The Da Vinci Code
Obviously I'm late to the party, but I was so excited to read The Da Vinci Code because I vaguely remember there being a lot of controversy surrounding the book during its initial release. Frankly, is there any better marketing strategy than having conservative Christians protest your work? The actual book did not disappoint—the Christian response, however, did.
Make no mistakes, this book is exactly what it claims to be. It's a fast-paced plot-driven mystery/thriller/historical novel that blends facts and fiction into a tightly wound rope where you can no longer tell which thread is which. Instead, you have one rope with two parts, both creating a new whole—that may or may not be sturdy.
On the surface, the book is a blast. Who doesn't want to follow a high-level conspiracy across the UK? Robert Langdon—the flattest character ever written?—receives random piece after random piece of historical trivia and/or word puzzles and turns them into a series of clues leading to the unveiling of an unbelievable mystery. Alongside his significantly younger (not that the age difference does anything to quell the obvious sexual tension) counterpart, Sophie, the two discover a scandal that goes all the way up to the highest levels of the Catholic church.
And while the book was written nearly 20 years ago (you've probably seen the movie), I'm going to leave this review spoiler-free. Because there is a lot of fun in going into a novel knowing there is something edgy coming your way. And it gets even funnier when you realize that yes, Christians have every right to find this novel offensive...if they forget that it's a novel.
This is where Dan Brown has done something really interesting, something that I think makes this book a great example of historical fiction and a great example of guerilla marketing. In promoting the book, he said this:
"99 percent of it is true. All of the architecture, the art, the secret rituals, the history, all of that is true, the Gnostic gospels. All of that is … all that is fiction, of course, is that there's a Harvard symbologist named Robert Langdon, and all of his action is fictionalized. But the background is all true."
Either, he forgot that this book is a novel (therefore 99% accuracy is a completely random and unverifiable number), or he was stirring the pot. I like to think the latter because that's more fun.
Now, there is a lot of historical accuracies. In this spirit, there's a lot to learn from this book. You could easily teach an art history class from its pages. But 1% (at least) is made up. He admits this, yet he leaves it to his audience to decide what facts are in the 1%. It's brilliant marketing because it leads millions of readers to mine the text for confirmation or denial of claims about their core beliefs.
Of course, at the end of the day, it's fiction and it should be read as such. And as a novel, it's fine.
Favorite Quote
History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books-books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, 'What is history, but a fable agreed upon?