I am going to begin migrating some blogs from my other blog site over here. The next few, about
The Da Vinci Code, first appeared
here in January 2006.
The Da Vinci Code
is a book that has ruffled plenty of feathers. Not surprisingly, the majority of feathers needing smoothing right now are found in groups whose interest is anything but literary.
But the book does offer up a point of reference for discussing literary concerns too. I don't want to consider the question here of how various topics (religious, etc.) are treated by Dan Brown, the man, and what his opinions on those issues might be. Instead, I want to think about how the text represents the issues it raises.
For example, the first thing we come across in reading the text is a "Fact Sheet." In it, there are claims made for the veracity of certain representations the book contains. Most notably, we see that its representation of Opus Dei is supposed to be considered accurate. This is a point that needs some examination and discussion.
In the text, we find Silas and the bishop represented as villains whose only real agenda seems to be money (the bishop) or a sort of out-of-control religious fervor. However, even a quick Google search will demonstrate just how wide the experience of Opus Dei can be. Many who lead perfectly normal lives are mixed in with the few who seek help from an abusive cult-like control.
The novel mentions the website for the Opus Dei Awareness Network for more information on the sort of “harm�" done by Opus Dei. I suggest a visit to that site, accompanied by a Google search for more information on the group. A visit to the Opus Dei website itself is also quite useful.
This fact sheet and the pointer to a “real-life�" website serve a function in the novel. They seem to give a level of accuracy to the text’s representations of what we see in “our world.�" Indeed, it sets up the novels self-representation too. The book seems to poke at the boundary between an investigative report and a novel. The subversion of this boundary, to me, seems to be the real source of the controversy surrounding the book. Why worry about what a novel says about Opus Dei, or Jesus’ sex life, or anything else? Isn’t it meant to weave a good story and entertain us?
The text itself, though, raises this question when it chooses to represent itself as offering some sort of “facts�" to readers.
Continuing on the idea of REpresentations in The Da Vinci Code, the novel’s treatment of history is an interesting topic to look at. It, of course, plays with the notion that history is always written by those in power, the winners. In this case, the winners are the patriarchal, the male, the Church, etc. The Other is the Sacred Feminine.
The novel spends a great deal of time on the notion of the poetics of the oppressed, if in a very watered down “pop�" form. The idea most presented in the book seems to be that in all of humanity’s archetypes and symbols, the Sacred Feminine lives on, quietly subverting the “winner�" of the Battle Between Peter and Mary.
And Dan Brown, in The Da Vinci Code, has given a nice illusion of a concern for historical accuracy, representing itself as aligned with those poetic voices speaking in opposition to the powers that be. It seems to me to fail to actually hit both those goals, but it does keep the illusion going fairly well for much of the story.
As far as historical accuracy, the text represents Teabing and Langdon as guys “in the know,�" men who have spent their lives researching the Grail stories and all. And of course in Teabing we have the knight on his Grail quest. In his recitation of all the Grail information and the story of Mary and Jesus, he cites from the Gnostic Gospels in an attempt to lend validity to his opinions. A read through those documents will remind that what The Da Vinci Code offers is a representation of their content rather than any sort of summary or exposition.
That’s the thing about fiction (or history, or any other text) -- it is a representation of a thing, not to be mistaken for any sort of objective picture of Truth, Reality, whatever. This is what particularly puzzles me about the reception The Da Vinci Code has received. It is not a container of Truth (a Grail of sorts?); it is a novel. It purports to be fiction. And yet we find it in the middle of all the hoopla over what it might mean for Christianity’s future.
Puzzling, that.