Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code Is Stimulating, Though Nothing Special

The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

Upon reading The Da Vinci Code recently, I found myself wondering what all the fuss was about. Yes, it was a good read. Yes, it had some interesting religious speculation. Yes, it was well-plotted and decently written.

However, I wouldn't have thought that it was anything so special that it would turn into a publishing phenomenon. There were plenty of other books that did similar things to it — some better and some worse. It was a worthy read, but it did make me wonder why it would soar to such fame when other books just as worthy continue to be neglected.

For those few readers unfamiliar with the story, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is one of the bestselling novels of modern times (though it still lags behind Harry Potter). It took the publishing world by storm in 2003 and was then made into a highly successful movie in 2006 with Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, and Ian McKellen. As of 2006, it had sold 60.5 million copies in 44 different languages.

Robert Langdon, a professor and cryptologist, is called into a murder scene when his name was found in the victim's appointment book. The museum curator, Jacques Saunière, has positioned himself in an grotesque position and left clues for his granddaughter and Langdon. Unfortunately, those clues also make Langdon a prime suspect. He soon finds himself on the run with Agent Sophie Neveu as they try to track down the clues to the murder to clear Langdon's name and uncover a great historical mystery that is in danger of being lost to the ages.

Brown lets us follow the real murderer, Silas, a member of Opus Dei, who is taking orders from a mysterious Teacher on behalf of his mentor, Bishop Manuel Aringarosa.

However, few people are what they seem and in the best tradition of thrillers, Brown manages to hide people's true natures even while seemingly revealing damning or laudable actions. It's part of what makes this novel so successful — the constantly shifting suspicions and the attempt to untangle motives.

Brown also compresses time so that the flight and adventures take place without the characters ever getting a chance to sleep. Lives change forever in the space of 24 hours, despite the events leading up to it having taken two thousand years.

One of the more fascinating academic discussions in the book had to do with the sacred feminine. Brown explored many of the pagan and religious symbols that honored women. It's a rich, fascinating topic, one that Laurie King treated quite well in her books A Monstrous Regiment of Women and A Letter of Mary. Indeed the latter book, which was published in 1997, also dealt with the mystery of Mary of Magdala and her suppressed role amongst the early church.

Brown's approach is more pagan, looking at the sacred feminine outside of the Judeo-Christian traditions and how the pagan influenced Christianity. It is fascinating, though I've never quite understood why people saw it to be heretical or even that controversial.

One of the statements that Brown's characters throw out as fact that made little sense to me had to do with the divinity of Christ. The character claims that the church has tried to suppress the real story of Mary Magdelene because if Christ were married, then the Church couldn't claim He was divine. I cannot see how a marriage would in any way negate the divinity of Christ. Especially because Brown is addressing only half of the equation. Christ is fully God, but He is also fully Man. That's the ultimate foundation of Christianity, that Christ is both God and Man. So a marriage does not in any way compromise that.

Could Brown's supposition that Christ was married to Mary Magdelene be correct? I don't really believe it matters one way or another, but I do find it an interesting speculation for a fictional novel. There is certainly no proof that it could not have been so, though I have my doubts.

Frankly, I blame Plato, Aristotle, and the Hellenization of Christianity as the villains who caused the suppression of gospels that highlighted the roles women played in the early church. It's pretty obvious from Acts, the Gospels that were included, and the letters of Paul that Christ and the early church were far more egalitarian than what became the official church by the time of Constantine after the Greek influence had taken hold. Even Paul's letters were translated in ways that made him out to be far more sexist that he ever was. On that subject, I've always adored the work of John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women.

So while I still don't understand why The Da Vinci Code was controversial or why anyone believed it was anything but speculative literature following a long, fine tradition, I did enjoy the book for some of the ideas it provoked. I'm even grateful that it launched additional media to offer investigations into some of the historical, religious, and cultural elements addressed in the novel. Any time people are inspired to learn more, it's a good thing.

-- B. Redman