The "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into The Da Vinci Code
by Carl E. Olson | March 14, 2005

Print-friendly version

"Why write a book about fiction?"

So asks the headline of a recently posted reader's review at amazon.com of The Da Vinci Hoax, the book that Sandra Miesel and I wrote about Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. The reviewer continued:
Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code is a novel and not a fact based book. It is only a book of fiction and not to be taken seriously. It is entertaining in its outrageous attitude to convince [readers that] what he is writing is based on fact. Anyone who reads his book should not even consider anything, but be entertained in the fast moving read.
Another reader–let's call her "Sue"–recently sent me an e-mail expressing similar sentiments, albeit with more attitude. Sue wrote:
I’m failing to understand what all the controversy is about. The beginning of Mr. Brown’s book clearly states that it is a work of fiction. As such it stands to reason that various facts and historical data in the book should not be taken literally. It is a book meant to be read for pleasure, not to be taken out of context as one man’s idea of factual historical events. This is like saying that someone actually believes a Stephen King book to be fact! … Writing a "response" to a fictional work seems totally ludicrous to me. Now, if The Da Vinci Code were touted as FACT I could understand. This is all silliness to be all up in arms over a work of fiction.
These are typical statements of what I call the "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine, a nifty piece of polemical rhetoric coined by numerous fans of The Da Vinci Code. The argument is simple: Dan Brown's best-selling book is "just fiction," so why worry about it, write about it, criticize it, or react negatively to it? Even people who admit they didn't care for the novel are prone to using it, often with bemusement or puzzlement. More often than not, however, the "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine is uttered with some measure of anger, contempt, and loathing.

Perhaps those most annoyed by The Da Vinci Hoax and its critique of The Da Vinci Code will ignore this essay. But for everyone else, here are some reasons that the "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine is untenable and problematic.

What are people really talking about?

When the vast majority of Code readers talk about the novel, what do they discuss? The intricate intellect of Robert Langdon? The mysterious past of Sophie Neveu? The "24"-like structure of the plot? The psychological profile of the albino monk Silas?

None of the above. Time spent reading reviews, blogs, and discussion forums reveals that most discussion–and argument–centers on the historical and religious claims of the novel. Even people who have not read the novel and know little about its characters and plot are usually familiar with its central claims: Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married; they had children; this has been kept secret through force and terror by the Catholic Church; clues about this "fact" were left in Leonardo da Vinci's artwork. Television programs (on ABC, History Channel, National Geographic, etc.) featuring lengthy specials on the Code spend mere seconds or minutes on the characters and plot, instead focusing on the historical and theological claims made by the characters and which support the plot.

There are various reasons for this. First, the characters and plot are generic, thin, and of little or no interest. Secondly, the story is clearly a vehicle for beliefs that Brown apparently takes very seriously (more on that below). Finally–once again–it is the factual claims of the novel that interest readers, critics, and everyone in between.

A perfect example of this can be found in another reader review at amazon.com, written by a "Top 100 Reviewer":
Once I began this extraordinary book, I could not put it down. The Da Vinci Code is so much more than a gripping suspense thriller. Dan Brown takes us beyond the main plot and leads us on a quest for the Holy Grail – a Grail totally unlike anything we have been taught to believe. With his impeccable research, Mr. Brown introduces us to aspects and interpretations of Western history and Christianity that I, for one, had never known existed . . . or even thought about. I found myself, unwillingly, leaving the novel, and time and time again, going online to research Brown's research–only to find a new world of historic possibilities opening up for me. And my quest for knowledge and the answers to questions that the book poses, paralleled, in a sense, the quest of the book's main characters.

Leaving aside the issue of "impeccable research," Brown does indeed introduce "aspects and interpretations of Western history and Christianity" not known to many readers. As Sandra and I show in The Da Vinci Hoax, these "aspects and interpretations" are not new or original, nor are they accurate–not even close, in most cases. They are also not "fiction" in the proper sense of the word; they are not stories, but numerous pseudo-scholarly assertions artlessly fitted within a story. The whole point of the Code is go "beyond the main plot"; in fact, the main plot does not exist without those assertions.

Give us the facts! Sorta. Kinda. Maybe.

The main reason that The Da Vinci Code has sold some twenty-five million copies worldwide and remains on or near the top of best seller lists is that people are enamored with its historical, artistic, and theological claims. Staunch fans of the novel admit this is so in a variety of ways.







For example, this curt statement from a heated fan of the Code: "You self-righteous catholic freaks are going to try and debunk a book that lets the world know the true nature of your religion!" And this e-mail, from his apparent twin: