As the movie of the most overhyped book of our time approaches–a movie in which the trailer gives away at least one very important plot point, if not two–a new website, DaVinci Outreach, has launched, promoting "an easily accessible, question-and-answer book that thoroughly refutes the blasephmous [sic] claims that are harming the faith of millions in The Da Vinci Code."
Okay, I've got to say something about this.
First of all, when you're trying to counter something, at least be able to spell it, fellas. It's "blasphemous"…um, well, for Christ's sake. I mean, when I'm dashing out a website I make spelling mistakes too, but when it's a core idea of your website, run a spellcheck. You don't see me writing "fcition" or "fntasy" or some crap like that. If you do, feel free to smack me in a comment.
Second, on the surface, this just looks like a key problem with most religions: when you start to believe one book of fiction is true, then all other books of fiction can be true as well. These people actually think DaVinci Code is real. And granted, Dan Brown has, as I understand it, been stating that his book is based on a lot of facts. However, that is because Brown may be a hack, but he is also a marketing genius. Either that, or he's got people on staff that are marketing geniuses. Nothing sells like controversy, and so he's taking a book that is obviously fictional and painting it with a non-fiction brush in order to get people to buy it.
Which means that either the Catholic Church is in on the scam or they're just ridiculously dense. Again, it's a toss up, isn't it? Because hmm, let's see, the Catholic Church and conspiracy just go like hand and glove, don't they? And what do they get out of it? A crisis of faith where they can get on the news, easy sermon ideas, and folks like the people behind this website can sell some books.
Sidebar: what is this crisis of faith nonsense, anyway? Have you ever met somebody whose faith was shaken by a book of fiction? I mean, I've met plenty of folks who when doing research using non-fictional sources, they've come out of it with a new view on life, but fiction? Again, I wonder sometimes if these people can tell the difference.
Back to the dense part: they would have to be remarkably obtuse to keep making statements about this book three years after its release. That's right, according to Amazon, the hardcover hit in March of 2003. I know it's hard to imagine a time when this book was invading our lives. Has this thing been out of the news for a month at a time? No? Why is that? Because every time you turn around there's somebody from the Catholic Church denouncing the thing, when everyone in the world has moved onto other books. It's like they want to make sure every Catholic has bought their very own copy–or, since these people are notorious for protesting things they haven't actually read or seen–at least have it in their minds. Do these people not understand they are a marking dream come true? This is why I think: man, must be they're in league with Brown. Otherwise, why would you keep bringing it up long enough for the movie hype to take over where they book hype faded?
Okay, one last thought and this ramble will go away. I know you know people who have said that the book was the best thing they read all year. Here's a quiz: ask them just how many books they read that year. Because, let's face it: if you only read whatever Oprah says to read or "the next book everybody's reading," then yeah, Brown can be an okay page-turner–simply because you don't know any better.
What is the lesson? Take a page from Brown and Gibson: create something controversial, and fan the flames, while watching your book sales soar.
Will I learn from it? Sadly, probably not.
