Just finished it as I didn't want to put it down and come back to it later. Fortunately I'm off tomorrow, so it was okay to stay up late reading.
The book was well done. I can see why it's causing people fits. At times I was afraid it would get a little pedantic with a compensatory ascension of the feminine, but it actually maintained a good balance, and also had a good balance of intrigue and action. Just as things have gone off-kilter over the centuries towards the male side of things, people tend to overcompensate and go on about women, matrilinealism, matriarchy, and peace like they're all one thing and all good, even when there's no evidence or conflicting evidence, and that's just as annoying. I do love a well-crafted story that comes out seeming...whole, almost perfectly spherical. It was also well-paced.
Gratifyingly, my education, esoteric interests, and willingness to test conspiracy therories left me in good stead; there were a few specific things I had not heard of (such as a supposed pentacular transit of Venus (well, kind of, click for a better explanation) or the smack-of-revisionist-sex-in-the-Holy-of-Holies (yes, there are pagan roots in Judaism, as in other religions, and ritual sex was practiced in pagan temples in Israel, but the closest to that I've come across is the admittedly, propagandised story of Christ driving out those who camped out at the Temple, but no mention of it as a regular practice in an area of the few people were supposed to go near...certainly not women who might be menstruating.) Check out this site for some objections that aren't rejecting the book out of hand, justing pointing out some inaccuracies.
He has certainly presented a fairly coherent assortment of facts and theories in a solid fictional format, although I suppose there are people who would like to pretend it's all fact. I tend to not take fiction too seriously; the point is, was the story believable as presented, rather than true? I think he did well at engendering a buy-in to his story. I stayed ahead of the game (by just enough to feel smug, without getting bored) and still managed to have a few small surprises not so much in terms of the puzzles, but in terms of the characters. Some of the the symbolism with which I am familiar is ignored in favour of Brown's core masculine/feminine dichotomy, but in retrospect it would have been easy to distract readers by going off on symbolic tangents. Sometimes I think the symbolism is handled a little too simplistically, but again, Brown shows the danger of seeing too cryptic of meaning in everything. Sometimes, as Freud would say, a cigar really is a cigar. On the other hand, the complexity in terms of the Sangreal has been simplified to a duality that is misleading. Still, other books are mentioned to point to the more complex sacred bloodlines and possible symbolic connotations, if people are interested in pursuing it.
A group to which I belong discussed Holy Blood, Holy Grail and related texts years ago when they first came on the scene, and I was glad that Brown built on the concepts without simply choosing to reveal their secrets as some sort of climax. Rather, it is not so much the what, as the meaning, that becomes important in the story.
For a student of languages, art history, humanities, and religious symbolism, this was a very gratifying story. It reminds me much of Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose's handling of philosophy in that regard. Brown does a good job of explaining everything from phrases, beliefs, customs, and art for those unfamiliar with the terms. I have to admit, I still have my failings, having not been exposed much to art or culture until I was an adult, but I'm quite happy to apparently have made up for that under the tutelage of a mentor, along with my studies in school. I'm feeling rather civilised at the moment, which is pretty decent for someone who has trouble remembering the names of Classical music standards. :) Granted, I'm sure there are people who will decide that because many of the building blocks of the story exist either as physical realities, academic interpretations, or popular theories, that it is literal fact. But I think most people should know better.
I'm also glad that while much of the book casts the Church in a somewhat bad light--and certainly subject to manipulation, which is certainly historically true--things are resolved to a point where fanaticism, greed, and power are seen as the true corrupters. The Church has always been a conglomeration of human making, and hence suffers from human failings, just as any other organisation. One might also say as much about the Priory of Sion and the police in the story. Brown points out that while truth is to be pursued, it can also be dangerous, and that for some, faith--even misplaced faith, may be what sustains them. The whole history of the occult and secret societies has always maintained that some who are worthy seek--and find--the truth, but that often the truth must be obscured from the mundane because many are not ready for reality, and that the truth itself represents something sacred to be protected from mundanity. Ironically, many may question that sense of reality from reading this book, but many more will dismiss it as fiction, and reject what truths may lie in its pages. So the story--and the book itself--reflect a sort of microcosm/macrocosm that Da Vinci would definitely have appreciated. :) I guess the best thing, though, is that people are enjoying it and it's getting them to think about their own beliefs, which is a plus.
No comments:
Post a Comment