Dan Brown: A source of endless and empty hyperbole

I mean that in two ways. There is Dan Brown, the direct source of hyperbolic fiction, which we all know too much about due to crafty marketing and 80 million readers who easily and readily imbibe hyperbolic fiction. Then there is Dan Brown, the somewhat mythical inspiration for folks such as William Langley, writing in The Telegraph about the Mystery and the Man named Dan:

Even before last week's announcement [of Brown's new novel, due out September 15th], the Vatican was preparing extensive anti-Brown contingency measures. Angels and Demons, the Ron Howard-directed film version of an earlier Brown novel, hits the big screen next month. It tells of a plot by the Illuminati, a secular secret society, supposedly defunct since the 18th century, to blow up the Holy See using anti-matter stolen from the CERN high-energy physics centre in Switzerland.

Alright, alright—what, pray tell, are these "extensive anti-Brown contingency measures"? Has the Pope decided to issue an encyclical decrying Brown? Will the CDF issue lengthy documents in Latin discussing the errors in Brown's novels? Has a special, secret group of Cardinals been working on ways to brainwash Brown? Will every parish in the world be ordered to have a novena said for the soul of Dan Brown, and to read a specially prepared 30-minute homily decrying Brown's many clumsy but real smears of the Church? Uh, not exactly:

Gianni Gennari, a prominent theologian and columnist with the Vatican newspaper Avvenire, has called upon Catholics to boycott the movie, depicting it as part of a conspiracy to insult and ridicule the Church. The film-makers were also refused permission to use locations controlled by the Diocese of Rome. Father Marco Fibbi, a spokesman for the Church says: "Normally, we would read the script, but in this case the name 'Dan Brown' was enough."

Wow. Wait, let me try it again: "Wow. Uh, wow." Extensive? That's barely as extensive as Dan Brown's "research." (Okay, maybe it is more extensive than Brown's research.) Oh, but wait, there is more:

The money hasn't greatly changed him. Jason Kaufman, his friend and editor, says: "He is the same person he was before… he is remarkably level-headed about his life." But it isn't the same life. Brown probably thought music was a tough business until he ran into theology. At public appearances he has been abused by militant Catholics, who accuse him of blasphemy and the exploitation of their faith. The impression lingers everywhere that his success – however extravagant – will not endure, and that The Da Vinci Code will prove to be one of those flukes of pop-cultural preference that has no meaning or basis.

Has Dan Brown really been "abused by militant Catholics"? First, what evidence is there? None is offered. Why not? It's a rather seriously and open-ended charge. Of course, Langley might be employing one of Brown's favorite literary devices, which is to have Robert Langdon say something negative about the Catholic Church without any basis in reality, and then have the other characters act as if they've just had the epiphany of a lifetime.

Secondly, as far as I know, Dan Brown has made only a handful (six or eight) public appearances in the past five years. The couple of talks he has given have been tightly controlled affairs. I've never read about Brown ever being confronted in public by angry Catholics.

Third, if this is a reference to the many books and articles written about and critical of Brown and his work, it's pathetic. After all, two of Brown's novels are based primarily on a host of ridiculous and unremittingly negative assertions about the Catholic Church, and he has made (as the article notes) over $200 million for his efforts. Trying to make the man out to be a martyr is not surprisingly, I suppose, in this era of "I'm a Victim (Sob!) Because You Criticized Me," but it is also ridiculous. Funny, yes, but also ridiculous.

Over the past few weeks there have been very vague reports about a "threatened Vatican boycott" of Angels & Demons. No details are given; no evidence is offered. I suspect the angle is being encouraged, at least indirectly, and played up by the producers of the movie, who know very well that the perfect storm which brought in nearly $800 billion worldwide for the cinematic version of The Da Vinci Code does not exist, and that stirring up controversy, even if artificially produced or enhanced, can only help the second movie's chances.

Personally, I've always worked from a simple premise: Brown has the right to have his say, and I have the right to criticize it (even sarcastically!), and everyone has the right to read and watch what they wish. I'm not into censorship or boycotts, but I am into truth and facts, and I hope that what little I've done (along with Sandra Miesel, as well as the work of Amy Welborn and several others) will be helpful to those interested in truth and facts. And, yes, I will be going to see Angels & Demons on opening weekend, if possible; not because of Ron Howard's condescending open invitation to Catholics, but because I want to review the movie, to see how closely it follows the book, to see how the audience reacts, and so forth. And while I'll probably be critical, I'll do my best to avoid empty hyperbole.

Related Articles and Interviews:

• "Ron Howard, Angry & Demeaning?" (April 21, 2009)
• Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code | Excerpts from The Da Vinci Hoax | Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel
• The "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine Carl E. Olson
• Dan Brown Reveals How Little He Really Knows | Sandra Miesel
• Danned If You Do, Danned If You Don't | Carl E. Olson
• Meeting the Real Mary Magdalene | An Interview with Amy Welborn
• What Do Christians Know? Carl E. Olson
• The Da Vinci Code's Sources | Carl E. Olson
• The Atheist and the Code: An Interview with Tim O'Neill | Carl E. Olson
• The Code and Gnosticism | Carl E. Olson

Comments

[tioedong]

has any scientist debunked the antimatter part of the plot?

Why use antimatter when nukes are a lot cheaper...

[Carl E. Olson]

has any scientist debunked the antimatter part of the plot?

Yes, CERN has created a page devoted to setting the record straight about the various claims made in A&D about anti-matter and related issues:

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html

[Clinton]

I've never bothered to waste my time and money on Mr. Brown's novels and films and I've
found that my life goes on nonetheless. Mr. Olson, I do not envy you having to sit through
that movie.

[Elizabeth Montgomery/Calgary]

I'm neither Catholic (except genetically) nor non- nor anti-Catholic; but I've always known that the DaVinci Code is crap. That's because I'm a particular reader. I hate reading books that aren't properly researched, and art is one of my serious interests. I also avoid anything that has a 'trendy' reputation, (like the Celestine Prophecy), until I know whether or not it's worthwhile.

The answer is in education. Children have to be educated by reading good literature in school, by getting an art and music education, and an education in philosophy; as well as the rest of it. Then, when they grow up they can think and act critically. Catholics have a reputation for delivering a better education in our city - where there are separat school boards, but my daughter was told that she'd have to drop physics in favour of religion class. Religion class should be outside of school - focus on real education, and the people will make the right choices.