THE DA VINCI CODE

Our friends Erin and Jay lent us Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code several months ago after they finished reading it. Susan read it immediately (and really enjoyed it), then gave it to me. Of course, I have zero leisure reading time during the school year, so it has sat on my desk for quite some time. Even the past two months as I've been tending to my summertime reading list, it has waited patiently for its turn.

Yesterday (well, Saturday of this past weekend--I'm typing this late enough on Sunday that, by now, it's probably actually Monday) Erin told me that her brother has been waiting to read the book, too, so I put it on the fast track to getting read! I spent the entire day today reading it and only just moments ago finished (with breaks throughout the day for meals, playtime with the kids, and the Sunday crossword with my wife, of course).

I really enjoyed it; more of my reactions are here. Perhaps more interesting, though, are the reactions of others to the book. The book came out in 2003, so there has been plenty of time for the Internet to fill with electronic records of various people's (and organizations') outrage at Dan Brown and/or his characters and/or the notions presented in the novel. "Novel" means a work of fiction, but some people apparently believe that Brown is offering the world of his novel as the truth about the world of us ourselves, his readers.

On one Web site, Amy Welborn consistently attributes the statements of the characters in the book to the author himself: "Brown says that . . . ," "Brown indicates . . . ," and "Brown's argument rests on the assumption that . . ." She makes a point of noting that Brown "holds no advanced degrees in religion." She criticizes the book as being "historically flawed." But it isn't history; it is fiction. Perhaps she is fearful that some readers will not understand that distinction themselves, and she hopes to dissuade them from reading the book as historical fact instead of as fiction. That might explain her authorship of the book De-coding Da Vinci: The Truth Behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code.

But that wouldn't explain Welborn's own mistaking the words of the characters for those of the author ("Brown's argument . . ."). It may be that Brown believes what his characters do, but that cannot safely be concluded simply because he is the author who created those characters. Some of his characters are murderers, but we cannot assume from that that Brown himself is a murderer or one who condones murder.

A more reasoned reaction comes from Ramon Jusino, whose review of Brown's novel acknowledges that it is a work of fiction (that Jusino enjoyed reading) and that the "decidedly anti-Catholic slant" of the characters/plot does "not mean that Dan Brown bashed Catholics," but does mean that "many people unfamiliar with authentic Catholicism may get a very negative impression of the Church since they might assume that all of the historical references are accurate and meticulously verified." I am not so naive as to dismiss this possibility; I know the varying levels of sophistication amongst readers. If I were Catholic, I, too, might feel a vested interest in getting my version of reality "out there" to combat the version offered by the characters in Brown's book (note: not by Brown himself).

A Google search will lead you to a multitude of other reactions to the novel, from news organizations, from religious groups, from art historians, from educators, and from "lay people" who have read the novel and been moved to say something about it (whose ranks I have just joined, I suppose). As interesting as reading the book has been reading the public conversation about it (via the Internet). Thanks to Brown, Welborn, Jusino, Moberg, and others, people are reacting and interacting, and a novel moved them to do it. I love the power of literature, even today, to capture people's attention and spur them to action.