• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skeptics and "The DaVinci Code"

ruach1

Muse
ruach1
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
561
I saw an ad for the upcoming DaCode film, and it got me to thinking...

I read the first fifty pages of "The Davinci Code." By the fiftieth page or so, I was actually laughing aloud to myself. Now this was not maniacal or mocking laughter. Rather, it was genuine laughter at some of the content which was so outrageous as to actually be laughable.

Cutting to the point, would/could/should a skeptic use his/her skeptical powers to debunk a fictional hocum which, to many (not all) people, "degrades" the overall image of Jesus Christ and/or the ecclesiastical tradition?

Well, what do you think?
 
Depends.

If it is claimed to be fictional, there is no need to counter anything.

If not.....Dan Brown's ass is grass....
 
Use our skeptical powers? With great power must come great responsibility.

I don't feel the need to "debunk" the Da Vinci Code any more than I think it's necessary to debunk Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, or any other work of fiction.

Now, it's true that there are a fair number of people who think it's not just fiction (I met one on a plane once), but it seems like a pretty harmless misconception to me. Let the Church handle this one, which will give them the interesting experience of advocating evidence and logic.
 
Good question

As a skeptic, I'm not sure how I feel about The DaVinci Code. From what I understand, the book (which in the spirit of full disclosure I must admit I haven't read) purports to be fiction, but with factual elements interwoven into the plot. The "factual" elements are in fact probably totally bogus (Jesus got married, moved to France, had kids who started a dynasty that survives today, some convoluted conspiracy involving the Knights Templar, the Illuminati, all the usual suspects). So in other words, the book is fiction, with elements of other fiction presented as fact.

It's these latter elements that cause me a bit of queaziness. On the one hand, it's wrong to lie, and fiction presented as fact can be considered fraud, depending how it's done. On the other hand, fiction presented as fact has a very long tradition in popular writing -- remember, both Tom Jones and Robinson Crusoe were both originally published as "True Histories." Personally, I'm willing to cut Dan Brown some slack -- his "factual" elements are so silly, he could make a case that he never expected anyone to really believe them anyway.
 
I'd "debunk" it by stating that it was poorly written and covered just about every cliche imaginable in this kind of thriller novels. Didn't anyone notice that the guy would hook up with the girl during the first four pages after they met? Or that the rich man in the mansion was the mastermind behind it all? Pretty laughable indeed.

As for the actual "factual" content, well... I've seen a lot of people saying it's ok because it's all fiction anyway, but the (first) edition I have of the book begins with a disclaimer stating that everything related to art, documents, scret societies, buildings et al were entirely factual.

For one part that's ok since we know the Louvre, the Rosslyn chapel and the Mona Lisa does exist. But when he starts talking about the documents that proove the existance of the Priory of Sion (which, according to the disclaimer, should be factual) it all crumbles down because these documents were revealed to be a hoax by their authors, so the notion that there is a group taking care of the descendants of Mary and Jesusy turns into a load of nonsense. The other things (Jesus being married to Mary et al) seems more like a work of speculation than anything else. At point the book says they're married because they refered to Mary as Jesusy's "companion" and that in arameic (sp?) that word was pretty much a synonym with "wife"; however, they do not tell you that the gospel they are refering to was written in Greek, not arameic.

Then there's the other things... the one that caught my attention was the "golden ratio" number, 1.618. Doing a little research about it I found a book called "Missconceptions about the Golden Ratio" by George Markowsky, Ph.D in mathematics from Harvard University, which is pretty informative about it. And, I can't post links yet, but do a search for "fibonacci flim-flam" to find the page of Donald E. Simanek, a Ph.D in physics who debunks the esoteric connotations given to the golden ratio and the Fibonacci sequence. Also a great read.
 
ruach1 said:
Cutting to the point, would/could/should a skeptic use his/her skeptical powers to debunk a fictional hocum which, to many (not all) people, "degrades" the overall image of Jesus Christ and/or the ecclesiastical tradition?
Click to expand...
I started doing a SkepticWiki piece on this whole farrago of nonsense a couple of weeks back. Then my computer crashed and swallowed all my work ... I blame the Knights Templar.
 
Actually, there are many documentaries debunking the alleged facts in the book. In the UK, Tony Robinson (aka Baldrick, and of Time Team fame) hosted a very good one that ran on Channel 4.
 
I really fail to see any reasons for all the fuss around the book.

I managed to forecast the book´s outcome at a point very close to its start. Heck, one just has to watch some History Channel documentaries on the Graal to do so.

Back to the OP, as Dunstan wrote, why should anyone bother to debunk this fictional work?

Because it can be read as portaiting Jesus as a man, instead of the son of God?
I see no need for it. Regarddless of the book, Christians are supposed to, based on their faith, belive he was the son of God. Regardless of the book, those who think he was just a man will continue to do so, and those who think Jesus is a mythological characther will continue to do so.

Because there are holes in the hypothesis used to create the plot?
I see no need for it. It is a work of fiction! One should, instead, discuss these hypothesis detached of the book's context.

Because there are plot holes?
I see no need for it. Its a work of fiction! Unless you want to enter in to a discussion like those about Star Trek continuity or technology- but its just for the fun.

Because some organizations are described under a negative point of view?
I see no need for it, since the the book´s bad guys are not acting under the orders of the Catholic Church or Opus Dei.
 
CFLarsen said:
Depends.

If it is claimed to be fictional, there is no need to counter anything.

If not.....Dan Brown's ass is grass....
Click to expand...

The novel is fiction, but of course, there's a catch. If you check out the book, there's a page before the novel starts claiming that various aspects are true.

The "fact" page claims that the Priory of Sion, founded in 1099, is real. I'm pretty sure that this has been debunked as a modern hoax quite a few times. ETA: Not to mention, Brown's glorifying a seriously anti-semitic organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard

Furthermore, it claims that all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate. Okay, so many of the paintings, buildings, etc, exist. Dan Brown still manages to twist things. For example, early on in the book, Brown claims that the Pyramid at the Louvre has "666" glass panels, and ascribes some occult meaning to it. Again, this has been debunked a few times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre_Pyramid#.22666_panes.22:_not_a_myth

The story is pretty laughable. The reason I finally read it is because various friends and relatives thought it was wonderful *because* it exposed a historical conspiracy and "expanded their mind." So of course, I needed to read the book to figure out what they were talking about. When I read it and told them the book was definitely fiction, they pointed out the "fact" page, and explained how plot elements must be real. Well, I suppose someone figured the book would sell better if they could convince the readers that there was some truth to the story. Hooray for sketchy attempts at marketing, I guess. :P

Of course, if the reader takes Dan Brown at his word, he or she is ultimately led to conclude that Christ was not divine--but not in a particularly credible way. He or she would have to buy into all sorts of occultish nonsense in the process. You don't need the Da Vinci code to doubt the New Testament accounts of Christ.
 
Last edited:
I'd say The Da Vinci Code is fair game. One doesn't have to be a Christian to know that Brown has been taking liberties with facts. The title itself is suspect, as art historians do not refer to this artist as "da Vinci" Leonardo, an illegitimate child, had no known surname. Leonardo was from (da) Vinci.
I don't think the average person is likely to know that Opus Dei has no monks. Like the author of that drug addiction book whose name escapes me at the moment, Brown presented his fiction as fact apparently for marketing purposes. Whether our skepticism helps or hinders Christianity need not concern us.

For your amusement, in case you haven't yet seen this, I found an English language version of a page allowing one to create his own "Dan Brown Novel. Randi recently linked to a Spanish language version in one of his commentaries.

http://tobyinkster.co.uk/Software/dan_brown/
 
Did anybody else find themselves wanting to read the rich British guy's name as "Teabag"? I have the feeling Brown was trying to portray someone specific (like the French Bigfoot hunter in Harry and the Hendersons), and "Teabing" was a close-enough name.

Still it was distracting.
 
Do you remember the film "Flatliners"? Dark but fun flick about near-death experiences? When that came out, I well remember the seething in the sceptical community. To us it felt like a film glorifying woo (though of course we didn't use the term), and that seemed to want debunking. I remember talking to my boyfriend at the time, trying very hard to convince him that fiction can say what it likes. "How about that Hamlet nonsense? The University of Wittenberg, indeed ... " He was unconvinced. It just felt wrong.

The judge in the Da Vinci Code copyright case wrote that just because an author of fiction writes "Fact" at the top of a page, he's not bound to be factual. Nice sense of humour, that judge.

Sharan Newman's book on the "real history" behind DVC is not entirely accurate, but it has a nice way of handling the departures from fact: these are the parts of the book that are fiction.
 
Nettles said:
The judge in the Da Vinci Code copyright case wrote that just because an author of fiction writes "Fact" at the top of a page, he's not bound to be factual. Nice sense of humour, that judge.
Click to expand...

After all, Fargo was "based on a true story". :D
 
Polaris said:
After all, Fargo was "based on a true story". :D
Click to expand...

And "The Princess Bride" is REALLY by S. Morgenstern...and there's this book by a mad Arab guy named Alhazred that they keep in the basement of Miskatonic U...and "Name of the Rose" really was based on a manuscript by Adso of Melk...

Nah, for my money, if you're writing fiction, you can fiction it up fiction-style as much as you want with the fictional manuscript references and whatnot, and claim as much as you want that they're fact. It's fiction--one has the freedom to...err...fict.

But having done so, when somebody then starts asking about it, it behooves the author to say "No, that was fiction. I made it up," or "Well, it was based on an account of a historical happening, but I totally took liberties right and left with the thing."
 
UrsulaV said:
And "The Princess Bride" is REALLY by S. Morgenstern...
Click to expand...

I know someone who is still looking for Stephen King's translation of the sequel, Buttercup's Baby.

And on Brown and claiming to be factual--no, he's not exactly forthcoming about what is fact and what is fiction. Maybe he actually believes this stuff. Someone who knows more about Brown might want to elaborate, but I surely can't say one way or the other.

Anyway, a Google search produced a few interviews:

http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm?author_number=226

How would you describe The Da Vinci Code to someone who has not read any of your previous novels?

The Da Vinci Code is the story of renowned Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, who is summoned to the Louvre Museum to examine a series of cryptic symbols relating to Da Vinci's artwork. In decrypting the code, he uncovers the key to one of the greatest mysteries of all time…and he becomes a hunted man. One of the many qualities that makes The Da Vinci Code unique is the factual nature of the story. All the history, artwork, ancient documents, and secret rituals in the novel are accurate…as are the hidden codes revealed in some of Da Vinci's most famous paintings.
Click to expand...

And: http://www.booksattransworld.co.uk/danbrown/interview.htm

Dan
Well, this is going to be tricky, but the most important fact is that the holy Grail is not what people think it is. That is part of the theme of the book. The holy Grail is not a cup; it is something far more powerful. And at the beginning of the book this professor is so summoned to the Louvre to look at some symbols that are found around the murdered curator. These symbols lead to the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci, which in turn lead to a great historical secret. And, of course, in the process, this professor becomes a hunted man.

Matt
How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred? I know you did a lot of research for the book.

Dan
Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are--Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.
Click to expand...

You can find more like this if you want to take the time. In the end, I know it's fiction, you know it's fiction, but I'm surprised by the number of people who don't believe it's fiction. I'm fairly sure this is because a.) there's a "fact" page included as a preface to the book and b.) because Brown confirms various aspects to be true every time he's on tv.

Anyway, all gripes with the book aside, I hope Ian McKellen wins his long-deserved Oscar as a result of the Da Vinci Code movie. ;)
 
Merde!

I don't believe that Dan Brown convincingly proved that he had not "borrowed" the idea for the Da Vinci Code from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." The premise of both books is that the French royal family descends from Christ and Mary Magdelene, if I'm not mistaken. And why are we surprised? Don't all Frenchmen think they're God?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom