The Da Vinci Code @ MindSay

So I used to wear that shirt that says "Mistletoad" for the last day of school before Christmas.  It was very, very cute, but I decided that it was probably a little too small for me this year.  But I still wanted to be festive, so I wore one that Cathy's mom had designed for a December meet a while ago.  It's a red tee-shirt with green and white, and on the back it says "Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is a perfect 10."  It's a gymnastics tee-shirt, so it's talking about a perfect score on an event (though now they're using that strange system that's higher than a 10).  I hadn't even thought about the new double meaning of this shirt until I told Matt to read the back of it after school yesterday.  Then I realized, and I think he did, too, and we had to start laughing about it.

 

You see, we were doing an experiment on attractiveness and how people of similar physical attractiveness usually end up together.  There were about 10 girls and 10 guys, and each person was given a number 1 through 10 (girls and guys), and you had to stick your number on your forehead without looking at it (though Matt cheated).  Then, the object of the experiment was to "mate" with the person of the opposite sex that had the highest number.  Both partners had to agree on the mating, and you did that by shaking hands.  Then, according to Ms. Allen (though she was really just lying), you got the amount of candy corresponding to the number on your mate's forehead.  So naturally, Matt was a 10.  I was only a 7, but not knowing my number and not really caring, I walked across the room to mate with Matt (this sounds pretty awkward), and I was rejected for another girl!!  He told me I was a 7 and that wasn't enough candy for him... how sad, I know!  I mean, I wasn't picking him for his number, just for the fact that he's Matt (=D... don't believe that).  Anyway, I ended up with Mike Mitchell, who was a 6 and approached me. 

 

But anyway, to bring that sad story full circle now, it's our joke that Matt's a 10 (thanks to Carrie's suggestion, I used a Sharpie to write an 11 on my hand that afternoon), which made my shirt pretty amusing.

 

Anyway, we got to do something last night which made me super happy... I got permission from my dad and then I couldn't get in contact with him!  Ashley and I almost drove over to his house to pound down his door, but luckily, he called before then, and we met him at Blockbuster.  We rented The DaVinci Code.  I saw it in theaters (with Kate and Thomas, I think), but it was good last night, too.  I was really happy that I got to see him.... and sad that we probably won't be able to hang out as much in the near future because of my stupid busy schedule over the holidays.

 

It was worth it.

 

It was so hot here yesterday.  It got up to about 35*.  The only really cool place to go to was the movie theatre so my mom, my dad, and me all went to see The Da Vinci Code.  Well, the only really good things about the theatre last night were (1) the fact that the theatre was really cold (yay!) and (2) I bought Clerks for $10.  I thought that The Da Vinci Code kinda sucked.  I wasn't entertained and I was so bored at the end.  Hopefully the book will be better.  They should have ended the movie when they were at Roslin church. 

 

Today is supposed to be just as hot but I have to go to an backyard birthday party today for our 85 year old neighbour.  I would rather go to the mall or something.  I don't have A/C in my house so it gets really really hot in here. 

 

Have a good Sunday everyone.

Lets talk about Mona Lisa and The Da Vinci Code.

 

The Mona Lisa is actually a self-portrait by Leonardo as a woman. The androgyny reflects the sacred union of male and female which is implied in the holy union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Such parity between the cosmic forces of masculine and feminine has long been a deep threat to the established power of the Church. The name Mona Lisa is actually an anagram for "Amon L'Isa", referring to the father and mother gods of Ancient Egypt (namely Amon and Isis).

 

Leonardo was homosexual. Is it right that beauty, beautiful minds beautiful hearts beautiful souls beautiful wonders are the harmony of masculine and feminine???

 

**Is The Da Vinci Code really offensive?  Read the book, read this blog, and then decide for yourself and let me know via the comments.**

Last week, the second highest selling book of all time (behind only the Bible) was released worldwide in movie form, and made $224 million in three days.  I am of course talking about The Da Vinci Code.

Part of what is so great about writing this blog (as opposed to say, a how-to book) is that I can keep the contents of my “book” up-to-date.  I can write about current events in the world of story telling, and as I read countless blogs, listened to countless radio shows, and watched countless television programs last week discussing The Da Vinci Code, I realized that it can’t get more current than that.  So, for today, I’d like to write about the most popular commercial book ever written.  And I'd like to write about it in a way that I have yet to see.

I went to see the film it’s opening night, and there were protestors outside the theater trying to stop me from seeing it.  They were saying things like, “The author wants you to believe this is real, but it isn’t,” and “I trust Jesus Christ.”

These protesters perplexed me.  In response to the first comment: no, Dan Brown does not want you to believe this is real.  That is why if you go to Borders you will find his book in the fiction section, and why on the first page it says, “All characters, events and actions are a work of fiction and are products of the author’s imagination,” just like any other fiction book.  To spur any potential argument, the next page then says, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate,” implying that everything else is not accurate, because it is not real, because it is fiction.  I compare the book to Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which begins with a similar warning of, “This is a work of fiction.  Characters, corporations, institutions, and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination, or, if real, are used fictitiously without ay intent to describe their actual conduct.  However, references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate.  Footnotes are real.”  In response to the second comment from the protestors: I’m glad you trust Jesus Christ, and so does the movie you are protesting.  In it, Tom Hank’s Robert Langdon (the main character) explains that when he was trapped in a well as a child, it was Jesus Christ who saved him.  That seems to be trust to me.

So why were these people protesting?  I recently had a conversation with someone who was against the book and the movie, and I discovered why: they never actually read the book or saw the movie.  I'm serious.  I had a conversation with somebody who was condemning the work and making statements about it, even though the person had never read it and so had no idea if those statements were true.  The people outside the movie theater can't really know what it is they are protesting.  If they did, they wouldn’t be spending their day holding signs and yelling at people.

Because, when you really look at it, what do they have to protest?  What is so offensive about the book?  Right off the bat, let’s point out that the book is fiction.  Dan Brown did not come across this startling information that nobody else knew, and instead of writing a commentary in Time Magazine or USA Today, decided to tell the world by including it in a story with imaginary characters and incidents.  I hope none of these people actually believe that he is claiming the remains of Mary Magdalene are buried in the Louvre, or that the curator of the museum was murdered there.  I’ll say it one more time: Dan Brown is not claiming that the contents of this book are fact.  Robert Langdon is a fictional character.  In fact, he appeared in another of Dan Brown’s fiction works, Angels and Demons.  

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s dig a little deeper.  Are the claims that Dan Brown makes within his fictional world really that offensive?  Do they really diminish the power of Christianity?  I have never had a conversation with Danny about this, so I don’t know his intention, but my answer based on reading the book and seeing the movie is no.  Especially the movie, which tones down some of the more controversial elements, making it extra silly to protest.

First we’ll look at it on the surface.  Dan Brown created a fictional world.  Yes, it mirrors our own, but it is fictional.  While there is a Harvard University, there is no Robert Langdon who teaches symbology there.  While there is an Opus Dei, there is no Bishop Aringarosa overseeing it.  The curator of the Louvre is not Jacques Sauniere.  The person to the right of Jesus in The Last Supper is not Mary Magdalene.  This all takes place within a fictional world that Dan Brown has created.  Therefore, anything he says about Jesus or any other figure in history or religion he is not saying about our Jesus, but about his fictional representation of Jesus.  Compare it to a skit on Saturday Night Live.  When Dana Carvey as the first George Bush considered shooting Will Ferrell as the second George Bush while on a hunting trip during a famous SNL scene, Lorne Michaels and the writers weren't making the claim that such an incident actually took place.  They weren't claiming that the first Bush president is capable of murdering his son.  They simply took real people and planted them into a fictional universe where a fictional event took place.  They used the familiar idea of people to tell their own story.

Nonetheless, even if it a fictional Jesus being blasphemed, people could still be offended, so let’s decide whether the book/movie is really blaspheming.

The Da Vinci Code claims that Jesus Christ was married, and that his disciples knew this and that gospels were written about it, but that a thousand years ago a few corrupt members of the church covered it up.  I don’t think anyone can argue that there were corrupt members of the church a thousand years ago.  The church was the government, and corrupt deals occurred quite often.  If you are offended at that claim, then you must also be offended by The Three Musketeers, Robin Hood, and any other story about corrupt cardinals or bishops.  

So then let's discuss Jesus’s marriage.  The Da Vinci Code is not saying that Jesus lied or withheld information or sinned.  The book is saying that he made it quite known he was married, but humans (fallible, imperfect, potentially corrupt people – you know, the Pat Robertsons and child molesting priests of the world – covered it up).  So don't come back at me with the argument that, "But Jesus never mentions being married in the Bible."  In Dan Brown's world, he is saying of course there is no reference in the Bible, because it was covered up.

So now we get to the real crux of it.  Is the idea of a fictional version of Jesus being married offensive?  It shouldn’t be.  Yes, Jesus is supposed to be God, but he is the human form of God.  He came here as a human being.  He was born, grew up, went to the bathroom, felt pain, and felt emotion (John 11:33 - When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled) just like any other human.  He bled, he cried, he got angry when people used a temple as a marketplace and started attacking them and destroying their belongings (John 2:13-22).

If Jesus didn't feel pain or temptation, if Jesus didn't know what it was like to be human, how could he understand them?  If Jesus couldn't feel pain like a human, would his crucifixion have mattered?  Hebrews 2:18 says, "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."  To me, this means that by experiencing what humans feel firsthand, he was better able to understand them, and he wanted to understand us, so he did everything a human did.  The website ChritianAnswers.net tells us that one of the reasons Jesus came to Earth as a human being was, "To show us an example of how to live."  Therefore, wouldn’t he want to show us how to be a family?  Wouldn’t he want to show us the right way to treat a loved one, raise children, etc.?

Again, I am not stating that Jesus actually was married.  I am simply making the argument that a fictional Jesus being married shouldn’t be offensive.  The Da Vinci Code does not undermine the important messages of Christianity.  It never says Jesus was not the Son of God.  It never claims he wasn’t actually crucified and then resurrected.  It never second-guesses his teachings.  

The movie that these people were protesting does not go against the Christian religion.  It simply says, “This imaginary version of Jesus told us all the same things he told you, and all of those things were true, but he was married in the process.”  Why is that so offensive?  Why is that worth protesting?  Why is that worth judging and condemning other people when your religion teaches you that only God has the authority to do that?

This whole debate poses some interesting considerations for future authors.  Obviously, something that has been known for years is the truth that sex sells.  The other guranteed seller, perhaps even more effect than sex, is controversy.  Dan Brown managed to compile both into one mega-successful seller.  Will this always work, however?  No, because only a very specific type of controversy sells.

Just being controversial for controversy's sake isn't necessarily a golden ticket.  Your message has to hit home with the audience.  It has to really bother some, and really inspire others, so that both sides can fight each other about your work, all the while giving it attention and publicity.  Just making the most violent movie or most rascist album or most offensive book is not necessarily going to draw the type of attention you need for success. 

For instance, if a young aspiring screenwriter were to start a movie off with a conversation about whether God raped Mary, would that brew controversy?  Would it get people talking and make them want to see such a movie?  Or, would it just disgust them and make them want nothing to do with the film?  An artist has to be careful to brew just the right tea of controvery, otherwise it will simply leave a bitter taste in the audience's mouth, and the person will be scratching his head wondering why it worked for Dan Brown but not for him.

This chapter is being posted on Tuesday do to the extended holiday weekend.  On Thursday, I will post an excerpt from my book that makes this entry at least somewhat relevant.  Meanwhile, thanks for reading.  I look forward to the hate mail and death threats from the tolerant, commandment abiding Christians of the world.  

**Warning: The following passage could be deemed blasphemous by many.  If you have heart problems, back problems, are pregnant, or are incapable of rational thought and can’t even understand that when an exact replication of our world gets destroyed in movies like Deep Impact, the real world doesn't get destroyed, then don’t ride.**

As promised, below is a book excerpt related to my post on Tuesday.  It was written prior to the Holy Blood, Holy Grail controversy, so perhaps it needs a little update, but I believe the content still works.

I am only including the parts that are relevant to our recent conversation, so some story will get lost.  Also, passages from a book never really work on their own, and this is no exception.  There is a history between the characters that you don't know, as well as actions that have occured before this scene that you aren't privy to.  The characters turn out to be very different from how they portray themselves in this scene, the intoxication of one of the characters plays a major role in an upcoming plot point, and, most importantly, the dialogue serves as foreshadowing for a big revelation toward the end of the book.

With that out of the way, here is the scene:

    Even though his stomach was full, Andrew Wilson was staring at Mary Engel hungrily as he held the restaurant door open for her.
    “And so you did or didn’t like it?” he asked.
    “Oh no, it was good,” Mary responded.  “I very much enjoyed it.  I just don’t think The Da Vinci Code is the book of the century.  The different elements that Dan Brown makes up are fascinating, but the writing didn’t particularly blow me away.” 
    “What exactly did he make up?” Andrew asked as he slowed down to let Mary walk in front of him.  He watched her ass bounce up and down gingerly.  He licked his lips.
    “He made up everything,” Mary said, craning her neck to see if Andrew was behind her.  “The Knights Templar hiding the existence of their secret society through Leonardo Da Vinci’s artwork.  Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus.  Her presence in the Last Supper painting.  The Holy Grail’s hidden location underneath the Louvre.  The church burning women at the stake to take away the power of femininity.  These were all elements of a story that he invented.”
    Mary tripped over her own feet.  Andrew rushed behind her and placed his hand against her back.              “Whoopsie daisy,” she said, trying to shrug off her embarrassment.
    “So none of that was real?”
    “No.  I mean, maybe.  But no one knows for sure.  Dan Brown thought he was just creating some interesting narrative, but maybe he’s right.  Maybe everything he says is true.  We can never tell for sure.  Maybe God came to him and told him the truth and asked him to write it down in a book.  Maybe God told him it will be the greatest story ever told.”
    “Are you taking a shot at the Bible?”
    Mary opened her mouth to laugh but only a slight gurgle escaped.  She swallowed hard and then said, “No, of course not.  I’m just being facetious.  But what I love are the books that dispute what Dan Brown writes in his story.  Books like Breaking the Da Vinci Code and The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code.  Have you seen these?”
    “I think so.”
    “I love them.”
    “Why?” Andrew asked, missing the sarcasm in Mary’s voice.
    “Because they are disputing fiction.  They are telling the ‘truth’ about lies.  Dan Brown has admitted that the book is made up.  He says he was just telling a story.  And yet these people are publishing books disputing what that story says.  Of course it isn’t true.  He made it up!”
    Andrew quickened his pace and was now walking alongside Mary.  “Lower your voice,” he told her.          “You’re practically shouting.”
    “How did they ever get this crap published?” she yelled, ignoring his comment.  “Can you imagine going to a publisher and saying, ‘I have a book that proves everything in The Da Vinci Code is a lie.’  The publisher would laugh you out of the building.  He’d say, ‘Um…yes…that’s wonderful.  But we already know it’s a lie.  He admits it.  It’s fiction.’”
    “Well I think the point of those books is to explain to the gullible world what is true and what isn’t.  I mean, Dan Brown may admit that it’s fiction, but that doesn’t mean some stupid people aren’t going to believe it.  You know what I’m saying?”  Mary shook her head in agreement.  “You just said the writing is nothing extraordinary.  So then why is the book so popular?  It’s because of what it says about religion.  People believe it and controversy brews.”
    “You make a good point there.”
    “I know I do.”
    Mary’s forehead wrinkled as if deep in concentration.  When the wrinkles smoothed themselves out, she said, “But that’s really ironic, because they are that gullible world you just mentioned.”
    Andrew stared inquisitively at her, asking her to elaborate without opening his mouth.  She obliged.
    “Think about that hymn that goes, ‘Jesus loves me, this I know.  For the Bible tells me so.’  Are you familiar with it?”
    “Of course.”
    “Whoever sings it is confessing that they believe what the Bible says because the Bible tells them to believe it.  How naïve is that?  Christians are worried that people will believe the things The Da Vinci Code says just because The Da Vinci Code says them, but one of their most famous hymns says to believe the things the Bible says just because the Bible says them.”
    “Well, they have other reasons to believe what the Bible says.”
    “Listen, the fact remains that we don’t really know what’s true.  Say I showed up at the Vatican tomorrow claiming to be a pregnant virgin.  How could they dispute my claim?”
    “Well, you have two kids for one thing.”
    “Okay, so bad example.  But you know what I mean.”
    Andrew turned toward his car but Mary kept walking the other way.  He ran over to her and placed his hand on her back.  He led her through the parking lot to his car.  She kept talking, not noticing the shift in her direction.
    She said, “A woman could claim immaculate conception, she could claim she is carrying the baby Jesus, and the Vatican would demand DNA samples and all that, which they should, but they would demand proof.  They would say, ‘Where is the proof?’  But where is their proof?  They have no proof that what they believe is true.  Maybe Dan Brown has written the real Bible, and everything they’ve been praying to is wrong.”
    Andrew moved his hand down from her back to her butt.  He pinched it playfully.  Mary blushed and slapped his hand away.
    “Who do you think you are?”
    “Just someone who finds you irresistible.”
    She blushed deeper.  In truth, Mary had liked the pinch.  She liked Andrew’s boldness, especially since he had seemed so shy earlier.  But more than anything else, she liked the fact that he was showering her with attention and compliments.  She would never admit this, but she had made many attempts to get Todd to start noticing her again.  Her most recent effort involved buying low-cut jeans that hung off her hips.  She also bought a sexy red thong to wear underneath the jeans so the string of the underwear would rise up over the denim, an event that proved embarrassing since she had her two kids with her.  Todd has yet to comment on them.   
    “So I guess you aren’t big on religion?” Andrew asked.
    Mary didn’t answer.
    “Mary?”
    “Huh?  What?”
    “So I guess you don’t like religion then?”
    “I wouldn’t necessarily say that.  I think religion is a wonderful thing.  It brings people together.  It gives them something to believe in.  Something to look forward to.  It can be great.”
    “But.”
    “Well, let’s just say I only go to church to appease my husband.”  
    They finally reached Andrew’s car and he opened the door for Mary.  She crouched down and stepped into the passenger seat.  She didn’t mean it to be, but Andrew saw it as an act of seduction.  She arched her back sexily as she crouched down.  Andrew moaned to himself as her smooth, perfect neck passed by his line of sight, and he took a large whiff and sighed as her scent filled his lungs. 
    “You know,” she said.  “I appreciate you listening to me.  Todd never lets me ramble.”
    “I don’t know why.  I find you fascinating.”  Mary swooned but Andrew didn’t see it.  He was walking to the driver’s side of his car.  He flung open the car door and sat down.  “So, you ready to go?” he asked as he turned his key and brought the car to life.

The scene then gets into some action that is irrelevant to the issue at hand, so I will fast forward to the next part:

    Andrew Wilson stared intently at Mary Engel, who was talking adamantly in the car seat next to him.  Nothing could make him take his eyes off her, except the blaring horn of a car.  His attention turned to the streetlight ahead of him, which was green.  He started moving forward.  He looked back at Mary, who looked at him and blushed.
    “Did you hear me?” she asked.
    “Yes, yes, I heard you.  Keep going.  I’m listening,” Andrew assured her.
    “But are you considering what I am saying?” Mary asked.  “There are more books refuting the freakin’ Da Vinci Code than the Bible.  Think about how crazy that is.  No one is living their lives based on the writings of Dan Brown.  Is it really that threatening?”
    “I’m sure the church feels threatened.  You said it claims the church burned women at the stake.”
    “But who do you think the people disputing the book are?  They are people who live their lives by the Bible.  They are so hypocritical.  How can they have any idea what the Bible says is true?  They are disputing The Da Vinci Code based on what is written in the Bible.  So they are in essence disputing the writings of one book that may be fiction by citing writings from another book that may be fiction.”
    “Well, many people don’t believe the Bible is fiction.”
    “But that’s my whole point.  It’s just what they believe.  There is no proof to confirm that what is written in the Bible is true.  And yet people who believe what the Bible says claim there is no proof to confirm that what is written in The Da Vinci Code is true.”
    “Yeah?”
    “What do you mean, ‘yeah?’  Don’t you see the insanity in that?  What if there is nothing to prove the legitimacy of the Bible because it isn’t legitimate?  What if the stories were simply invented by a bunch of good storytellers?  What if the authors of the Bible were the original Dan Brown?  What if they just created a great story, and then people started believing it to be true?
    “Then what?”
    “It would be the same thing.  It’s just that the authors of the Bible aren’t around to admit the stories were simply fiction.  Dan Brown is.”
    “Okay, but –” 
    “Maybe in 2,000 years people will look at The Da Vinci Code as their Bible, and there will be people like us having a conversation about whether it is real or whether some guy just made it up to tell an entertaining story.”
    “Okay, but the fact is millions of people live their lives by the Bible.  They don’t want some other book coming around telling them everything they believe is wrong.”
    “No, I know.  You’re right.”
    “So what’s your point?”
    “I don’t know.  I guess I don’t have one.  I’m just kind of thinking in my head, wondering how we come to believe what is real and what isn’t.”
    “Is this conversation real?”
    “Maybe.  Or maybe it’s a mirror of something that happened in some parallel dimension.”
    “Huh?  That doesn’t even make any sense.”
    “Yeah, I know.  I don’t know.” 

They go on, but about something that will only have meaning to people who have read what proceeds it.  Since none of you have actually read the book, that means it won't have meaning to you. 

So what are your thoughts on their conversation?  Which of the two characters do you find yourself agreeing with most? 

Per the end of Tuesday's post, is this conversation really controversial?  Will it stir heated debates between people who agree with it and people who are adamently against its message?  Does it exist solely to be controversial, or is it just a silly little stretch of dialogue that isn't good enough to affect emotion?

We don't know Dan Brown's true intention, but I can tell you mine.  I love books with deep foreshadowing.  I love symbalism and meaning.  The only problem with using foreshadowing in mainstream literature (as opposed to the great American novel that will be dissected for years to come in English class) is that the scene that does the foreshadowing can be boring for the reader until he or she reaches the scene it was supposed to foreshadow.  The dialogue in the above passage, and the movements the characters make, are serious foreshadowing for a very important moment, but I didn't want the foreshadowing to be boring for the reader before he or she got to that important moment and realized the bigger meaning.  Hopefully people will find this discussion on The Da Vinci Code and the Bible interesting, and hopefully they will also get the symbalism when it comes.  I tried to make the best of both worlds. 

And hopefully soon you'll be able to read the entire book and tell me whether I succeeded or not.