The Dan-Brown-Wants-Your-Money Code


#1

[left]Just read a mailing from Karl Keeting soliciting donation for the campaign against the movie version of The Da Vinci Code. While I don’t cite my sources, here (The Da Vinci Hoax and Akin’s essay), I felt inspired, so I hacked this out this evening. This isn’t meant to be a complete or expert refutation of the novel (and it’s not been edited). Just having some fun:[/left]

The Dan-Brown-Wants-Your-Money Code

By Spencer Allen


FACT:
All imitations of tacky prose, corny dialogue, and Christian-bashing bigotry in this parody are accurate.


*In possession of the shocking and suppressed truth about The Da Vinci Code, our hero Rupert Handsome evades the relentless pursuit of psuedo-intellectual conspiracy theorists and anti-Catholic zealots. Finally, accompanied by the naïve, yet beautiful Soapy Neauclieu, he seeks refuge at the home of his close friend, Sir Steve Teapot. *

As Handsome tore through the night, a thick wall of quiet elms eventually gave way to a sprawling estate, within which a massive two-story house sat a safe distance back from an impregnable black gate.

“My goodness,” Soapy said, her voice trembling with ecstasy. “Is that where Teapot lives?”

“Hardly.” Handsome smiled. “That’s the house Dan Brown built after the con job he pulled on Christians. Teapot lives a few miles down the road.”

They raced into the night until finally pulling into the driveway of a small white house, where a single light shined from an upstairs bedroom.

“I have to warn you before we go in, Teapot is a bit of a character compared to many other Catholics you might have encountered.” He smiled knowingly.

“What do you mean?” She asked, her voice bubbling with confusion.

“Well, he actually believes in following the Spirit-guided teachings of the Church. He even goes to confession on a regular basis.”

Leading the way to the front door, Handsome knocked firmly and straightened his tweed jacket, which intellectual characters should always own when the author is trying to trick you into thinking they are smarter than you are.

“I saw you pull up, old friend,” a voice called from an upstairs window. “Come on in.”

The living room was nothing like Soapy had expected. While stacked with books, the furniture was modest and nondescript. A painting of the Virgin Mary hung over the divan. “I thought it would be much fancier,” Soapy said, her voice oozing with disappointment.”

“If this were a Dan Brown novel, it would be. He likes to make his characters wealthy, sophisticated, and dashing. It’s sort of like a magic act, where the illusionist uses a half-naked assistant to distract you from the cheap trick.” He chuckled.

“I see,” she said, her voice dripping with understanding.

Just then a figure appeared at the top of the stairs, descending them carefully. He wore jeans and a T-shirt and struggled down with the help of crutches.

“Did you get crippled from polio when you were young like the guy in that novel?” Soapy asked, her voice bursting with hasty conclusion.

“No. Softball,” Teapot said, hopping down the last couple stairs. “Twisted my angle rounding third.”


#2

“Steve,” Handsome said, “I’ve been telling her about The Da Vinci Code.”

        “So you’ve read *The Code*, my dear?”

        “Oh yes.”  Her eyes lit up.  “Did you know that book says Jesus got married and had a kid and the Catholic Church has been killing people to cover it up and there’s all kinds of books missing from *The Bible*.  And it’s all true!”

        “Of course it is,” Teapot said, gesturing for her to have a seat.  “After all, a fiction author would never stretch the truth to make a sale, now would he?”

        “Well, even if not all of it is true, it does raise some *very important questions*.”

“Tell you what, Soapy, why don’t you indulge me in a little game.”

        “Monopoly?”

        “Not quite, dear.  Rupert, grab me that copy of *The Da Vinci Code* off the shelf over there.  Make sure you grab the illustrated version Dan Brown put out for Christmas so he could even further insult the faith.”  Taking the book, he placed it in Soapy’s lap.  “Close your eyes a moment.”

        She did as he asked, her silence weighted with anticipation.

        “Now,” he said, “Can you tell me how much integrity is in this novel?”

        It had been a few months since she had reread it, but Soapy thought she knew the answer to this one.  *Dan Brown included a “fact” page at the beginning.  He’s done interviews with highly discerning journalists like Katie Couric.  His main characters smile smugly all the time.*  “I know!” she shouted.  “Lots.  It has lots of integrity.”

        “Open your eyes, my dear.”  Teapot said, smiling smugly.  “It turns out there is no integrity here at all.”

        “Surely serious historians and art critics would have noticed that,” she said, her voice teeming with contradiction.

        “But they have,” Handsome said, leaning in.  “Scholars have torn apart Brown’s understanding of history, Christianity, and Leonardo da Vinci, but most readers don’t care about that.  They just want controversy.  It makes some people feel smart to read a book like this and pretend they’ve read something intellectual.”

        “Wait a second.”  She opened the book and began flipping through the pages.  “This book tells all about this secret organization called . . . hold on, I’ll find it . . .”

        “The Priory of Sion,” Handsome said.  Smiling smugly.  “They are the guardians of the truth, right?  They’ve passed on the secret of Christ and Mary Magdalene for centuries?  Leonardo da Vinci was a member?”

        “That’s right!”  She finally opened the book near the front and read a paragraph about The Priory.  “It says ‘FACT’ right at the top of the page, so it has to be true.”

        “Hmmm.  I guess he forgot to mention that about fifty years ago, the guys who invented The Priory of Sion admitted they had made it up as a joke.  One of them had even spent time in jail for fraud.”

        “Dan Brown lied?  But look how nice his smile is.  I thought I could trust him.”

#3

“This is the second book Dan Brown has written to trash the Catholic faith,” Handsome said, lifting a copy of Angels and Demons from the shelf. “When someone has an agenda that strong, there’s no telling how low they’ll stoop.”

“But wait - The Da Vinci Code says Jesus was married. Isn’t that possible?” she asked, her voice riddled with enigma.

“Actually, that’s one place where Brown was right on. Jesus was married. It even says so in The New Testament.”

“He was? It does?”

Teapot smiled smugly, pulled his Bible from the coffee table. Handsome watched on, smiling smugly, as well. “Sure. Over and over again Scripture tells us about Jesus and his beautiful bride. Only it’s not Mary Magdalene.”

“Who is she?”

She is the church, and that’s why he wouldn’t have married any certain woman.” He showed her several passages from the gospels and from Revelations. “Dan Brown likes to point to obscure quotes in the “Gnostic” gospels, like where Jesus kisses Magdalene on the lips. What he doesn’t tell you is that those Gnostic gospels were most likely written over a hundred years after Jesus died. Like Brown, the Gnostics were willing to write anything, no matter how far fetched, to destroy the church that Christ built.”

“Wow, the whole book just falls apart now,” she said, leaning back into the cushion. “And to think I trusted Dan Brown. I guess, now that I think about it, I really hadn’t taken the time to do the research necessary to really . . .”

Her words were cut short by heavy footsteps from the hallway. “Mr. Teapot.”

Soapy turned toward the deep voice and her worst fears were realized as a tall albino stepped into the room. “Rupert!” she cried out, her voice charged with alarm. “It’s the killer from The Da Vinci Code!” She leaped up and tripped over Steve’s crutches as she dashed for the door. Handsome stooped down to help her up.

“Relax, my dear,” Teapot said. “This is just my friend Milan. He’s doing some electrical work for me in the basement.”

Milan’s lower lip trembled. “Everywhere I go now, people think I’m a monster.” A single tear crawled down his pale cheek, and he wiped at it with the back of his hand as he walked past them and sulked out the front door.

“Don’t feel bad, Soapy,” Teapot said. “After all, you’re not the one who created a hideous character at the expense of poor albinos like Milan. But then again, such a cheap shot from Brown shouldn’t surprise us, now, should it?”


#4

She stood and walked to the door, watching the saddened man climb into his truck and drive away. “But what that group, Opus Dei? Dan Brown makes them out to be a bunch of murderers.”

“Opus Dei is just an organization of people trying to get a closer connection to God,” Handsome said. “I joined a few years back and can assure you Dan Brown was just up to more of his slight-of-hand.”

“Yes dear,” Teapot said, glancing nervously out the window. “The real enemy here is a group called Opie Dei.”

“Opie Dei?” She asked, glancing at Handsome, who was smiling knowingly. And somewhat smugly. “Do you mean as in little Opie from the Andy Griffith Show?”

“He’s all grown up,” Rupert said, nodding. “And he’s ready to make millions off the souls of your friends and family by making The Da Vinci Code into a high-budget movie.”

“And he’s not the only one,” Teapot cried pointing sharply at the screen door as it ripped off its hinges.

“God help us,” cried Soapy, her shriek laced with recognition.

All three shrank back as the figure from the porch stepped into the room. “Greedy is as greedy does,” he said.

To Be Continued (actually, it probably won’t). . .


#5

That was fantastic. I was giggling entirely too much for the hour it is. :smiley:


#6

http://www.smilies-world.de/smilies/smilies_Picture/party_smilies/3.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-003.gif

http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/animated/zoidberg_dance2_animate.gif

HOORAY!!!


#7

Good story but… I wonder if 4 posts is under the limit for automatica deletion or if there will be a double standard since RSiscoe’s post which was 8 posts long was deleteted. Maybe it will be quietly overlooked. We’ll see how long this one lasts.


#8

Well, on a more serious note: now that there’s a movie in the works, do you think many of the misconceptions and total lies would be eaten up by the gullible public when the movie comes?


#9

[quote=Milliardo]Well, on a more serious note: now that there’s a movie in the works, do you think many of the misconceptions and total lies would be eaten up by the gullible public when the movie comes?
[/quote]

I think considering more people would rather watch a movie then read a book, I’m a afraid so…

I read the book and appreciated the ‘story’, but I have to tell you I loved the story written here much more…

bravo!


#10

On a certain level, The Da Vinci Code isn’t offensive to just Catholics. It is offensive to all Christians. Rather than giving money I don’t have to a campaign against the movie, I suggest that the 190 million or so Christians in the U.S. just not go see the film.

I’m willing to do my part. How about you?

– Mark L. Chance.


#11

[quote=mlchance]On a certain level, The Da Vinci Code isn’t offensive to just Catholics. It is offensive to all Christians. Rather than giving money I don’t have to a campaign against the movie, I suggest that the 190 million or so Christians in the U.S. just not go see the film.

I’m willing to do my part. How about you?

– Mark L. Chance.
[/quote]

For goodness sake,the only thing that is offensive is the Christian reaction for all it does is highlight the Christian laziness in matters where fiction is mixed with smatterings of genuine geometry.

Considering that I have spent the best part of 4 months trying to draw attension to Longitude meridians and the Rose line/Prime meridian which maintains the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency for axial rotation while you lot are chasing rainbows and getting frantic over a work of fiction.

georgefcram.com/education/lgl.html

“The log was kept in ship’s time, that is, the local apparent time, adjusted at intervals to the change of longitude: and by old practice an adjustment was made at noon, when the officer taking the latitude sight called “Twelve o’clock, Sir,” and the Captain said “Make it so,” (though the actual observations for local time were necessarily made morning and afternoon). If it were necessary to establish the accurate time of an event we should have to enquire more particularly whether the time of the nautical day was on that ship carried on from the noon on which it began, or adjusted to the noon on which it ended, or perhaps altered during the night from one to the other, as is more or less the present practice in merchant ships, though H.M. Navy keeps Standard Time. In default of better information we may without serious error (in days of sail) take the recorded hour as in the apparent time of the meridian of longitude mentioned in the account, and for form’s sake apply the equation of time to reduce to civil time of the meridian.”

aandc.org/research/nautical_time_and_date.html

The Equation of Time principle and correction keeps the clock’s pace tethered to constant rotation however the Rose line which constitutes the prime meridian could geographically begin anywhere.It ended up in Greenwich for various reasons that anyone can discover with a bit of effort.

terraserver.microsoft.com/About/AboutGlossaryLatLon.htm

If your faith is so weak that a fictional book or film disturbs it perhaps it is not the fault of the author .As far as I’m concerned you are reaping your just rewards for being lazy on these matters.

The real scam is elewhere but who would know it.


#12

[quote=oriel36]If your faith is so weak that a fictional book or film disturbs it perhaps it is not the fault of the author .As far as I’m concerned you are reaping your just rewards for being lazy on these matters.

The real scam is elewhere but who would know it.
[/quote]

If I wrote a book about a murderous Jewish financial conspiracy I’d be run out of town as an anti-semite. If I wrote a book about Muhammed doing a bunch of stuff that goes against the tradition of Islam, I’d be shunned. Yet Dan Brown is glorified for doing the same thing to Catholics. That’s where the main problem lies.

Now, you and I may have strong faith, but there are people out there who do not. Anything that hurts their faith even more or leads them away from the true God disturbs me quite a bit.


#13

[quote=gelsbern]Good story but… I wonder if 4 posts is under the limit for automatica deletion or if there will be a double standard since RSiscoe’s post which was 8 posts long was deleteted. Maybe it will be quietly overlooked. We’ll see how long this one lasts.
[/quote]

It’s not a good idea to question the mods. We all know that!:tsktsk:
Lest I incur your rath, just know I speak from experience…


#14

[quote=Milliardo]Well, on a more serious note: now that there’s a movie in the works, do you think many of the misconceptions and total lies would be eaten up by the gullible public when the movie comes?
[/quote]

Yes I do! :yup:


#15

[quote=Genesis315]If I wrote a book about a murderous Jewish financial conspiracy I’d be run out of town as an anti-semite. If I wrote a book about Muhammed doing a bunch of stuff that goes against the tradition of Islam, I’d be shunned. Yet Dan Brown is glorified for doing the same thing to Catholics. That’s where the main problem lies.

Now, you and I may have strong faith, but there are people out there who do not. Anything that hurts their faith even more or leads them away from the true God disturbs me quite a bit.
[/quote]

I will say nothing of the experience in coming across a real scam and the cunning manner in which it was executed but somehow the over-reaction to a work of fiction is dissappointing given that it is unlikely that those who are familiar with the genre ever mistake novelty for substance.

If he brings up the Rose line and associates it with Mary Magdalene,how much do you know about the actual history of the division of the Earth into imaginary lines of longitude.If you did know,you would find the novel quaint and nothing to get upset about.The real historical story is far too exciting to remain stuck inside somebodies fictional design and more often than not it is due to people accepting an inferior history of discovery that leads to these unwarranted reactions.

An example.

The empirical guys attributes all things to the Greeks because it highlights their particular methods as a intellectual progression from ‘primitive to enlightened’. Anyone who breaks ranks and tries to present a more informed view than the sterile fables foisted on humanity as fact is ostracised.Take for instance the circumference of the Earth,all textbooks say it was Erathostenes but scrape away the veneer and things are more complex and intricate.In other words it is as though the better part of the history of discovery is lost to the empirical view that it is all about experiments.

metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm

"Eratosthenes was not the first to measure the circumference of the Earth, but the first to argue, contrary to the opinion of Aristotle, that the calculations about the circumference of the Earth could be accepted as proven in terms of the new scientific style.

A series of ancient authors credits Eratosthenes as having introduced the calculation of the degree as equal to 700 stadia, but there is not a single writer who indicates that he based himself on an empirical survey of the ground. Contemporary scholars exalt Eratosthenes as a great scientist and as a pioneer in mathematical geography, but none of the ancient writers who were acquainted with his works indicate this. If Eratosthenes had been such an innovator, Ptolemy who discusses at length the problem of the dimensions of the Earth in the Prolegomena to his Geography would have said at least some words to this effect. Theon of Smyrna and Proklos, who lived in Alexandria do not make any reference to the alleged discovery of Eratosthenes in their extensive commentaries on ancient mathematical science. Strabo, who had before his eyes the writings of Eratosthenes and discusses them at length, does not ascribe to Eratosthenes any specific achievement in the field of empirical geodesy or of theoretical geography. Strabo mentions repeatedly the figure of 700 stadia to the degree, but justifies it only in these words: “We suppose as Hipparchos, that the size of the Earth is 252,000 stadia, a figure given also by Eratosthenes.” He would not have spoken in these terms if Eratosthenes had provided a complete mathematical demonstration."

Do you see why it suits the empirical guys to attribute the discovery to Erathostenes ?.

It is not a matter of plodding through all these references or history to find a more productive ground for discussion but that contemporary ideas appear somehow strained and artificial just as the work of fiction is improbable and exotic.The differences betwen the two are surprisingly small,one is a known work of fiction that does’nt pretend to be otherwise while the other is presented as fact - either historical or technical.


#16

That was great, the story I mean. Perhaps you should expand it a bit, finish it up and put it on the web. Maybe under the CA website under a tab of the Dan Brown Conspiracy. :smiley:

I really did enjoy it!!.

On the topic of the movie, I am so saddened that one of my favorite directors and actors have decided to do this movie. In my naive hope, I had thought they were above the call of money.

Shame on ME!! :frowning:


#17

[quote=Milliardo]Well, on a more serious note: now that there’s a movie in the works, do you think many of the misconceptions and total lies would be eaten up by the gullible public when the movie comes?
[/quote]

Sure! I can’t stand Michael Moore (I saw his first movie, Roger and Me, and later learned that it contained many falsehoods, as had every subsequent movie of his) but I will not waste my time protesting his movies…I just don’t watch them…


#18

To Oriel,

I agree with you that people should be able to ‘see’ the fictional work for what it was - fiction. I for one did enjoy the story, conspiracy theory, mystery, murder, and mayhem always grabs your attention. I don’t believe people are upset because it’s not a good story, I think they are upset that it does propogate an incorrect theory about someone Christians see in a higher light than a mere fictional story. Dan Brown, on numerous occasions, has claimed that his ‘story’ is based on actual events. When confronted what those actual events are he responds with the evasive “Oh! It’s only a story though…” We are also at a time in history where Moral Relativism, Atheism, Agnosticism, and Gnosticism have left many Christians questioning their faith. There has never been a time in history when there were so many different denominations and beliefs in God. This, to Christians, is an attack that needs answering because we are at a critical time where people are questioning their beliefs. When someone with a ‘story’ comes along saying it is based on ‘fact but still a story’ is of great concern, because it speaks to the possibility of tearing people away from their beleifs. Are people weak in their faith? Absolutely, but what chance do they have when many of them are overwhelmed with ‘factual fiction’ that appeals to their doubts. Unfortunately, people who doubt their beliefs sometime need people like the anti-Dan Brown croud to explain and fight the ‘factual fiction’ they write.

SG


#19

Unfortunately this is all too true. In this “age of information” it’s a sad fact that the majority of people get their world-view from the popular media, especially TV, movies and novels. Anyone who goes around grousing that"it’s just a book" should remember that the Bible, the Koran, Origin Of The Species, The Communist Manifesto, Mien Kampf, and The Jungle (just to name a few) were also “just books.”

For a good analysis of this in our day, here’s a good article:

Fiction Isn’t Just Fiction Anymore
carl-olson.com/articles/la_envoy73_tdvc.html


#20

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.