The Da Vinci Code
May. 25th, 2004 02:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tarigwaemirAd Mundo Exteriore,
Just finished The Da Vinci Code, and my most immediate reaction is to cry out indignantly, "Does this author think Harvard students are that stupid?!" I've learned about the Golden Mean and Fibonacci numbers in first grade--I'd have recognized the number phi and its importance in art as soon as I saw it! I rolled my eyes throughout the whole explanation. Oh, the chapters through which I sat mentally yelling at the characters to realize the answer to riddle after riddle...oy vey. Alexander Pope, apple, the real identity of the teacher...heck, I even suspected more than three-quarters of the plot twists.
I mean, it was an interesting book, but I kept getting the impression that the author was trying to impress the reader with his intelligence and research and failed miserably. I suppose it also has to do with the fact that I have no patience with goddess cults, which claim to "Uncover the Truth" but only manage to achieve a romanticized revisionist version of history that is just as half-blind as the other. Oh, how wonderful those first pagan religions were, celebrating the Goddess Nature, before they got overtaken by patriarchal Christianity! Never mind the human sacrifices and corrupt temple practices. Don't make me laugh. It's no better than the pastoral, Arcadian dreams of the Romantic poets--it makes for great poetry, but bad history.
I'm also annoyed by this renewed fascination with Mary Magdalene and the popular attempt to recast her as the "outcast" oppressed by the patriarchal Peter. Not at all an original idea--I've been familiar with the concept long before Dan Brown or any of the latest Magdalene fanaticists have worked it into their publications. What is it with people and associating the Catholic Church with patriarchy? Okay, fine, I'll take that last statement back...clearly the Catholic Church is patriarchal. But so was every single Western society, Christian or not. Romans and Greeks were both notoriously chauvinistic--they may have allowed women certain liberties that, say, the Middle Ages did not, but that does not make them any more enlightened. Oh, you can talk about the Isis cult all you want, but traditional Romans felt that the woman's place was in the home and out of the public sphere--thus the demonization of Cleopatra. They didn't want to see women as sexual beings either (the ideal being the chaste Lucrezia), and if anything, the patriarchal nature of Christianity and Western society is the very fault of the pagans that modern feminists so admire. >_< The Greeks that were praised so highly in Dan Brown's little account of the Sangreal myth denied women the vote, for goodness' sake. The Celtic tribes in Britain, I think, would probably come the closest to this modern conception of "enlightened pagans" but it's never so simple as that. We're so quick to associate Christianity with corruption and hypocrisy, but name any political power that isn't corrupt or hypocritical. I agree that the Church should stay out of politics for this very reason, but the sins of the Church arise from its politicization not from the nature of its teachings. I hate the fact that atheists say, "I don't believe in God because of the horrible things that have been done in the name of religion." Well, fine, you don't have to believe in God, but that's a terrible justification for it. "I refuse to believe in laws because of the terrible things that have been done in the name of justice" runs along the same lines--oh wait, pardon me, people do say that too, don't they? ::rolls eyes::
Anyway, I should still think that out of all the major Christian denominations, the Catholic Church is the most femininely-oriented. Leaving Mary Magdalene aside, the Marian cult has been an aspect of Catholic religious life that has been encouraged by the Church throughout the ages. Of course, a lot of the Marian rituals originate from pagan rituals (Dan Brown seems to think this is shocking, but it's something we were taught in Sunday school, for heaven's sake--and besides, what better way to convert people than to incorporate what is familiar to them within a new ideology?), but nevertheless, the figure of Mary has become deeply embedded in the Catholic iconography. More so than any other denomination, to my knowledge. Because of the central place offered to her, the Church cannot issue any dogma that condemns women--despite what popular writers may think. Actually, the obsession with Mary that pervades the Church has always been something that I myself have never quite felt in sync with, so I find it rather ridiculous that people are complaining about how Maria Magdalena has been overlooked. She's a canonized saint for goodness' sake--I know an old grandmother at my church whose baptismal name is Magalena. (Not to mention that all the stories involving Mary Magdalene are deeply important in a structural sense to the Gospel, and to have her suddenly turn into some sort of Jewish royalty would completely undermine the whole message of Jesus associating with those who were considered sinners and social outcasts, as opposed to the Pharisee aristocracy.)
I also resent the whole message about how the Catholic Church turned ritual into obstacles between a personal communion with God. Um, thank you very much, but a personal communion with God is neither easy nor something that you're necessarily ready for. I mean, think about it, Jesus called the disciples to drop everything they had, leave their families, and follow him--that's the demand that follows this "communion", and it's not easy. A moment of spiritual ecstasy is all very well but then you forget about it and move on in your life. Ritual establishes a habit, a framework that reminds you of those fleeting moments in the overwhelming noise and chaos of our lives. Not to mention that the Catholic religious life is not so simple or straightforward as you think--the Church represents unity in diversity, and it embraces a wide variety of ways of worship. And trust me, not everyone always agrees with one another. I, for example, don't quite understand the Marian fanaticism of some believers (those who pray the rosary fifteen times a day and participate in the Legio Mariae; my own parents being among them). The charismatic movement, which focuses around the Holy Spirit and involves retreats with speaking in tongues and prophesying, is popular in Korean churches, but I'm sure that a lot of American Catholics will look at it askance and wonder if that's entirely orthodox. Jesuits with their Zen-like meditation techniques, Trappists with their emphasis on solitude, Benedictines with their asceticism, Franciscans with their vows of complete poverty...in the end, you do find your own path to God, and it's not the same as everyone else's. I've heard priests give sermons supporting female ordination, for goodness' sake. The Church, like all human institutions, can be bigoted and biased, can be corrupt and superficial, but its underlying message and dream is this: a universal and united faith that has room for all followers, no matter what their background. Thus, Paul converted the Gentiles; thus, the centuries of missionaries to other countries. Thus, the very choice of the word "catholic".
Please see G.K. Chesterton for a better and much more persuasive defense of Catholicism.
Anyway, returning to The Da Vinci Code, many of the ideas that came up in it were such old news. Besides, even my priest told me, in fifth grade, that Jesus could have been married, quite possibly to Mary Magdalene, and had children. All right, so he happened to be a bit of a liberal sort of priest, but he's certainly terribly devout and probably has a background in theology longer than my arm. And when Sophie sounded confused about the word "Sangreal", I just had to wonder where she'd been for the past two decades. The whole mythological background constructed in this novel has appeared countless times in countless forms of numerous fantasy books retelling the Arthurian myths. The only fun twist were the codes and the modern setting added to this particular version, and then it got exasperating because I kept having to wonder just how stupid the protagonists were supposed to be. >_<
It was a great book, don't get me wrong. It happened to call on a lot of clichés that happen to be my pet peeves, and the author dumbed it down too much, but the plot was exciting and I did enjoy the sheer academic nature of the novel. Plus, the author clearly admires Da Vinci, which redeems him for his other failings as a storyteller. ^_^
...Tari
Just finished The Da Vinci Code, and my most immediate reaction is to cry out indignantly, "Does this author think Harvard students are that stupid?!" I've learned about the Golden Mean and Fibonacci numbers in first grade--I'd have recognized the number phi and its importance in art as soon as I saw it! I rolled my eyes throughout the whole explanation. Oh, the chapters through which I sat mentally yelling at the characters to realize the answer to riddle after riddle...oy vey. Alexander Pope, apple, the real identity of the teacher...heck, I even suspected more than three-quarters of the plot twists.
I mean, it was an interesting book, but I kept getting the impression that the author was trying to impress the reader with his intelligence and research and failed miserably. I suppose it also has to do with the fact that I have no patience with goddess cults, which claim to "Uncover the Truth" but only manage to achieve a romanticized revisionist version of history that is just as half-blind as the other. Oh, how wonderful those first pagan religions were, celebrating the Goddess Nature, before they got overtaken by patriarchal Christianity! Never mind the human sacrifices and corrupt temple practices. Don't make me laugh. It's no better than the pastoral, Arcadian dreams of the Romantic poets--it makes for great poetry, but bad history.
I'm also annoyed by this renewed fascination with Mary Magdalene and the popular attempt to recast her as the "outcast" oppressed by the patriarchal Peter. Not at all an original idea--I've been familiar with the concept long before Dan Brown or any of the latest Magdalene fanaticists have worked it into their publications. What is it with people and associating the Catholic Church with patriarchy? Okay, fine, I'll take that last statement back...clearly the Catholic Church is patriarchal. But so was every single Western society, Christian or not. Romans and Greeks were both notoriously chauvinistic--they may have allowed women certain liberties that, say, the Middle Ages did not, but that does not make them any more enlightened. Oh, you can talk about the Isis cult all you want, but traditional Romans felt that the woman's place was in the home and out of the public sphere--thus the demonization of Cleopatra. They didn't want to see women as sexual beings either (the ideal being the chaste Lucrezia), and if anything, the patriarchal nature of Christianity and Western society is the very fault of the pagans that modern feminists so admire. >_< The Greeks that were praised so highly in Dan Brown's little account of the Sangreal myth denied women the vote, for goodness' sake. The Celtic tribes in Britain, I think, would probably come the closest to this modern conception of "enlightened pagans" but it's never so simple as that. We're so quick to associate Christianity with corruption and hypocrisy, but name any political power that isn't corrupt or hypocritical. I agree that the Church should stay out of politics for this very reason, but the sins of the Church arise from its politicization not from the nature of its teachings. I hate the fact that atheists say, "I don't believe in God because of the horrible things that have been done in the name of religion." Well, fine, you don't have to believe in God, but that's a terrible justification for it. "I refuse to believe in laws because of the terrible things that have been done in the name of justice" runs along the same lines--oh wait, pardon me, people do say that too, don't they? ::rolls eyes::
Anyway, I should still think that out of all the major Christian denominations, the Catholic Church is the most femininely-oriented. Leaving Mary Magdalene aside, the Marian cult has been an aspect of Catholic religious life that has been encouraged by the Church throughout the ages. Of course, a lot of the Marian rituals originate from pagan rituals (Dan Brown seems to think this is shocking, but it's something we were taught in Sunday school, for heaven's sake--and besides, what better way to convert people than to incorporate what is familiar to them within a new ideology?), but nevertheless, the figure of Mary has become deeply embedded in the Catholic iconography. More so than any other denomination, to my knowledge. Because of the central place offered to her, the Church cannot issue any dogma that condemns women--despite what popular writers may think. Actually, the obsession with Mary that pervades the Church has always been something that I myself have never quite felt in sync with, so I find it rather ridiculous that people are complaining about how Maria Magdalena has been overlooked. She's a canonized saint for goodness' sake--I know an old grandmother at my church whose baptismal name is Magalena. (Not to mention that all the stories involving Mary Magdalene are deeply important in a structural sense to the Gospel, and to have her suddenly turn into some sort of Jewish royalty would completely undermine the whole message of Jesus associating with those who were considered sinners and social outcasts, as opposed to the Pharisee aristocracy.)
I also resent the whole message about how the Catholic Church turned ritual into obstacles between a personal communion with God. Um, thank you very much, but a personal communion with God is neither easy nor something that you're necessarily ready for. I mean, think about it, Jesus called the disciples to drop everything they had, leave their families, and follow him--that's the demand that follows this "communion", and it's not easy. A moment of spiritual ecstasy is all very well but then you forget about it and move on in your life. Ritual establishes a habit, a framework that reminds you of those fleeting moments in the overwhelming noise and chaos of our lives. Not to mention that the Catholic religious life is not so simple or straightforward as you think--the Church represents unity in diversity, and it embraces a wide variety of ways of worship. And trust me, not everyone always agrees with one another. I, for example, don't quite understand the Marian fanaticism of some believers (those who pray the rosary fifteen times a day and participate in the Legio Mariae; my own parents being among them). The charismatic movement, which focuses around the Holy Spirit and involves retreats with speaking in tongues and prophesying, is popular in Korean churches, but I'm sure that a lot of American Catholics will look at it askance and wonder if that's entirely orthodox. Jesuits with their Zen-like meditation techniques, Trappists with their emphasis on solitude, Benedictines with their asceticism, Franciscans with their vows of complete poverty...in the end, you do find your own path to God, and it's not the same as everyone else's. I've heard priests give sermons supporting female ordination, for goodness' sake. The Church, like all human institutions, can be bigoted and biased, can be corrupt and superficial, but its underlying message and dream is this: a universal and united faith that has room for all followers, no matter what their background. Thus, Paul converted the Gentiles; thus, the centuries of missionaries to other countries. Thus, the very choice of the word "catholic".
Please see G.K. Chesterton for a better and much more persuasive defense of Catholicism.
Anyway, returning to The Da Vinci Code, many of the ideas that came up in it were such old news. Besides, even my priest told me, in fifth grade, that Jesus could have been married, quite possibly to Mary Magdalene, and had children. All right, so he happened to be a bit of a liberal sort of priest, but he's certainly terribly devout and probably has a background in theology longer than my arm. And when Sophie sounded confused about the word "Sangreal", I just had to wonder where she'd been for the past two decades. The whole mythological background constructed in this novel has appeared countless times in countless forms of numerous fantasy books retelling the Arthurian myths. The only fun twist were the codes and the modern setting added to this particular version, and then it got exasperating because I kept having to wonder just how stupid the protagonists were supposed to be. >_<
It was a great book, don't get me wrong. It happened to call on a lot of clichés that happen to be my pet peeves, and the author dumbed it down too much, but the plot was exciting and I did enjoy the sheer academic nature of the novel. Plus, the author clearly admires Da Vinci, which redeems him for his other failings as a storyteller. ^_^
...Tari
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-25 01:58 pm (UTC)I finished reading that book about a week ago and felt like clawing out my eyes at the end. While I do agree with a majority of your "Dan Brown dumbened the book down" points, well... you're Hana. Which means you're 13419857612894376 times smarter than the average human being [I know I needed the scant history debriefing on the Holy Grail, seeing as my historical knowledge is absolutely atrocious]. So there.
On the other hand, the fact that the ending was so... so... I can't even find the words to describe it... does make me wonder how it boomed into popularity. Especially the whole brother-sister lovey-dovey whatchamacalit at the end. -_-;;
[On a side note, your book taste, as hinted at in your other entries, seems fantastic. So what am I doing this summer? Attempting to read the books Hana's read? Why, yes! Heaven help me with that mission... your reading list is as long as it is GOOD. @_@]
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-26 10:03 am (UTC)I completely agree with you on the ending; I felt vaguely cheated. "That's it? What?" And the even more maudlin little "encounter with the Goddess" moment at the end...Ick.
And well, I should just tell you that my knowledge of the Holy Grail all comes from reading fantasy books, I'm afraid, not my superior grasp on history. Hehehe...well, that's what large overdoses of Marion Zimmer Bradley and Mary Stewart do to you--although I really do adore Mary Stewart (have you read The Crystal Cave?) and her research is pretty nigh impeccable I think.
...Tari
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-26 10:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-26 10:50 am (UTC)...Tari