Damn you, Dan Brown

So I made the horrible mistake of starting The Da Vinci Code Wednesday night before bed. Ack. I've had a copy since August (through some book club folly, my mom ended up with two; gave me one), but only just got around to picking it up. This was a bad idea for two reasons: 1) I scare pretty easily, so Wednesday night and Thursday night were somewhat sleepless (though, to be fair, the book was part of a trifecta of sleep disturbances that also include a very needy cat wanting to be up in my face all night long and J's absence), and 2) Dan Brown's silly command of suspense led me to decide I couldn't start doing any work today until I finished the stupid thing. Fine, fine, it's a great yarn and I enjoyed it immensely. I can certainly understand the Catholic backlash, as this isn't the most Vatican-friendly telling out there. Still, it's...a novel. I read the most ridiculous rant on beliefnet this afternoon which picks apart several of the book's flawed details. Oy. Again I say, it's. A. Novel. The author of the beliefnet essay seemed entirely oblivious to the idea that there's a distinction between something that claims to be scholarly and something that doesn't--think MSNBC vs. The Daily Show. Worse, though, the author's failure to grasp this and consequent implication that the theories set forth in the book were intended to be considered in the same context as academic work gave her/him away as, well, pissed. More pissed than rational, in fact, which doesn't so much make for a credible counter argument.

But why so angry? Yeah, Brown has obvious hostility and umbridge with the Catholic church, but...so what? Seriously, someone taking issue with aspects of Catholicism? Not so new. I highly doubt that anyone who reads this book will be struck with a revelation of "huh, so Catholicism...wrong? This changes everything!" If it does, come up with a better counter to lure the 30th percentile back into the fold. But I don't think it will. People are funny about religion--they believe what they want to believe and aren't easily persuaded in one direction or another. Unless they don't know what they believe and are desperate to believe something, in which case they jump on the first thing that sounds credible. To that end, if there are curious readers who make their faith decisions on what they read in The Da Vinci Code, well, they probably weren't great candidates for becoming Good Catholics anyway.

My biggest eyeroll for the beliefnet article was its way of patronizing the readership of this novel. Give people credit for being somewhat discerning in the sources that influence their beliefs. Or, don't, and present them with something better. Either way, it's incredibly condescending to intimate that the poor lost souls of the world can't possibly figure out that they should look beyond the story and inquire further on the points that challenged beliefs they have held without question. Isn't that what strengthens one's conviction in a position--to see it challenged and discover a way to acknowledge the other side and still come out believing?

My second biggest eyeroll was the assertion that Brown used a profoundly feminist interpretation of Christianity to appeal to women because it would sell more books. Two points there: first, speaking with an obvious and unapologetically Catholic position while dismissing entirely a feminist perspective on Christianity does a swift job of inadvertently proving Brown's point about the long-standing desire of the Catholic church to suppress such theories. Second, fuck off.

Okay, I really have to study contracts now. Really.