May contain traces of... NUTS.

And when I thought that I’ve binned all hopes of ever writing a book review, here I am writing one. I decided to write something while I’m still in my post-‘Da Vinci Code’ mood.

Everybody kept on saying how great a book it was and the fact that its banned on some countries made it far too intriguing for me. I consumed the book overnight as soon as it landed on my doorstep. Actually, people who know me might be inclined to think I’ll go bonkers over this book, after all, it has those elements that I’m very fascinated with: Museums, anagrams and cryptic clues, semiotics, mythology and ancient relics, conspiracy theories about Jesus’ life, Church and secret societies. But I don’t know. It was a good read but I thought it was a bit... over-hyped. It didn’t really provoke me, or challenge my belief system the way that a lot of people claimed it will (lest invert my faith altogether). Maybe I have watched too much Discovery channel and too many docu-films of the same theme that this brilliant book becomes banal and almost predictable. Or maybe because I have already doubted the validity of religious doctrines way before that Dan Brown’s esoteric, somewhat unorthodox plot comes as a no-shocker to me.

But what really spoiled it for me is the fact that so many people kept on raving about it ad nauseam that my expectations just jacked up beyond the reasonable. Throughout reading the book, I was always in this anticipation that something will just jump right out and ‘grab’ my emotion and my thoughts. Sadly, it never happened. However, there’s no denying that, as a fiction, this is one helluva brilliant whodunit thriller exploring ‘paradoxical philosophies of science and religion’. I love Brown’s subtle humour. And the way Dan Brown successfully drew a riveting global-conspiracy-picture within a logically sound, fast paced narrative is amazing. His clever use of pseudo-historical references made this theory seem conceivable and it made it easier to gnaw on the more contentious ‘facts’ which can throw all those Bible bashing, happy-clappy brigade into fits of uproar: "Sacrilegious!!!! Heretic!!! Burn him!!"

Boohoo.

The Bible and Da Vinci Code has one thing in common. Both should not be taken in literally. I mean, in my personal conviction, the Bible is not a physically accurate chronicles of events that happened over 2 millennia ago, and I never really remember being taught in that light in our theology classes. We can’t simply apply the Bible in its literal sense ---whether in modern language or modern society--any more than Dan Brown’s ‘imaginative’ history.

I mean, do we Christians really believe that Adam and Eve really existed? Or that the Red Sea actually parted (beyond the laws of physics or any science)? Aren’t there suggestions that the parable of Jesus feeding the multitude is not so much of a supernatural phenomenon, but rather people followed suit after Jesus and his disciples began sharing whatever fish or bread they have to the rest, and in the end, there was enough to get around and fill up everybody? Or that the story’s main theme was not about physical sustenance but spiritual feeding of the 5,000 people?

Well, at the end of the day, the decision of whether these are miracles or if Jesus really was wholly divine is a matter of one’s philosophy and assumptions, and not pure history (if there’s ever such a thing). As Voltaire has written, "History consists of a series of accumulated imaginative inventions." But as Goethe advises us, 1 of the nine prerequisites of content living is FAITH -- "enough to make real the things of God." There’s always two sides of a coin and it depends on who's flipping.

So will I recommend this book? Depends. Will I read the sequel? Probably. Will I watch the movie on 2005? Maybe not.

PS

Incidentally, the master antagonist Teabing is an anagram of Baigent who co- authored Holy Blood, Holy Grail, along with Richard ‘Leigh’ and Henry Lincoln. This particular book is the basis of most of the conspiracy theory in Dan Brown’s fiction and was published way back 1983. So if you happen to be interested in this concept, then maybe that book will interest you too.


* "Irritatingly gripping tosh" as British reviewer Mark Lawson described the book.