One of the huge challenges in discussiing the issues related to The Da Vinci Code is the sheer number of factual errors contained in the book. The errors start at the beginning of the book (page 18) where it is reported that it would take a person an estimated five weeks to “properly appreciate the 65,300 pieces of art in this building”(the Louvre). Do the math – One minute per art work with no sleep would lead to taking a tour of 45 days of 24 hours a piece. “Appreciating?” Also, there are not 65,300 pieces on display at the Louvre. There are approximately 24,400 works. Again, do the math – 6 eight hour days a week looking at one piece of art per minute would still be more than eight weeks.
The book concludes(page 393) with Brown writing that Sophie and Langdon arrive at King’s College Institute Library at around 8:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning. In fact, the building does not open until 9:30 a.m.
Between these two factual errors there are tons more relating to historic issues as well as modern day geography, architecture, time zones, organizations, cars, weapons, etc. Not a big deal. A tour at a museum or time a building opens? Who cares! Or… is it a big deal? Should we expect more from an author who claims to write from a historical position albeit in the category of fiction? Tom Clancy has sold millions of books writing fiction while not creating history or pawning fiction as history. Have we crossed into a new day when true history does not matter as long as the plot line is solid? Should we even care?
What do you think? Do we feel we should only take on the big issues related to Christianity or do we challenge the notion that writing fiction is a license to reinvent history?
Why or why not?
I think it’s one of those things where the little things don’t matter until the big gaffes come into play. At that point you need to go back and ask, “should I believe anything the guy has written?” It’s a matter of trustworthiness.
Somebody once said “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.”
Having said that, I wouldn’t spend too much time or effort on addressing the trivial errors like “what time the Louvre opens on a Saturday.” That doesn’t mean I’m advocating a soft handling of truth — it just means wisdom is required in picking your battles.
I get the point of picking your battles, but is there not a general cause to be had in regard to being a responsible writer? Let’s take the viewpoint of a Christian out of it. Is it right to handle history in this way? It is true people have been guilty before and will be again, but should we not let it go without addressing it especially in light of the fact that this was a run-away bestseller?
What do you mean by “[handling] history in this way?” The examples you cited above about the Louvre aren’t examples of how Dan Brown handles history.
What do you mean by “[taking] the viewpoint of a Christian out of it?” How do you do that? How does that change anything?
I know you meant it as an intellectual exercise, but doesn’t “taking the viewpoint of a Christian out of it” fracture our thinking? Doesn’t it lend credence to the idea that our Christian worldview is just “our story,” but we ought to play according to the world’s “story” when we’re “in the world?”
Doesn’t it imply that Christians have (or ought to have) a different standard of historical integrity? If so, is the Christian standard lower? Higher? Picayune?
You ask if we should just “let it go.” My answer: in general, no. In day-to-day affairs: it depends.
It depends on what the point of historical error is. I’m not going to fuss over how long it would take someone to absorb the contents of the Louvre. I’ll fuss quite mightily over the nature of Christ’s deity and humanity.
It depends on the situation. Unless I’m engaging a literary critic, I’m not going to invoke instances of trivial error or the debatable use of artistic license as my reason for dismissing Dan Brown. That would be akin to setting out to clear a forest with a weed-whacker: the weeds need clearing too, but c’mon — first things first.
Bottom line: if we let the lost world see us (the Church) get all exercised about the finer points of Brown’s literary gaffes, straining out gnats as if there were no camels to deal with, the world will be justified in inferring that our case is weak and that we are, to quote a somewhat better writer:
(Wm. Shakespeare, Macbeth 5:5)
I cringe at the thought of giving anyone cause to regard Christ’s church that way.
Hugh, thanks for the push-back. Let me clarify.
In relation to how history is being dealt with, I am referring to events that have specific outcomes and those outcomes being reported in opposition to how it actually happened (e.g. the founding of the Priory of Sion, the Council of Nicaea, etc.). Being a “christian” has no fundamental bearing on this since it is a matter of right and wrong in regard to facts. I know there are matters that Christians should engage on, but for my basic argument on this point it is not necessary.
Also, my citing the Louvre and the time the King’s College Library opens was to give specific evidence as to how Dan Browns reporting of literal places do not match up with reality. I can hear the cry “NOVEL” ringing in my ears from those who say that he doesn’t have to match up with reality. But does placing the word “NOVEL” on a book that reports on actual places and events give him, or anyone, the permission to report on a literal place/event anyway he would like? Even to misrepresent what actually occurred in order to stuff the plot-line? It would be different if this story happened on Mars, but Dan Brown bangs the gong of research when he clearly is not a researcher. This is not a James Bond movie or even an alternate view of an unsolved crime (e.g. Kennedy assassination), but a fictitious story that is supposed to rely on history as its core.
Also, the examples I sought were not big ones, they were chosen to show that Dan Brown’s book starts and ends with factual errors that do not specifically relate to a “christian” point of view.
Therefore, regardless of ones orientation toward spiritual matters, is it not wrong for a writer to soar to this level irresponsibility even in writing a “novel?”
I agree partially with both of you–but let’s clarify that whether Brown is irresponsible on details like these is, for our purposes, irrelevant. Yes, to us, it shows even more how he was out for a dollar with complete disregard to the fact. But, at the same time, we can’t go out, guns blazing, with this kind of attack on the Code. We’ll be dismissed as nit-pickers and irrelevant to the debate.
I’m not saying that these details are completely unimportant; I am saying that using details such as these falls under the category of “arguments not to use.”
And by the way, I’m tired of seeing The DaVinci Code in the “nonfiction” section of stores and bookstores. I’m tempted to move it every time I see it. 🙂