Ok. I have a confession to make. And I feel the need to point out that I did the deed during a difficult time in my life. But I have to admit that I have bought and read all of Dan Brown’s books.
I turned to the The Da Vinci Code for some light relief and found myself almost going without sleep in order to read the next chapter. The film, as universally acknowledged, was a great disappointment, but I absolutely loved the book, and on the strength of that book I bought and read the rest fo his oeuvre.
Why did I do that? Was it because I was looking for beautiful writing that would emotionally engage me in depth and move me to tears like James Joyce’s Dubliners does? - No. Was it because I was looking for the books to give me profound insights into the human psyche in the way that Irivn Yalom’s When Nietzsche Wept does? - No. Was it because I was looking to be entertained by a satirical portrayal of a whole culture in the way that Angus Wilson’s Anglo-Saxon Attitudes informs and amuses me? - No.
I didn’t buy and read the book for the reasons I have outlined above. And neither did I read it because I wanted a factual, historical account of the Roman Catholic church or of a wider history of Christianity. There are other, and better books that do that. I knew that I was buying fiction, and I know that fiction often distorts truth for dramatic effect. (Er …. That’s why it’s called ‘fiction’.)
I bought and read the The Da Vinci Code because I wanted a simple, diversionary read, and the book sucked me into its world and kept me hooked page after page after page as I was invited to discover what was going to happen next and get to the end of the plot. And that is what Dan Brown does well, in my view. He tells an entertaining story that people want to get to the end of in order to find out what happens. He creates a series of conflicts and tensions and spends the book resolving them, and in the process invites the reader to contemplate how they might be resolved.
Now, here’s another confession. I actually enjoyed Angels and Demons more than the The Da Vince Code. I know, given the hype over the The Da Vinci Code, some of you may find that difficult to swallow, but it’s actually true. Personally I found the plot more intriguing and the detailed settings in Rome interested me.
But, and this is the point, however much I enjoyed it, and however much part of me knew that the geographical locations were real places, I still didn’t believe it was ‘true’. I didn’t, for a moment think that the murders actually took place, or that the characters really existed. I knew that I was being entertained by the brilliant imaginings of one man and that I wasn’t reading carefully researched history or multiple crime scene reports. I knew it was fiction. And I always know that when I go to buy a work of fiction. And I know that too when watching drama on TV. I know that the characters of Ramsey Street or Coronation Street don’t really exist, even if the places do.
So - why, oh why, is the Catholic Church getting into a state over the forthcoming film of Angels and Demons? According to The Telegraph they have accused director Ron Howard of - horror of horrors - distorting history for dramatic effect. But perhaps if the isolated leaders of the church spent less time worrying over esoteric, and largely irrelevant matters, and read more novels, they would know that any fiction does that. That is why it is entertaining.
The Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon, the Bishop of Nottingham, warned that the film could stir up anti-Catholic sentiment.
“This is so outlandish, it’s total rubbish,” said Bishop McMahon, who is one of the Church’s most senior bishops. “It’s mischievous to stir up this kind of anti-Catholic sentiment. It’s a gratuitous knocking of the Church and I can’t see any reason for it.”
The self-centredness of this is staggering. Does Bishop McMahon, who is one of the Church’s most senior bishops, really think that Dan Brown sat is his office one day and thought: “I wonder what I will do today. I know. I’ll get the Catholic Church!”? I suspect Dan Brown was probably more concerned with writing a good page-turner and making a living. And does Bishop McMahon really think that the film company investing millions in the project sat down one day and thought: “What shall we do today? I know. Let’s get the Catholic Church!”? I feel reasonably confident that they were more interested in making millions than in spreading anti-Catholic propaganda.
Of course, the film might only be seen as anti-Catholic propaganda if you fail to appreciate that it is fiction, or that you believe most people are so stupid that they do not know the difference between fact and fiction.
Director Ron Howard has spelled out the attraction of the film:
“Neither I nor Angels and Demons are anti-Catholic. And let me be a little controversial: I believe Catholics, including most in the hierarchy of the Church, will enjoy the movie for what it is – an exciting mystery, set in the awe-inspiring beauty of Rome.”
Ironically, in opposing the film the Catholic Church risks shooting itself in the foot. According to Italian media reports there has been high-level discussion within the Vatican about whether to urge a boycott of the film. It took that step with The Da Vinci Code, but the film enjoyed staggering box office takings of $758 million and some Vatican insiders fear their high-profile opposition backfired.
The real issue for the Catholicism is not to object to every film or piece of fiction that emerges with some reference to the Church, but to address the substantive issue. The important issue is that, for some reason, portraying the church as having calculating, ageing men, doing immoral deeds behind closed doors, and acting spitefully and hypocritically to save their own necks, doesn’t seem laughably ridiculous to the majority of people. If the Church is able both to clean up its act and image then its pontifications will seem less ridiculous and it will see less need to defend itself because it would know that more people were on its side. It wouldn’t have to command respect because it may have earned more of it.
I confess I read A&D and TDC too and liked them both. Interesting point of fact…if the Irish Gov. gets their way..what I just said might be illegal!
Ok, so it’s my turn. I too confess to having read all of Dan Brown’s books, especially TDC (about 5 times) and A&D (twice). I too thoroughly enjoyed them for what they are - fictional books. However I also enjoyed the awareness they brought to me as questions popped in to my head during the read.
Am I embarassed by this? No.
Did I enjoy TDC film? Yes, but nowhere near as much as the book.
Will I be in line to watch A&D? Oh yes!
Will I pre-order the next Dan Brown book? OH YES!!!
James, you will have seen me state before that I do not read as much as I know I should and I would like to. However there is something about Dan Brown that gets to me in a positive way and I read and read and read until I can take no more. He is a master at making you read one more page, state one more chapter, start the next book and so on.
And I thank him for that.
I know I have said to you before I loved TDC. Like you, I was totally hooked and absorbed. Like you, I found the film disappointing. ( I was racing to finish the book before seeing the film).
I haven’t read A and D.
My reply isn’t about debating much of your points at all. There is a reason for this. I sat and thought at the weekend about why we read fiction.
K is urging me to read Noughts and Crosses by Malorie Blackman. A tale she says I would love because of my concern in human rights. Designed for a older child audience, it is about apartheid, only the other way round. X’s are the blacks -the ones in charge; O’s are the whites - the inferior species.
The tale is good, yet unlike TDC, totally non-believable. TDC is told in such a way that is does sound credible. Like a carefully prepared piece of research, I found it hard sometimes not to be swept along by it. To think how can this not be true.Perhaps, this is what the Catholic church is afraid off.
I understand Eastender’s story lines have the same effect . More women leaving a violent partner, after that theme had a story set around it. People do see it as real. The violent partner in Eastenders was actually threatened on the streets by women believing him to be a true abuser.
The power of the media should never be under-estimated.
Funnily enough, having read this back to myself, I have answered here more of the blog content than I thought I would.
Getting back to my story, I am finding it hard to read fiction, when I have spent so long reading non-fiction.
I would like to write a blog entiltled: why read fiction at all? I like books where I learn things and can’ t wait in some ways to finish X and O to read some real stuff????
Is reading an imaginary tale a waste of time?
What do you gain by it?
Just a thought, not saying I agree with what I have just said.
With O’s and X’s my mind wants to dig deeper to learn something more profound from it. I have been very surprised as to how out of condition I am in reading just a novel. Two types of reading definetely.
Good post.
Liam
If the Irish Government gets its way and reads my blog (I’m sure it will be top of their priority reading list) then we could both end up in trouble. Perhaps if we could arrange to be in the same prison we could have some entertaining discussions.
acetuk
So, we are fans then. Perhaps we could arrange a local Brown tweet-up when the film appears. And yes, I too will be ordering the forthcoming Brown volume. You’re right - whatever his critics say, he can invent and tell a good story.
onethoughtfulwoman
You, the poet, more than most, usually argue that we should give vent to the non-scientific part of our lives. I think if we just read non-fiction we would never have the joy of exploring fantasy. I think reading fiction can be worthwhile simply for the fact that it can enrich and extend our imagination.
If I had to make a further defence for reading fiction I could argue:
1) It is an art form, an people enjoy appreciating the beauty and structure of art forms.
2) We can learn about people and worlds. We can see inside a person’s head, as well as their jobs, their homes, their county.
3) It can be used as a vehicle for teaching us important things or for making important political or philosophical points - Orwell’s Animal Farm or 1984 or Camus’ La Peste spring to mind.
I suppose I think that you are learning things while reading fiction, although I also think it would still be worthwhile, even if you weren’t.
One of my ” things to do ” while Geoff is away… was to get back into reading books…. but at the moment i am failing that task big time and I know for a fact that the books you all talk about would never interest me.
I, actually, understand why the RCC gets nervous about this type of film. First, the church does have something to hide. They don’t need church bashing films to remind us how unholy the church is and has been throughout history.
Second, they know that anybody
stupidnot smart enough to see through the church’s lies is capable of thinking that fiction is actually true, as was the case with the Davinci Code.The RC church is a mafia that many consider capable of anything. The fiction can never be too outlandish as to not appear real.
(Here I am hoping that the little bit of html will work. Any chance of adding preview?)
I also enjoyed reading TDC and A&D. They’re entertaining. The hypersensitivity of the RC Church (often joined by Protestant fundogelicals, at least in the USA) about these books, The Golden Compass and the like is ridiculous. There seems to be an attitude that God and religion are completely off-limits unless one is contemplating them respectfully. Boring! The leaders apparently have no faith that the faithful can distinguish fact from fiction and that their imaginations may wander into realms best left unexplored. Talk about patronizing paternalism! Ugh!
sally
You’re probably right about our different book choices. It’s great there is so much variety on the planet, isn’t it.
Lorena
I agree that the church does have lots to hide. And we are both agreed that the real problem seems to be that. If they didn’t, nobody would be worried. It is the hint of evil lurking somewhere that makes the films so threatening to them.
I’ve added ‘Comment Preview’ by the way. Thanks for the suggestion. Hope it works for you.
the chaplain
Agreed that the paternalism is awful. I find it so repulsive and I’m a bloke, so it must be doubly bad for women. It is the assumption that just as they can try to control and rule their congregations that they can do the same for the rest of society (the world). Double UGH!