Da Vinci Hoax Blog

The Perfect Antidote

The perfect antidote for fascination with the "vibrant" Gnostic Gospels would be to actually read the silly things. The Nag Hammadi Library ed. James Robinson handily collects the manuscripts found in Egypt in 1945. These include the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary which Dan Brown cites and the Gospel of Thomas which he doesn't. 

Da Vinci Code fans who actually persevere through the 475 pages of the collection are likely to wind up with throbbing headaches or even the beginnings of brainrot. But they will know not a particle of new information about the "real" Jesus because he isn't here.

Holy Grail or Royal Blood?

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the two authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail who happen to be suing Dan Brown for copying too much from their book, claim to have independently noticed that sangreal, one medieval spelling for "Holy Grail" should be split as sang real, "Holy Blood," referring to the "sacred bloodline" of Jesus Christ.

Alas, lads, your word manipulation was far from new. Sir Thomas Malory makes it in one (and only one) place in the Le Morte D'Arthur by defining the" Sankgreal" as "the blessed blood of our Lorde Jhesu Cryste." But Malory clearly means that in Eucharistic not genealogical sense.

And an obscure contemporary of Malory named John Harding (1378-1465) had earlier read san greal as sang real in his longer verse chronicle of Britain. But Harding meant the royal blood of the Grail knights and a chivalric order of the sanke rioall, not the descendants of Jesus.

The latter tidbit of information comes from Richard Barber's The Holy Grail: Imagination and Belief  which unfortunately was published too late for us to use for The Da Vinci Hoax. This is a good survey of the legends down to their modern applications, including Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which rates a guffaw. Barber firmly sets the medieval romances within the Church's teachings on the Holy Eucharist. This would be an excellent place to become acquainted with the authentic stories. Then you might want to read the most spiritual of these, The Quest of the Holy Grail, translated by P.M. Matarasso and available as a Penguin paperback. If you do read it, you'll be ahead of Dan Brown whose deep and profound research didn't extend to studying any medieval sources.

C.S. Lewis Knew

C.S. Lewis was surely a prophet who foresaw our present situation with The Da Vinci Code. In Remembering C.S.Lewis, a fine book edired by James Como (and incidentally published by Ignatius Press), I ran across the following quote from 1939: "any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people's minds under cover of romance without their knowing it."

"Focus on the Family" has created a website...

... devoted to answering questions about the Coded Craziness. It contains a number of articles, including one ("Fact vs. Fiction in 'The Da Vinci Code'") that Sandra Miesel and I wrote back in 2004, but is as relevant now as it was then. Sandra was also interviewed and recorded for a television special being produced by Coral Ridge Ministries and set to air in mid-May. More details coming soon...

The "Catholic Sentinel" of the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon...

... interviewed me last week and now has an article up on the newspaper's site. My thanks to reporter Ed Langlois for the interview, coverage, and article.

Will you go see the DVC movie?

The four clergy members are asked that question by Newsday. com. The four Christian groups represented are Greek Orthodox, United Methodist, Catholic, and Episcopalian. Match each with a phrase or sentence from their answer:

1). "It's a well-written story, and as my colleagues say, anything that gets people talking about their faith is not a bad thing."
2). "I feel it [the book] really misrepresented [religion] in writing things that were not fact, so I have a hard time supporting it."
3). "I definitely plan to see the movie. I loved the book. ... It can spark some interesting theological debate."
4. "I read the book; it didn't particularly grab me. I don't think I'll be going to see the movie."

Is TDVC "just a novel"? No way, says the Chicago Tribune

Back in 2003, the winner of the Most Gushing, Over-The-Top Review of The Da Vinci Code was probably the one written for The Chicago Tribune. It stated, in part, that Dan Brown's fourth novel is:

A thundering, tantalizing, extremely smart fun ride. ... Brown doesn't slow down his tremendously powerful narrative engine despite transmitting several doctorates' worth of fascinating history and learned speculation, "The Da Vinci Code" is brain candy of the highest quality -- which is a reviewer's code meaning, ''Put this on top of your pile.''

Wow — several doctorates' worth of fascinating history and learned speculation. And to think that I keep getting lectured about TDVC being just a silly novel (since, as you might know, Christians aren't as smart as librarians). So, has the Tribune lightened up on the PhD talk? Not at all, as this May 27, 2006 column demonstrates:

But why is "The Da Vinci Code" such a hit? What accounts for its sensational success?
 
Never content simply to observe a phenomenon from an envious distance, we've gone where angels fear to tread: into the heart of the "The Da Vinci Code" to explicate its irresistible appeal. And we've enlisted other scribes to help us solve the mystery.
 
"It is the inhalable book," declares Donna Seaman, associate editor of Booklist and author of "Writers on the Air: Conversations About Books" (2005). "Everything about it is so charming."
 
And so flattering: As Seaman notes, readers feel smart because often they're figuring out the clues before the book's characters do. "Dan Brown tricks people into thinking they're getting an education. It's `cultural history lite.' People feel they're benefiting."
 
Aside from the fact that its fans can claim honorary doctoral degrees in ecclesiastical history, how else does "The Da Vinci Code" weave its magic spell?

The column then goes on to briefly note the novel's use of puzzles/codes (challenging for those under the age of four), artwork, "enticing characters" (!?), clever cliffhangers, and sex:

OO-LA-LA!: It's a fact: Sex sells. Most popular novels have a goodly share of hot and heavy action. Brown, however, trumps 'em all. His book claims that Jesus -- the purportedly virginal founder of a major world religion, often considered a stunt double for God -- was a swinger. He not only had sex but also spawned a secret family line continuing in the present day.

There you go: marriage is dull and old-fashioned — unless we're talking about Jesus. Then it turns him into a "swinger", a person "who engages freely in promiscuous sex," exactly what you'd expect from a first-century Jewish prophet who denounced divorce and advocated adherence to the Law. Finally:

Want to make a splash, get some attention, sell a few books? Pick on a biggie. Brown's sensational assertion that the Roman Catholic Church has been lying about Jesus and his teachings for 2,000 years is absolute catnip to readers. The novel's popularity, says Nuala O'Faolain, the Irish memoirist and novelist, grows organically from "the scandals" within the Catholic Church. "The reading public has always loved stories that chip away at establishments.

But, of course, it's just a novel. A novel that provides readers with "honorary doctoral degrees in ecclesiastical history," describes Jesus as a sexual hedonist, and claims the Catholic Church is built on lies. Nothing to it. Just fiction. Or, in the words of one reader, who shared his newfound PhD-informed knowledge with me:

Carl and Sandy are justified in being terrified that their so-called ‘universal’ church, which is based on a political conceit that one actually needs any church to know Jesus, will unravel and die a well justified death. ...

Dan Brown is just a very happy coincidence. He said what many of us believe the orthodox church is all about power and nothing about God. Why would he debate with you?  Your noise sells more of his books!

So we are exploring the true Jesus without the incumberance of parisite-priests trying to keep their bellies fed. Light and sweet! We’re just the meteor at the end of the age of  ‘the church’.

Remember, Dan is a storeyteller capitalizing on a growing movement to bring Mary (the sacred feminine) back home again. He didn’t start it. Attacking him just shows your denial of what is really going on: ‘the Rock’ crumbling into sand as the Goddess commands. Evolution.  I love it.

Yep: absolute Coded catnip.

Professor of religious studies: "Thank you, Dan Brown..."

Thomas Ryan, chairman of the religious studies department at St. Thomas University in Miami, views the Coded Craziness "as a much-needed vaccine against ignorance." Catholic.org reports:

"It is a novel that holds a mirror up to us – to silly academics and people who misuse facts," Ryan told a group of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish leaders gathered March 22 for the monthly clergy dialogue sponsored by the National Conference for Community and Justice.

He said talking about the popular book – and upcoming movie – should "strengthen our congregations to be able to deal with what's out there" in terms of religious ignorance and misconceptions.

"This is a vaccine," said Ryan, whose area of specialization is medieval church history. "This articulates the silliness that's out there. We could use it as a way of inoculating ourselves."

Ryan, who only recently read the novel, said his personal reaction to it was: "Thank you, Dan Brown.... I am grateful to (the novel) for driving me to learn more about my faith. It raises questions that I need to go and see. I'm a smarter person as a result of it."

I understand his point, but think he gives Brown far too much credit in this remark:

"I think the author puts in all those mistakes to alert us" to the fact that it is a work of fiction, Ryan said. "It's a story of people who use false evidence to support their claims. And don't we meet those people every day? I think it's a story of humanity. I think Dan Brown is kind of laughing at us. It mocks our gullibility."

Does it? Or does the novel simply take advantage of readers' gullibility, to the tune of 40+ million copies sold, by being touted as well-researched and factual? Having read Brown's witness statement from the London trial a couple of times now, I think Sandra Miesel is correct in this assessment: "Brown is trying to present himself as a serious Artist, a man of many talents just bursting with nuggets of arcane lore." (Read all of her comments here.)

Or, in the words of James Parker, writing for The Boston Globe, "The Da Vinci Code,  bulging with shadowy Templars, is a classic con, of the sort regularly perpetrated by the hustler-sorcerer Cagliostro." He continues:

The mechanism is simple: take an article of no value whatsoever-say, the prose of Dan Brown-and then wreath it in purple clouds of necromantic waffle. Speak in low tones of Horus, the Grail, the Philosopher's Stone. Mention Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, the Priory of Sion, and the assassination of Dagobert II. Deploy lashings of what Carlyle, in his 1833 essay on Cagliostro, called ''Tower-of-Babel jargon," and a miracle will ensue: You will find yourself, in Carlyle's words, ''working the mighty chaos into a creation-of ready-money." Like, for example, 36 million copies of your novel in print, translation into 44 languages, and an upcoming movie version starring Tom Hanks.

Cagliostro's genius was to make himself a magnet for the displaced religiosity of the Enlightenment: Ancient longings and unmoored belief systems all adhered with a sudden, happy crackle to his nonsense. Is Dan Brown a genius? Possibly not. ''Langdon and Sophie seemed unable to tear their stunned gazes from the revolver aimed at them." The steady drone of dullness emitted by prose like this cannot be entirely camouflaged by Cagliostrian sound effects-by the boom of chanting monks and the scratching of phoenixes inside Hermetic eggs. But they certainly do help.

Brown is a child of his age who has produced what other children of this age want: anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories dressed in pseudo-intellectual nonsense and spun with pompous spiritual cliches that are as absurd as they are enticing (see this May 26, 2006, USA Today piece about DVC clones that are climbing the best-seller charts). Hustler-sorcerer, indeed, armed with a keyboard, a jar of jargon, a mysterious spouse/researcher, and a willingness to apparently say anything to keep selling the con.

At least he nose what a book iz. And ware too put it.

The latest reader review of The Da Vinci Hoax on the Barnes & Noble site speaks for itself. So to speak:

Brandon Vanover ([email protected]), a Librarian, March 20, 2006,
Get over it
The Da Vinci code was a work of fiction, which means it WASN'T MEANT TO BE REAL. Dan Brown is an excelent writer who had an idea and wrote on it. Just like any excelent writers out there. Most of the anti Da Vinci Code fanatics are just christians with a grudge and need to realize that the bible is also a book and cant be proved to be entirely factual either. I dont understand why people have to complain about fictional books, their not real

Mr. Vanover gives our book one star out of five. We'd give up the one star just to find out where he works as a librarian...

Is there a precedent for the DVC case and trial?

Possibly:

Ravenscroft v Herbert [1980] RPC 193

The plaintiff in this case claimed infringement by the plaintiff in his non-fiction work "The Spear of Destiny". The plaintiff had written a history of the spear which was allegedly used to pierce the side of Christ on the Cross. He detailed the history of the spear from Israel to Hofburg Museum in Vienna. The plaintiff identified it as the spear used by many legendary historical people and claimed that the spear had become a symbolic source of inspiration in Nazi Germany. The plaintiffs book was meticulously researched using a combination of empirical techniques and use of a psychic medium.

The defendant, James Herbert was fascinated by the plaintiffs book and used it as the basis of a fictional account of the post-war fate of the spear entitled "The Spear". The novel concerned a neo-Nazi group, secret agents and terrorists. The book was divided into sections. At the beginning of each section was a prologue. The prologues told the story of the spear from the Crucifixion to the end of the second world war. The plaintiff sued for copyright infringement.

The defendant admitted using the plaintiffs book as a source of inspiration for his novel.

The court upheld the plaintiff's claim of copyright infringement and in finding for the plaintiff decided as follows -

1. The defendant had infringed the plaintiff's copyright by writing the prologues using the same characters, incidents and interpretation of the significance of events

2. In assessing the quantum of damages the court had to assess the value of the infringing part of the defendant's work in relation to the whole of the original work. Although the infringing part represented only 4% of the defendants work, the value of the 4% was 15% of value of the whole derivative book. there were in all, fifty alleged instances of language copying in the defendants work.

In an article at LegalWeek.com, Barrister Amanda Michaels explains some of the issues at stake:

The difficulty is that there is no copyright simply in ideas, but only in the expression of the ideas; copyright protects the skill and labour of the author in creating his work. Naturally, it all depends on what is meant by ‘ideas’. As copying may be substantial in terms of quality rather than quantity, the ‘substantial part’ can be ‘a feature or combination of features abstracted from the claimant’s work, and need not form a discrete part of it’.

That being so, Lord Hoffman in Designers Guild considered that "the original elements in the plot of a play or novel may be a substantial part, so that copyright may be infringed by a work which does not reproduce a single sentence of the original". Here, the defendant challenges the very existence of the central theme upon which the claimants rely, but adds that in any event the theme is of too high a level of abstraction to be protected as a copyright work.

In Ravenscroft v Herbert [1980], features of a non-fictional work tracing the history of the Spear of Destiny — a museum piece which supposedly was the very spear that had pierced Christ’s side on the cross — were used in a thriller based around the spear. Copying of text and of non-textual features, such as characters, incidents and interpretation of events, was found to infringe. The DVC case, of course, relies solely upon copying of the central theme — will this be enough?

There is a spectrum stretching from ‘pure’ ideas through elements of plot, features or themes, to specifics of text. This case raises the issue of where the boundary lies along that spectrum, between ideas which are in the public domain and protectable copyright; this may be impossible to define, but the judge will have to find on which side of it any copying in DVC may fall. His judgment may well affect the approach to be taken by writers of all kinds to copyright source material.