December 2021
Conspiracy theories “are attempts to explain the ultimate causes of significant social and political events with claims of secret plots by two or more actors.”[1] Conspiracists and their theories tend to gain popularity during political events, leaning into people’s discomfort with and distrust of political organizations. JFK’s assassination in 1963, a catalyst for historic and contemporary conspiracy theories, was a source of popular interest in 1990s America. The 1991 film, “JFK”, played on this interest and profited from American’s fascination with the dead President’s murder. A national survey conducted by the New York Times in 1992, showed that “only 10% of Americans believed the official account that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating President John F. Kennedy, while 77% believed that others were involved, and 12% didn't know or declined to answer.”[2] In this case, the unanswered question (who killed JFK), is answered through conspiracy. The American people, already distrustful of the government, have been more inclined to believe such conspiracies because they reaffirm their own superstitions. Dan Brown’s 2003 novel the Da Vinci Code, like the film “JFK”, took advantage of a popular, controversial topic: the Catholic Church. In Terry Beck’s article “Riddling ‘The Da Vinci Code’”, Beck recounts the “furor over its plot, background, or premise. The book seemed to offend many, garnering criticism from theologians, church groups, fraternal organizations, and scholars. Yet readers were hooked.”[3] Perhaps its controversial nature is what led it to sell more than 80 million copies and be translated into forty-four languages by 2009.[4] Yet, something is missing from the Da Vinci Code. Without a doubt, it is a fun-filled thriller, capturing the attention of any young adult or theologian, but it lacks a timeless quality. In 2017, a sign buried amongst piles of Dan Brown’s novel in an Oxfam charity shop, stated: “You could give us another Da Vinci Code …. But we would rather have your vinyl!”[5] How does such a popular novel find itself trashed into the donation bin? In this paper, I will explore how Dan Brown’s prioritization of the conspiracy theory undermines its storytelling, novel quality. Brown’s non-diegetic approach, lack of historical knowledge, and timely cultural controversy prove the novel to be popular, but ultimately short lived – an example in which readers will remember the conspiracy theory, but not the novel itself.
A paragraph on Dan Brown’s personal website begins: “In 2005, Brown was named one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World by TIME Magazine.”[6] Brown is not necessarily wrong to cite this credential; in fact, a Google search on May 17, 2004, for “The Da Vinci Code” provided 525,000 results.[7] Today, November 9, 2021, a Google search for “The Da Vinci Code” yielded 27,200,000 results. Yet, notably, when one researches the question: “Is the Da Vinci Code true?”, 9,400,000 results appear. Thus, more than a third of results relating to the Da Vinci Code revolve around conspiracy rather than the novel itself. Now, what exactly is the conspiracy that has garnered such controversy? Brown tells his readers that Leonardo da Vinci’s the Last Supper, is proof that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not only married but had at least one child. Brown claims that in 1099 an organization called the Priory of Sion, a European secret society, that “possesses the truth about the ‘bloodline’ Grail” was founded, and that participants include historical figures ranging from Isaac Newton to Victor Hugo.[8] Ultimately the theory suggests that descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene still exist and that the Catholic Church is part of a large coverup, slightly misogynistic, operation. While fascinating (and wrong), Brown puts an enormous amount of effort into convincing his readers of this theory. So much so, it occasionally appears that this is his primary goal.
Dan Brown goes beyond the diegesis of the text to create a page titled “Fact.”[9] Removing the readers from the smooth narrative of his story, Brown forces his readers to acknowledge some inaccurate truths: “The Priory of Sion […] is a real organization”, “[Members include] Sir Isaac Newton, Sandro Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo da Vinci” and, “the Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect […] [and has] National Headquarters […] [in New York City].”[10] Though somewhat rooted in reality (both the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei are historically intertwined with the Catholic Church), most of Brown’s claims are wrong. Opus Dei’s headquarters, for example, are in Rome. Not in New York City. Brown’s choice to end his “Fact” page with the claim “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate” reads redundantly. Brown has already removed the reader from the narrative, has he not? Moreover, he has identified all information in his novel as fact, by extension of titling this section “fact.” Brown’s decision to reassert multiple times, the truth of his lies, reads as overcompensation. Perhaps a weakness on his part, Brown is so concerned with convincing the reader of the Da Vinci Code’s conspiracy, that he neglects the flow of a storytelling narrative. Norris Lacy’s article “‘The Da Vinci Code’: Dan Brown and The Grail That Never Was”, speaks to how Brown “has done everything possible to persuade readers that he does believe just what the book says. He has insisted on the accuracy, the factual nature, of his information and theories.”[11] Indeed, he has done everything.
Dan Brown sacrifices the structure of his novel in order to endow the reader with a false sense of problem solving. Brown randomly interjects short, unresolved chapters from the point of view of Silas, a monk from Opus Dei. Silas, unbeknownst to the rest of the characters in the novel, provides the reader with the opportunity to understand and resonate with the puzzle of the Da Vinci Code alongside Langdon and Sophie. Yet, these chapters detract from the overall structure of the novel; moreover, Brown is almost too transparent in his efforts to inform the reader of what is “important”. In Chapter 15, Brown italicizes the following: “The winds of change are in the air”, “Hago la obra de Dios”, and “the keystone. It will lead us to our final goal.”[12] “Hago la obra de Dios”, translated as “I do the work of God”, is explicit in nature. Although Brown seems to want the reader to solve the riddle of his conspiracy, he spells it out for us word by word, font by font. Silas’ interjections disrupt the narrative and do not inherently challenge the reader to solve the conspiracy, but they do tell the reader what to think. Perhaps this is another example of Brown’s inclination to affirm the reality and truth of his novel, wary of any nonbelievers. Similarly, the way in which the characters of the novel go about solving puzzles, particularly anagrams, is obvious. When Langdon solves the dead curator's riddle, Brown tells his readers: “O, Draconian devil! Oh, lame saint! Was a perfect anagram of... Leonardo da Vinci! The Mona Lisa!”[13] Taken step by step, the reader is given no room for disagreement with or rejection of Brown’s ideas. Brown’s eagerness to include his readers in his labyrinth of conspiracy ultimately inhibits his storytelling narrative. The characters are given less opportunity to explore the puzzle themselves (disrupting their growth) and the plot is structurally determined by unveiling the conspiracy. As a result, Brown’s novel is easily remembered as a conspiracy theory – perhaps one that the reader feels they themselves have figured out – but not as a story.
Furthermore, Dan Brown rejects a substantial amount of basic historical knowledge, counting on an uninformed body of readers to play his game. It would be arrogant to suggest that Brown has no historical nor theological knowledge. It would also be inaccurate to claim that the Da Vinci Code is a completely fabricated piece of literature. Yet, Brown’s rejection of generally accepted history, reads as purposefully conspiracist rather than accidentally or coincidentally. In Bart D. Ehrman’s novel, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine, Ehrman lays out a few key errors in Brown’s work. First and foremost, Jesus’ life was not, as Brown claims, recorded by thousands of followers. Perhaps because his followers were not literate to begin with. Secondly, despite it being the premise of Brown’s conspiracy, Constantine did not commission the production of a new bible at all. Especially not a bible that omitted recollections of Jesus’ human traits. Thirdly, Brown claims that Jewish decorum forbade Jewish men from remaining unmarried – he uses this claim to explain Jesus’ partnership with Mary Magdalene. But, according to Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, this is completely inaccurate. Moreover, Dan Brown consistently refers to a Q document as a surviving source throughout his conspiracy theory, yet there is no proof of its existence as it is a hypothetical document.[14] This is just the beginning of the historical inaccuracies laced throughout Brown’s work. Thus, it’s intriguing that he is so eager to establish his novel as a factual source. This is a purposeful effort, on Brown’s behalf, to create a conspiracy theory. His lack of historical research and consequent deviation from truth, is not a symptom of being naive. Rather, the novel is not the primary creation, the conspiracy theory is. Brown has successfully created a conspiracy theory, but at the cost of a sound and historically memorable novel.
Brown’s choice of a culturally significant and controversial topic has served him well temporarily, but will lose value over time. It is no secret that authors and storytellers are inspired by the environments they inhabit. The Royston Caves, rediscovered in the 1700s and now the source of a host of conspiracy theories, falls into this same pattern. The current custodian of the cave, a man named Peter Houldcroft, “claims […] connections with the Templars, the Holy Grail, the Illuminati and any other fringe belief that the journalist interviewing him happens to express.”[15] In other words, the way in which the caves are portrayed, shapes itself to fit the audience listening. Dan Brown is a victim of this mindset; his choice to critique the Catholic Church is oddly well timed with the church’s sexual abuse scandal in 2002. Michael Paulson, the Boston Globe’s former religious affairs correspondent, told an interviewer that before they published the scandal, they “had a sense [...] that this was an explosive subject with huge potential impact.”[16] In the following two years, the Boston Globe published 800 articles on the scandal, creating waves of impact across the church. The Cardinal Law resigned, 150 priests in Boston, MA had been accused of abuse, 500 or more victims had filed claims of abuse, and most notably, donations to the church fell by 50 percent.[17] The world was listening, watching, and reacting. Dan Brown was writing. Perhaps the reason the Da Vinci Code sold tens of millions of copies has to do with the world’s preexisting antagonism towards the church. From this lens, Brown’s novel is provocative, not suggestive. The Catholic Church was the enemy before Brown said so. And thus, his decision to neglect historical inaccuracies, is so much clearer. Brown’s novel, when looked at more closely, is a publicity stunt drenched in popular conspiracy. That is why it sold so many copies, but it is also why it will be a conspiracy theory, not a classic, in fifty years' time.
Dan Brown’s the Da Vinci Code is a fun read. The thriller has you turning its pages, eager to solve the conspiracy. Its issue, however, is that once you do realize the conspiracy, the novel itself is overshadowed. Perhaps Brown’s goal was not, however, to write a long-lasting, memorable novel. Its “problem-solving” structure, historical inaccuracy, and cultural relevancy, are all literary and authorial techniques. The impact of these techniques is a less memorable narrative. Dan Brown, despite this, can be credited with creating this Da Vinci Code Conspiracy, however false it may be. And in this way, he is an author of something.
Bibliography
Beck, Terry. "Riddling 'The Da Vinci Code.'" Reference and User Services Quarterly 46, no. 4 (2007): 18-23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20864741.
Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. London: Corgi, 2010.
Dan Brown. Accessed November 9, 2021. https://danbrown.com/#author-section.
Douglas, Karen M., Joseph E. Uscinski, Robbie M. Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka, Turkay Nefes, Chee Siang Ang, and Farzin Deravi. "Understanding Conspiracy Theories." Political Psychology 40, no. S1 (February 2019): 3-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12568.
Ehrman, Bart D. Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Keith. "Royston Cave: A Secret Templar Shrine?" Bad Archaeology. Last modified July 5, 2010. Accessed November 9, 2021. http://www.badarchaeology.com/conspiracy-theories/455-2/.
Goertzel, Ted. "Belief in Conspiracy Theories." Political Psychology 15, no. 4 (1994): 731-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791630.
Henley, Jon. "How the Boston Globe Exposed the Abuse Scandal That Rocked the Catholic Church." The Guardian. Last modified April 21, 2010. Accessed November 9, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-abuse-scandal-catholic.
Kelly, Aoife. "Charity Shops Crammed with Copies of the Da Vinci Code Begs People to Stop Donating." Independent.ie. Last modified May 15, 2017. Accessed November 9, 2021. https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/book-news/charity-shops-crammed-with-copies-of-the-da-vinci-code-begs-people-to-stop-donating-35715665.html.
Kennedy, Tammie M. "Mary Magdalene and the Politics of Public Memory: Interrogating 'The Da Vinci Code.'" Feminist Formations 24, no. 2 (2012): 120-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23275107.
Lacy, Norris J. "'The Da Vinci Code': Dan Brown and the Grail That Never Was." Arthuriana 14, no. 3 (2004): 81-93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27870632.
[1] Karen M. Douglas et al., "Understanding Conspiracy Theories," Political Psychology 40, no. S1 (February 2019): 3, https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12568.
[2] Ted Goertzel, "Belief in Conspiracy Theories," Political Psychology 15, no. 4 (1994): 731, https://doi.org/10.2307/3791630.
[3] Terry Beck, "Riddling 'The Da Vinci Code,'" Reference and User Services Quarterly 46, no. 4 (2007): 18, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20864741.
[4] Tammie M. Kennedy, "Mary Magdalene and the Politics of Public Memory: Interrogating 'The Da Vinci Code,'" Feminist Formations 24, no. 2 (2012): 126, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23275107.
[5] Aoife Kelly, "Charity Shops Crammed with Copies of the Da Vinci Code Begs People to Stop Donating," Independent.ie, last modified May 15, 2017, accessed November 9, 2021, https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/book-news/charity-shops-crammed-with-copies-of-the-da-vinci-code-begs-people-to-stop-donating-35715665.html.
[6] Dan Brown, accessed November 9, 2021, https://danbrown.com/#author-section.
[7] Norris J. Lacy, "'The Da Vinci Code': Dan Brown and the Grail That Never Was," Arthuriana 14, no. 3 (2004): 81, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27870632.
[8] Lacy, "'The Da Vinci," 86.
[9] Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (London: Corgi, 2010), 11.
[10] Brown, The Da Vinci, 11.
[11] Lacy, "'The Da Vinci," 82.
[12] Brown, The Da Vinci, 104, 105.
[13] Brown, The Da Vinci, 135
[14] Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), xv.
[15] Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, "Royston Cave: A Secret Templar Shrine?," Bad Archaeology, last modified July 5, 2010, accessed November 9, 2021, http://www.badarchaeology.com/conspiracy-theories/455-2/.
[16] Jon Henley, "How the Boston Globe Exposed the Abuse Scandal That Rocked the Catholic Church," The Guardian, last modified April 21, 2010, accessed November 9, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-abuse-scandal-catholic.
[17] Henley, "How the Boston," The Guardian.