all a cosmic accident and the people we think--in fact, keenly want--to run things and know what's happening, don't. That, in the end, might makes right and whoever has the most toys wins.
And that's a far more frightening notion than believing that Mother Teresa really did kill JFK.
13 - Thomas M. Sipos
It's disingenuous -- but convenient -- for defenders of the book to hide behind the "fiction" label.
The book claims to be a novel based on facts. This means the book can smear the church, hoping to be accepted as truth, but whenever one pokes a hole in it, the book can hide behind the fiction claim.
If it's truly intended as fiction, why don't you see Dan Brown loudly declare, "Hey, it's all bullshit! I made it up! It's a kick-ass story, but none of it's true! Seriously, I made it all up!"
Instead, there's a "wink and a nod" approach. "Yeah, it's fiction (wink, wink, we have to say that, but you know it's based on fact, hint, hint)".
14 - zingzing
so, it's pretty easy to say that anyone who takes this book seriously is either an absolute fool or a christian. follow the trail... there you go.
15 - nehad ismail
I am an avid reader of good books, I found Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code stuff very hard to swallow. The book is tedious and boring and reading it is like being forced to eat a heavy unappetizing meal. I gave up half-way through. I shall not waste my time to see the film. Those who have not read it be warned. Several of my friends said basically the same thing.
nehad ismail, camberly, england
16 - Bryan McKay
I'm not really sure how Dan Brown, a male author, can possible be a "man-hater." A self-loathing male, perhaps? A crock of shit, more likely.
Beware all this talk of men getting in touch with their feminine sides; that entire notion is woman-talk [...].
Talk about conspiracy theories, I think perhaps your slightly paranoid meanderings might rival Brown's own plot twists.
It's a big conspiracy, girls! Now show us your tits!
And nice way to end your review. Just sneeringly condescending enough to make yourself feel clever and self-righteous, eh?
17 - Michael J. West
I think perhaps your slightly paranoid meanderings might rival Brown's own plot twists.
Not so much paranoid as misogynistic, methinks...
18 - jo boo!
aw, that's just the woman in you talking. Treat her well. she'll take care of you. You'll never have to make a decision or howl at the moon again. You'll be a nice, safe, little darling boy who everybody coos over.
19 - jo boo!
And Bryan (kind of interesting how you choose to spell the name with a y, one of those letters that can't really decide whether it's a consonant or vowel. Indecision. Rather feminine, don't you think?) while i don't think you're clver enough to catch actual satire or irony in a post so I won't dare explain anything I wrote, I will comment on one aspect of your well-considered response: I neever said dan brown is a male-hater. He's a bright writer who knows that by tapping into the man-hating pulse of the age--a pulse in which anyone who dares check its beat is branded misogynistic, self-righteous and condescending--he could make a bunch of money. Which he has.
20 - Bryan McKay
I'm clever enough to spell the word 'clever' correctly. That much I know for sure.
And I'm not quite sure just what "satire or irony" I missed. If the entire post is meant as satire, it should be clearly marked as such. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for me to believe that you aren't being entirely serious. There have certainly been crazier ideas committed to webspace on BC. Perhaps you can inform those of us who were too dumb to miss it just what satirical or ironic content was contained in your post.
21 - Bryan McKay
And just to clarify, was the explanation of your post offered in your previous content meant to be satirical or ironic? Because if it wasn't, then I guess the main content of your article wasn't either, and then I'm not really sure why my criticisms wouldn't be justified.
22 - jo boo!
at the risk of getting completely lost, i guess the satire/irony reference is about the "sneeringly condescending" part of the original post which, i think, was the ending. I find it deliciously ironic that hollywood is trumpeting the cinematic treatment of a book that, on some level whether purely commerical or not, attempts to elevate the stature of woman both in myth and our society. It's ironic becuase here's a movie based on a book that argues for the sacred women being filmed by an industry that does everything it possibly can to objectify women and generally portays them in its films as dumb, compliant sperm receptacles. Big breasted, pouty-lipped and with cheekbones that could slice a jugular: that's the image of the sacred female that hollywood generally puts in the public's face.
so,of course, it stands to reason that hollywood is giddy over a film that purports to show a deeper look at the feminine archetype and to tell us all why woman are so oppressed: a centuries-old conspiracy. Come on ladies; watch the film, fume in anger, we're on your side, isn't it terrible how you've been portrayed as sinful whores instead of a manifestistation of the divine for so long? Now: would you like to sign up for girls gone wild XIV: the Hollywood shuffle!
Maybe it's not irony or satire. But it's pretty f'd.
23 - Bryan McKay
The way you describe your intent makes far more sense here than comes across in your article. The end of your article, without any additional explanation, simply sounds like a condescending remark made to those who would make claims about oppression via masculine hegemony.
The real part of your original post that irked me was this:
Beware all this talk of men getting in touch with their feminine sides; that entire notion is woman-talk and is usually a smokescreen intended to make men feel embarrassed. It's the differences between men and women that make us fascinating creatures. The more men are led to believe they embody as much feminine tendencies as masculine tendencies (another woman-talk idea) the more harm we do to the male and female psyche.
While you've explained your views on the irony of the situation, I'm still a bit puzzled by how the above paragraph fits into the grand scheme of things.
24 - Paul
It's no secret why Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is the biggest mystery/thriller since the JFK assassination:
It is a mystery/thiller ABOUT Christianity. If this book was about another religion, say a non-holy land religion like hinduism (to borrow from comments from another Da Vinci Code Thread), you never would have heard of the book in the USA, let alone have read it.
Please don't try to fool us into thinking this is popular because "it tickles the collective fancies of groups as varied as conspiracy theorists and art history buffs to puzzle enthusiasts and Europhiles." If this was about a controversy over Krishna and what really happened in the events depicted in the Mahabharata, you wouldn't know of this book. Period.
Thanks to Ty and Rick Adams on another comment thread re: this book to pointing this glaring observation. I join them in calling BS into ANYONE who says this is popular in the USA because it's some fun code-cracking mystery. If it were a fun code-cracking mystery about the Mahabharata, you wouldn't care, no matter how good it is. Admit it.
25 - RogerMDillon
You have to love all the geniues who pat themselves on the back as they deal with their own issues while "exposing" Dan Brown's thriller. Added to the list of Christians whose faith is obviously built on shaky ground is someone who hasn't gotten to where he wants in life because women are ruining the culture. Work on the mother issues on your own time.
"If it's truly intended as fiction, why don't you see Dan Brown loudly declare,"
Because the book is labeled as fiction. What good would it do to come out and say it's fiction. Wouldn't that be part of his cover-up? It's not a childproof world where every idiot needs to be constantly reminded of the obvious. How come the President hasn't reminded anyone that aliens didn't land at Roswell?
please show where "hollywood is trumpeting the cinematic treatment of a book". The production company may since that's part of the marketing to get the film seen, so they can make their money back, but the monolith that is Hollywood isn't rooting for the competition to do well.
The only thing that's funny is reading a man who uses the name jo boo!, and claims to be a free newspaper's theatre critic, now that's a masculine job, question the sexuality of a letter.