Dan Brown didn’t search for the Holy Grail. He wrote it. The da Vinci Code has sold around 20 million copies, been translated into 44 languages, and has made Mr Brown a millionaire several times over as well as turning him into a cultural icon. Its hypothesis has enraged clergy, given misogynists nightmares, spawned another dozen books to debunk it and given countless thousands of readers the taste of a newly minted, and made up, truth about Christendom’s Holiest of Holies.
For those who have been living under a rock since the book was published in 2003, the story enmeshes the genres of suspense-thriller with romance to create an ‘unputdownable’ bestseller involving lots of puzzles, mystical symbolism and secret codes. The premise that has courted so much controversy is that the essentially misogynist Catholic Church concealed that it is Mary Magdalene – not the cup used at the Last Supper – that is the Holy Grail, carrying the bloodline and child of Christ.
It doesn’t take a Vatican cardinal to refute the many, often blatant, factual inaccuracies and historical inconsistencies within the book. Indeed, Brown is reminiscent of another hugely successful revisionist writer’/historian’ who fooled many with his brand of alien mythology revealed in the archaeological record, before being largely discredited by the scientific establishment.
Just how far this book has infiltrated popular Western culture is evidenced by numerous bizarre antics attributed to the manuscript. In both France and the UK numerous tour operators have created da Vinci packages. Cultural tourism of the da Vinci variety has impacted on all of the main accessible sites mentioned in the book, from Paris to London to Rome.
In London’s Westminster Abbey, officials have been briefed about putting tourists straight about inaccuracies contained in the book. Earlier in the year Church officials banned filming at the Abbey for the forthcoming da Vinci Code movie on grounds it was “theologically unsound.” And on the Continent, a furore erupted in March this year when the media got wind that a Genoese cardinal, who was believed at the time to be a candidate for the papacy, was about to give a lecture in which it was rumored that he would excommunicate The da Vinci Code. As a result the lecture, which was rather less explosive than hoped, was broadcast across well over 1000 international media.
The consumption of the grand Idea by an audience of millions; the financial rewards; rocking the foundations of religion: it is the kind of success about which most commercial artists can only dream. If there is one thing individual artists could learn from Dan Brown’s success it is the importance of knowing the market and delivering according to its expectations.
The other lesson is that people love a good yarn, regardless of truth. Myths and legends are part of history and embedded in culture, and what is The da Vinci Code if not a modern day legend? The value accorded to myths and legends has altered over time but artists constantly draw on facets of the past to inform new work. Whether or not Brown’s creation can be deemed art, the fact that readers have so easily digested its message – and, from the other perspective, that Christians around the world have felt the need to rebut, refute and vigorously denounce a work of popular fiction – sees it filling a void in the current world climate. That the ideas have been lifted directly from a book more than 20 years old, suggests that the time is right.
For the book to succeed and be subject to litigation, it would appear that many both distrust the Church and the world view that it has nurtured. After a meagre half century of women having attained broadly equal rights as men, people are questioning the role of authority and the part organised religion has played in maintaining the status quo whilst serving its own ends. Dan Brown has tapped into something big with The Da Vinci Code and however poorly written and inaccurate the evidence reveals it to be, his accomplishment is that, at this precise time in history, it speaks to common people in a voice they find familiar, and which they understand. And what is art if not the ability to communicate ideas – even if the vessel is weak and the knowledge is flawed?
Perhaps criticism of Brown would be better directed to where the real problem lies, with readers whose ignorance is sufficient for them to embrace a load of bunkum as if it were gospel. At a time when more than ever is being done to raise global standards in education, people the world over are still prone to believing fiction as fact. Surely that is a puzzle far more worthy of scholastic attention?
And if you want to read more …
