I’ve just finished Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons (AAD) yesterday, two days after I started reading it in earnest. It’s been a year since I bought and read The Da Vinci Code(TDVC), and I’ve hesitated to buy this book. I borrowed one instead.
The reason I hesitated buying AAD was, ironically, because of an earlier Dan Brown book, Digital Fortress. Around the time I finished TDVC I picked Digital Fortress up in National Bookstore Metropoint and browsed through the first chapters.
I was dissappointed with Digital Fortress. Accustomed to Tom Clancy’s uber-detailed style of espionage thrillers (I have all 13 of Clancy’s novels), I found Dan Brown’s writeup of a high tech cloak-and-dagger style US government techno-thriller lacking. The same was true with Angels and Demons.
When I finished AAD I’m glad I didn’t buy the book. Like Digital Fortress, I found the detail in AAD lacking. The plotline was rather simplistic, almost to the point of exhuding a soap-opera type of simplicity. Finally, the emergence of the villain and the novel’s conclusion almost convinced me Brown has some sort of grudge against the Catholic Church.
Another impression I had was that the writing style screenplay-like. It was almost as if Dan Brown actually wrote the novel with a movie version in mind. I had the same impression with TDVC — though I think Dan Brown hired a better editor for Da Vinci Code than for Angels and Demons.
It is with these observations when it finally dawned upon me why Dan Brown’s books held so much appeal and, consequently, why he has become so infamous amongst conservative Christian groups who are all out in debunking his theories (so much so that a documentary debunking TDVC remains in the top spot in Tower Records for at least three months straight).
When I was reading AAD I felt like I was transported back to fourth grade. It was during this time when I first got hold of The Hardy Boys. With simple though winding plotlines and language unpolluted by jargon, The Hardy Boys was one of the most borrowed book series’ in my elementary days. Although the logic and physics in the stories were questionable, the presentation was so rationally convincing you would actually believe that the deus ex machina-type resolutions to many of the stories were actually possible.
The same is true with TDVC and AAD. While many of the facts are genuinely questionable, Dan Brown is able to present them simplistically enough to sound matter-of-factly. That the details of the facts are debatable is beside the point — the delivery of the idea in clear and succinct manner allows the most ordinary of readers to believe they are learning scholarly accurate information.
Add that simplicity to arrogantly blatantly challenging an institution which was for generations vaunted as infallible and you’ve got yourself a sureshot bestseller.
I believe that the different Christian churches should take a hint from Dan Brown’s success, and start discussing in similarly clear and succinct language vital subjects like the early Christian movement, the Great Schism, which explains the division of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, the First Council of Nicaea, where the divinity of Jesus as God was decided, and most importantly, the Council of Laodicea, which decided the content of the current Christian Bible.
I believe that educating the Christian flock regarding these issues alongside the Gospels will not only better inform Christians, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, but also strengthen the faith of succeeding generations of Christians who would not like to be as clueless as their ancestors regarding the history of their faith.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Sassy // May 11, 2006 at 1:37 am
That’s why he’s effective, Jon. Because he is understandable to the average reader. And, to the Catholic Church, that makes him dangerous. If his approach was so high falutin’ that only scholars will understand him, the Church won’t bother with him.
2 Jon Limjap // May 11, 2006 at 9:44 am
Dangerous indeed, but not only to the Church.
If Dan Brown becomes careless in his sharing of “facts”, he also becomes dangerous to his readers.
So again I underscore my point: the Christian churches must open up on these topics to their flock, in a language the flock will understand. The Catholic Church, in particular, should realize that the current generation of believers are better educated and more questioning than what it has been accustomed to.
It is through this questioning nature that the number of practicing faithful have dwindled — the Church must provide knowledge and answers beyond what the Bible readings and the Gospels have to offer.
3 Ate Ems // May 14, 2006 at 8:44 pm
This article MIGHT be worthwile for you *wink* –
The Da Vinci Crock
By Joe Mann
Jesus married Mary Magdalene. And moved. To France. Well wouldn’t anyone? Especially space aliens. How do I know Jesus was a space alien? You can see his space helmet in all the old paintings. Didn’t Erich van Daniken say so already?
Then they had a little girl who became the first of a family of super geniuses. Leonardo da Vinci himself was one of the descendents. Yeah, I believe that. NOT
Well really, isn’t this the kind of plot you would expect in an interesting novel. Take history, alter the elements in some unexpected way and you have the makings of the backstory of a thriller. Except now we read that author Dan Brown is more and more convinced his fiction is the truth. Will that sell a few more books or movie tickets?
Actually, the claim of descent from a God is an ancient and well used device to lend authority, if someone is setting up, for example, a royal lineage, or more importantly, is its spokesman. The Pharaohs were said to be directly descended from the gods, the Emperor of Japan was, for ages, depicted as descended from the sun. How could mere mortals hope to compete with that kind of DNA?
Maybe they should do more rigorous testing for the Olympics. I mean who could compete fairly with Olympians?
It seems pretty clear that humans have, if not a need, then a pretty strong longing for the mythic. Look at the tales we invented about relatively recent history – Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill and Johnny Appleseed. And mingling the mythic with historical fiction can surely be fun.
Just don’t tell me anyone is starting to believe it. Because Christian faith is based on more than a Bible whose truth we understand. It is based on revelation of the Living God, of the relationship of the Holy Spirit with believers, and of reliance on Jesus Christ. Not a man of myth, but the Son of God, our Lord and Redeemer, the Rock of our Salvation.
And remember as Paul said in 2 Thessalonians (3:6) Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from every brother who walks irresponsibly and not according to the tradition received from us.
Mr. Brown sounds like one of those brothers. The bad kind.
4 Jon Limjap // May 15, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Ate Ems,
Worthwhile, yes, especially in the paragraph where he said humans have some sort of dream to be descended from gods.
I’d like to watch the movie anyway, however. Just to amuse myself.
5 Ate Ems // May 21, 2006 at 4:46 pm
I watched the movie yesterday! Hahaha… I thought I was watching Tomb Raider [but no Angelina Jolie though] !!! Hahahaha!
6 The Ca t // May 24, 2006 at 1:27 pm
It was not an original idea of Dan Brown, The book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail (written in 1983) which shook the Christendom was more effective in presenting the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philipp and the theory that the Holy Grail is not a thing to drink from but the bloodline of Jesus as a Jewish heir to the throne,
7 Jon Limjap // May 25, 2006 at 8:47 am
Yes, it’s not an original idea. But Dan Brown was able to *present* it in a very engaging way.
Again, that’s my point. Dan Brown has the ability to engage his readers. And thus his book is talked about. Ergo, it’s not just the content of the book that matters; the presentation matters more. Simple presentations for simple minded readers (a bigger chunk of the market) work.
8 Trosp // May 29, 2006 at 2:05 pm
In the end, D. Brown will live happily throughout his remaining life but the chaos he will be living to those who has taken his novel seriously…
Dalawang LOLs…
9 Jon Limjap // May 30, 2006 at 5:06 am
Indeed Trosp. Pero why take Dan Brown seriously, but not your religion? Labo nun.
10 Trosp // May 30, 2006 at 10:41 am
I’ve read TDVC purely for entertainment. Unfortunately, I was not entertained. If I’m not mistaken, the book was classified as thriller and my benchmark for it is Ludlum or Follet. Perhaps, I have expected too much.
I’m Catholic and I would admit there are lot of things in my religion which I don’t bother myself to dig deeper but I take my religion seriously.
11 papa bear // May 17, 2008 at 3:11 am
the davici code was just an STUPIDITY of stupid dan brown
Leave a Comment