The Author's Blog

Conservative commentator Ross Douthat (author of Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream) sees a sinister theology behind the popular novels of Dan Brown.  In a NY Times op ed piece, Douthat suggests that The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons, and the soon to be released The Lost Symbol are more than wildly popular pulp fiction.  “He’s writing thrillers, but he’s selling a theology,” says Douthat.

The “secret” history of Christendom that unspools in “The Da Vinci Code” is false from start to finish. The lost gospels are real enough, but they neither confirm the portrait of Christ that Brown is peddling — they’re far, far weirder than that — nor provide a persuasive alternative to the New Testament account. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — jealous, demanding, apocalyptic — may not be congenial to contemporary sensibilities, but he’s the only historically-plausible Jesus there is.

To the same effect is Philip Giraldi of The American Conservative:

 What offends me most is that the books were marketed as being meticulously researched to suggest to the potential reader that the tales of skulduggery in the Church are all too plausible.  Anyone who has actually lived in Rome would quickly note that Brown and his alleged art historian wife get the city’s topography, monuments, history, and art all screwed up on numerous occasions.  Why isn’t there some serious examination in the media about the crap that Dan Brown writes? 

Another conservative commentor, Rod Dreher of the popular “Crunchy Con” blog, thinks otherwise:

“I dunno; life is too short to read bad books, so I’ve never bothered to read Brown’s. But no book, however bad, becomes so popular without tapping into something important in popular culture.  Attention must be paid.

High school senior Kathy Rudd in the Springfield State Journal-Register suggests the critics of the novels and the movies, including the Catholic church, should chill out:

Instead of hating a novel or a movie simply because it tests our religious beliefs, we should accept it as what it is: a work of fiction intended to entertain. Before anyone shouts that their religion is being defiled, maybe they should figure out what is being said.  Religious beliefs are meant to be tested. That’s why they call it “faith.”

Here’s my take:  On one level, Douthat and Giraldi are correct – as history, Brown’s novels are good fiction.   But is there no redeeming value in the implication that the normative christologies of christendom mask rather than reveal the man who was, and is, Yeshua of Nazareth?  If Brown’s answers are unsatisfactory, may we still appreciate his questioning?

Originally published on Spirit of a Liberal blog.