Alden Swan dot com

In my last post, I discussed what was, in my opinion, the rather poor character development in The Da Vinci Code. I felt like the characters weren’t valued as much as the plot itself.

The Da Vinci Code’s plot really isn’t that bad. It’s got a dead guy who leaves clues, a girl with issues, puzzles to solve, bad guys who aren’t really bad guys (and some who are), and good guys who may or may not be good guys, a conspiracy plot that goes back centuries, and a book-long chase scene. It’s like Jason Bourne meets The Fugitive meets Umberto Eco meets Indiana Jones meets The Man Who Knew Too Much. And, it is nearly as believable as Harry Potter.

Again, it’s not really a bad book – it’s just that it’s so mediocre. Now, if you want some really good creative writing, you should read Dan Brown’s Witness Statement from that British plagiarism suit. He spends a lot of time whining about how no one ever recognized his musical genius, and that his first books were virtually ignored. Again, what surprises me is that this book was a hit.

His witness statement is actually very enlightening, as he goes into detail about how he and his wife did their research for the book (and prior books). One of the things you have to know about The Da Vinci Code is that to really enjoy the book, you have to be able to completely suspend any sense of reality and try to remember that none of the names, places or objects refer to the people, places or things that have ever existed. Except for France and England; I’m pretty sure they really exist.

The real problem with the book is just what I mentioned: nonthing in his plot is tied to anything factual. There are so many errors and misstatements pieced together with flawed logic that I often found the book irritating. The aforementioned witness statement by Dan Brown explains why the book fails: his research was limited to spurious texts and others’ bad research. I don’t think he bothered to look at one piece of sound historical evidence. Now, there are several books, articles and websites whose goal is to list Dan Brown’s errors, so I won’t bother to repeat that work. However, here’s a few obvious flaws, that don’t give away any of the “secrets” of the book:

• No real Leonardo da Vinci scholar would refer to him as “Da Vinci.” It’s not his last name – it merely means, “from Vinci.” That’s like calling me, “from Oregon.”
• Just because some unknown 4th century hack wrote some drivel and called it a “gospel” doesn’t make it equal with the 1st Century writings. Yet these supposedly intelligent, code-breaking people never do any critical analysis of the information, and there’s no mention whatsoever about the meaning of the word gospel.
• Brown’s hangup on the “sacred goddess.” If you can’t buy the sacred goddess premise, then you’ll struggle with the rest of the book. Unfortunately, I didn’t find the sacred goddess thing remotely believable. Of course, if you’ve no concept whatsoever of Jewish culture, you might go, “oh, really?”

This could have been a good story. It does have some interesting sub-plots, and I tended to actually like the ending. Again, I was not shocked and offended by any of the book’s vain imaginations; I was just disappointed at it’s mediocrity. In my opinion, Brown just failed to make the story work.

However the book, and now the movie, will undoubtedly confuse – in many cases, willingly – many people whose goal in life is to become fools (Psalm 14:1). You would probably do well to acquaint yourself with the issues, just to assist those who actually desire to “Seek the Truth.”

I finally decided to read The Da Vinci Code after seeing an interview with Ron Howard about the movie, and seeing a short clip. I had purposely avoided reading the book, mainly due to all of the hype. I am not always against hype (I am always in line at Borders to buy the next new Harry Potter book), but just didn’t want to get into the fray at the time.

In general, I like spooky thrillers, conspiracy theories, and quasi-religious mystical historical fiction. I love James Blaylock, Umberto Eco, and Dean Koontz (and Harry Potter…). So, this book seems to fit right in with the others on my fiction shelf. However, I was shocked; but not in the way you’d think.

I am shocked that this book is such a hit, and that anyone would consider making it into a movie. In my opinion, it’s just plain bad; it fails on every level (except that it made Dan Brown rich). I can assume that its success comes from 2 things: people’s desire to come up with any notion – no matter how flaky – to say “Christianity is a scam;” and very low literary standards.

My first impression of the book – which held true, for the most part, for the rest of the book – is that there is virtually no character development. The book’s protagonist, Robert Langdon, has no personality. He is there, apparently, merely to provide information and as a means to connect the other people in the story. I kept trying to find out what kind of a person he was, but I couldn’t- there’s just nothing there.

As I read the book, I tried to imagine Tom Hanks as the Langdon character, and just couldn’t. Hanks himself has no personality, so Hanks playing Langdon seems the worst possible choice. Of course, I can’t stand Tom Hanks – in my opinion, he hasn’t made a decent movie since Splash, back when he actually had a personality. Langdon, however, could have been played by a younger Harrison Ford (in fact, Brown make that comparison in the book, which is really the extent of his development of the Langon character).

I could also see Langon played by Michael Keaton, or by Bill Murray. Johnny Depp would have made an excellend Langdon, but of course then the movie would have to be directed by Tim Burton – wouldn’t that have been a cool movie. But, we’ll see what Opie does with this. I find it interesting that the trailer for the movie doesn’t feature Hanks – but rather, the voice you hear is Ian McKellen, in the Leigh Teabing role. Obviously, even the director of the trailer didn’t find Hanks compelling enough to carry the trailer – how’s he going to carry the movie?

The other characters are weak, as well. The heroine, Sophie Neveu, is a bit deeper than the Langdon character, but inconsistent. She comes on strong, a police cryptologist, but with some deep childhood issues. However, in spite of her apparently critical-thinking abilities, she is way too quick to fall for any outlandish claim that Langdon or Teabing throws at her. Her issues with her grandfather vanish in an instant with information that I think only Dan Brown finds enlightening. She’s just not believable.

In general, the characters all seem to lack the proper motivation for their actions. I think Brown was too focused on trying to piece together his wild plot to really work on the characters. Leigh Teabing is perhaps the most solid of all of the characters, and I don’t doubt that Ian McKellen in that role will rule the movie.

Next: The Plot, or What a Tangled Web We Weave