Quick musings on recent news about The Coded Craziness

Quick musings on recent news about The Coded Craziness

• Dan Brown says he approves of the movie version of his mega-selling novel. The Broadcaster reports that Brown said the following at the New Hampshire Humanities Council's 16th annual dinner this month:

"The novelist is always the adaptation's most skeptical audience, but I've got to tell you, I think this movie will blow people away," Brown told a soldout crowd of 800 at the event, an audience that included his wife and parents. "The script has emerged as powerful and thought-provoking, and the cast is world-class. I truly believe moviegoers will come out of the theater feeling like they've just watched the novel."

I suppose that helps answer The Big Question of how closely the producers and director Ron Howard would stick to the novel. I do wonder, though, how similar the two could be if the movie really is "powerful and thought-provoking." The novel was provoking, yes, but "thought-provoking"? Yikes.

• Other powerful and thought-provoking tidbits from Mr. Brown, whose keynote address was titled “Symbols, Secrets, Science & Scripture: Beyond The Da Vinci Code” (pictures here!):

"I was not born with the luxury of absolute certainty or absolute faith. I have a lot of questions. I've written a novel in which fictional characters ask some of those questions and offer possible answers."

Addressing the controversy the book has sparked, Brown said: "Readers are smart people, capable of deciding for themselves how much of this novel makes sense to them and how much they want to believe. And as for whether or not we're all getting a little too worked up over this book, a very wise British priest was quoted recently that 'Christian theology has survived the writings of Galileo and the writings of Darwin. Surely it will survive the writings of some novelist from New Hampshire.'"

As other interviews and Brown's website indicates, this is typical Brown-speak, which manages to be both boring and snitty at the same time. Has anyone really ever doubted that Christianity and orthodox Christian theology will "survive" the Coded Craziness? Naw. But some of us have been worried about the minds and souls of many readers, who apparently think Brown is a marvelous mixture of Buddha, Harrison Ford, and Tom Clancy.

• Lawyers are getting set for the big fight over whether or not Brown plagiarized from Holy Blood, Holy Grail (more details in this earlier post):

    The London office of Washington DC's Arnold & Porter and London firm Orchard Solicitors are preparing to do battle over Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. Orchard partner Paul Sutton is acting for two authors, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who claim that Brown copied substantial material from their 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. That book, like Brown's, deals with the history surrounding the mythology of the quest for the Holy Grail. ...

    The case kicks off this week with a preliminary hearing on liability before the main trial, which is scheduled for February 2006. The outcome of the case could affect the release of the blockbuster movie of Brown's novel, which will star Tom Hanks and which is due for release next May.

No word yet if the lawyers will argue that Holy Blood, Holy Grail is "powerful and thought-provoking."

• Finally, Palm Beach Post Religion columnist Steve Gushee has penned a silly and insulting piece titled, "Church misses chance to grow with 'Da Vinci'," in which he chides "the Church" and her leaders for failing to ask tough questions about Jesus and his humanity:   

The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown, Doubleday, 2003, $24.95)is an exciting page-turner that explores the possibility that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child. It reworks the fable of the Holy Grail, draws the reader into medieval intrigue and raises questions about the humanity of Jesus that millions of people have asked without satisfaction.

    Wise, unthreatened church groups would encourage people to see the movie and then join a discussion group searching for the real Jesus.

    The church also has a compelling story to tell about Jesus that is chock full of mystery, sacrifice, dedication and love. That page-turner, however, is too often lost in theological mumbo jumbo, institutional resistance to new ideas and fear of being honest about the humanity of Jesus.

    Jesus almost certainly was single and not a biological father, but he just as certainly could have been married and a father. If he was truly human, as the church insists, he unquestionably had a healthy sexuality and feelings he simply had to consider and, like the rest of us, manage.

    Church leaders purged all of that very human struggle from the New Testament record. It remains taboo for discussion in proper church circles.

Gushee's comments do reveal a couple of clear truths: he has obviously never studied the Bible, early Church history, the early ecumenical Councils, or the countless works of Catholic (and Orthodox and Protestant, for that matter) theology written by great theologians that explore  the mystery of the Incarnation in ways that would surely melt most religious columnist's brains. Secondly, he makes the very common mistake of equating "humanity" solely with "sexuality" and "feelings." I'll stick with the real Jesus, thanks very much, who was much larger and dynamic than Gushee seems able to comprehend.

Comments

[fr richard]

Well said, Carl, but most particularly on the Gushee article. You nailed that squarely.

[Ed Peters]

Carl, you said: "I suppose [DB's endorsement] helps answer The Big Question of how closely the producers and director Ron Howard would stick to the novel."

Maybe, but DB's gushing also suggests that he is getting a share in movie rights, not just a flat rate, so the more he pushes the flik, the more $$$ he makes. Not that the chance to make mega-money would interfere with DB's committment to objectivity, of course. Still, I mention it.

[Brian John Schuettler]

I think, Carl, that you are a dedicated Catholic Christian and I admire you as a person and as a writer. The one thing that I would be careful about, however, is a growing tendency to attack Mr. Brown personally, i.e. " boring and snitty at the same time".
Your model should be Chesterton, not Gore Vidal.
I certainly can appreciate the frustration of this man's success but, as you know so well, it is more a function of our neo-pagan society than literary gifts.
My book, Got Grace?, which is a beginners guide to the role of grace in our personal lives is not going to sell because it is not "sexy" but I can at least know that it encourages the reader to understand their God given dignity. Mr. Brown may be rich and famous now but he will eventually present himself for Judgment, as we all will. Keep us the excellent work!