Has Dan Brown "become the ultimate scapegoat for the cultural snobs"?

He has, according to a March 19, 2006, opinion piece in The Guardian:

Brown stands accused of having taken the main idea for The Da Vinci Code (namely, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children together) from an earlier non-fiction book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. But the sneering literary set would really like to try him for something completely different. To them, he is guilty of the heinous crime of writing something that a lot of people wanted to read and tell their friends about.

The problem is, that's not actually against the law. So they are satisfying their blood lust over the plagiarism case instead. 'We told you so. Serves you all right for reading trashy airport novels, you losers. Here - take this copy of Ulysses and please try to restrict yourselves to proper, critically-acclaimed literature in future.'

Brown has become the ultimate scapegoat for the cultural snobs who cannot bear for anything that might be classed as 'popular' to take the hallowed form of 'A Book'. Since the trial, even hardened Da Vinci Code fans are turning against it. A friend who initially recommended the novel now wails: 'I knew it was too good to be true.' The memory of a book she had been unable to put down has been ruined for her by all the negative coverage. She feels stupid and duped. The would-be intelligentsia has won.

I think that the author of the piece, Viv Groskop, misunderstands the change of heart. The court battle didn't change the mediocre writing in TDVC, but exposed how empty is the notion that the novel is a well-researched and intellectually rich work. Readers who might otherwise be "snobs" were willing to put up with Brown's lousy prose because, as Dan Burstein, editor of Secrets of the Code: An Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code (New York: CDS Books, 2004) admitted, the poor writing was at the service of something Big and Important and Life-Changing. From my March 2005 article, "The 'It's Just Fiction!' Doctrine", Burstein's explanation:

"I was as intellectually challenged as I had been by any book I had read in a long time." He recounts making his way through "scores of books that had been mentioned or alluded to in The Da Vinci Code: Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Templar Revelation, Gnostic Gospels, The Woman With the Alabaster Jar, The Nag Hammadi Library, and more." ...

Burstein admits that the Code is not well-written, but explains that literary quality is beside the point: "Say what you will about some of the ham-fisted dialogue and improbably plot elements, Dan Brown has wrapped large complex ideas, as well as minute details and fragments of intriguing thoughts into his action-adventure-murder mystery."

Ah, yes, the "large complex ideas" and "fragments of intriguing thoughts" that were mostly culled from works of "speculative history" (aka, pseudo-history based on fancy, not fact). And mostly by Brown's wife, not Brown himself. The court case helped to further reveal that the Emperor/Author has No Clothes/Credibility. Embarrassment follows. Snobbery follows, a defensive reaction to having been taken in by the Coded Con. Groskop concludes:

Win or lose this case, Dan Brown has drawn back into bookshops and libraries many people who had completely given up on finding anything they wanted to read ever again. The success of a page-turner thriller, whether semi-plagiarised or not, does not threaten Western society. But putting up with the book snobs is an ongoing trial for us all.

Which only goes to prove the point. Are we really to believe that all of those poor souls who finally discovered or re-discovered reading because of TDVC did so based on the novel's unique literary merits (which are dubious, even for popular fiction)? Or because of an appeal that directly flowed from its many large ideas, outrageous claims, and relentless slander of Christianity?

Comments

[Owen]

This is rather like the "Harry Potter is getting kids to read {and some adults} so how bad can it be?" argument.

[Cristina A. Montes]

It's not enough to get people into reading; people should read critically and develop a taste for the right kinds of books.

I once made an analogy that if TDVC is potato chips and Coke (downright junkfood), "Harry Potter" is diet Coke (still junkfood but less fattening), and the classics are fresh vegetable salad. Well, maybe my analogy is wrong; TDVC should be compared with cigarettes.

ANd yes, a lot of literary snobs fell for TDVC. Frankly, I think genuine classics-infatuated literary snobs are better than those who have read and loved TDVC and consider themselves more sophisticated readers than the readers who are, for them, to "timid" to stomach its outrageous claims.

The literary snob in me (yes, I'd openly admit it!) chuckles whenever I encounter people who rave about how well-researched TDVC is and but say they find "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy too difficult to read.

[Owen]

Yes, exactly, Cristina. My point exactly. And if it helps you feel less alone, I happen to be reading {besides my copy of THVDHoax} Dostoyevsky. :)

[MLC]

I find it somewhat amusing that the charge of literary snobbery should be made by the "Guardian" of all newspapers which is known as being the oracle of the liberal elite.
It's my belief that the "Guardian" would display an equally snobbish attitude to TDVC if it didn't follow said "Guardian's" own agenda of Christianity bashing.

[talpianna]

I think the comparison with the Harry Potter books is a bit unfair: the latter aren't literary junk by any means, although they are certainly not the best juvenile fantasy around.

This topic was raised on the RUNNING WITH QUILLS blog by one of the authors who contributes to it; it sparked quite a discussion, and I am still amazed that quite a few readers think it a well-written book.

I must admit, however,that all I've read is the excerpts quoted in THE DA VINCI HOAX!

I think a friend of mine still holds some sort of record for having realized it was a crock after reading only the first two words! And being able to write reams of demolition based on only the first paragraph. (Of course, she has the advantage of being a real, live (if retired) mueum curator herself.

[Cristina A. Montes]

My apologies. :) As I said, I openly admit that I'm a literary snob, and I openly admit being a rather cruel Harry Potter basher. I plead guilty to having offended one or two Harry Potter fans here at home. :) I must admit J.K. Rowling has her strengths, and these are humor and details. It's just that the Harry Potter books are not the best juvenile books around, and yet they're selling as if they were. Maybe I would be more forgiving of the Harry Potter series if it generated less hype. And while the Harry Potter series promotes some values I find problematic (although this is not the forum to discuss them), I'd rather that people read Harry Potter than TDVC.

[talpianna]

My last sentence in the comment above should of course read "museum," not "mueum." And I proofread it!

A mueum, of course, is a place full of cats (like my home).