Is Dan Brown now rewriting the dictionary?

Someone at The Daily Vanguard, the student newspaper at Portland State University (Portland, Oregon), was simply overwhelmed by the sheer, white-hot intellectual brilliance—just writing that nearly made my computer crash—of a novelist named Dan Brown:

There is also an intelligence behind the story that makes a refreshing change. Even though there is plenty of action, The Da Vinci Code is about a very intelligent man solving a very intricate puzzle. The time in between the chases is filled with thoughtful mysteries. Intelligence is very sexy and is not something we see a lot of in films today.

Is this what we've come to? Really? Does this mean we can finally close the curtain on Western civilization once and for all? Are we now in the new (and real) Dark Ages? (Morris Berman says, "Yes," by the way.) And here I thought "intelligence" was related to "smart." That paragraph really should read like so:

There is also a mediocre and overreaching intelligence behind the story that makes a person cringe. Even though there is plenty of action, The Da Vinci Code is about a very annoying, creepy, arrogant man struggling with a puzzle a four-year-old could solve in thirty seconds. The time in-between the chases is filled with people gasping for air and asking for water. Intelligence is very scarce and is not something we see a lot of in films today, espcially films based on Dan Brown "novels".

Much better. At times such as this it is good to know that when we do not know how to pray as we should, "the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words" (Rom. 8:26). Amen. Preach it! Now, deep breath. There is more:

The most disappointing thing about the film is the fact that Howard trips over the finish line and kisses up to the church at the end. The flack that he and Brown received after the first film had the desired effect. The church is seen in a much more positive light and the denunciation of the excesses of the Vatican is absent.

Now, where would the reviewer get a silly notion that Brown was trying to denounce the Church? Not to be outdone, a reviewer for the Philippine Daily Inquirer complains how critics of Brown's novels/movies use reason and facts to undermine Brown's outrageous and false attempts to claim that the Church is superstitious and backwards:

OF course, as with “Da Vinci Code” which created a cottage industry of detractors and explainers, there are those out to throw the cold water of fact and scientific explanation on the juicy details of “Angels and Demons.”  ...

There were also inaccuracies with the geography of Rome and even the use of the Italian language, although these were later corrected.

But what director Ron Howard, who also helmed “Da Vinci Code,” set out to make was a feature film, not a documentary. To fully enjoy the ride, it would be best to park your skepticism at the door, and check with Wikipedia only when you get home.

Yes, I suppose Wikipedia will have to do, especially if you're unable to get your cyber-stained fingers on one of these rare objects.

Comments

[xavier]

Carl:
How is Langdon creepy? I only read a very short excerpt of Da Vinci code and agreed that's he's pompous and a bit bombastic but I didn't pick up his creepiness

xavier

[Dan Fitzpatrick]

I just noticed this NYT article today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19douthat.html?_r=1

Douthat combines, perhaps unintentionally, the two major topics of this blog lately: the popularity/idiocy of Dan Brown and his works, and the religious lukewarmness typified by l'affair de Notre Dame.

You've often pointed out how quickly fans of Brown's work will waver between claiming it as fact to insulting others for getting so worked up about something so obviously fictitious. It reminds me of Jon Stewart's shtick on the Daily Show. He claims to be "speaking truth to power" and such, but whenever anyone confronts him on something he retreats and says, "Hey, we're just a fake news show." As some blogger put it, "clown nose on, clown nose off."
I don't know what Brown's equivalent would be (historian's nose?), but it's the same trick. Actually, while I'm pumping out pop culture references, it's not unlike Ben Stiller's character in Dodgeball describing a painting of him taking a bull by the horns:
"Yeh, that's me taking the bull by the horns, it's how I like to run my business. It's a metaphor. But that actually happened though. Just kidding. But seriously, it did."