In light of recent events surrounding The Da Vinci Code, I can’t resist adding in my thoughts to the popular book.

For a pulp fiction, the book is a real page-turner. Brown keeps it interesting enough that you can’t put down the book until you learn more - about the Priory of Sion, the Opus Dei and the Grail historians. The theories explored by the book, of course, isn’t new. Go to the New Age/ Popular Science/Ufology section of any decent bookstore and you’ll find numerous books expounding on this very idea, backed up by archaelogical and historical posits. Although I haven’t had a chance to read it, I’m sure The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail suggests rather similar ideas.

This particular conspiracy theory assumes that Leonardo Da Vinci and other prominent artists, writers and socialities belong to a secret organisation called the Priory of Sion (who later went on to form the Knights Templar and the Freemasons), who holds the secret to the real Holy Grail: that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (not a prostitute as the Bible suggests - in fact, there is no direct correlation between the two in the Bible. One theory suggests that Mary Magdalene is in fact sister of Martha) and go on to have a child, whose bloodline later became the Merovingians in France. The Catholic church, and I suspect, most Christian groups have always presented Christ as a divine being, more human than human, that, while was all about loving one’s neighbour as you love yourself, is seemingly incapable of (or frowns upon) love between a man and a woman. The conspiracy theory suggests that the Catholic church (let’s face it, without the Catholic church, there won’t be any other church denominations) suppresses the role of the feminine (goddess) in favour of the masculine - the patriarchy. Obviously still very much in practice today in light of women’s role in Christianity: you’re either a mother or a whore. Not to mention it is a historical fact that they did obliterate all forms of goddess worship pervalent in Druidism and Paganism (and if you start an argument with me about the Catholics’ so-called worship of the Virgin Mary, I’m just going to ignore you). So the Holy Grail is not a cup ( a la Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade or King Arthur’s search for the grail) but a person with the Merovingian bloodline. And I can’t resist adding, IF this is somehow all true, I can see why the Vatican would want to keep this information quiet, since the centre of Catholicism was France before political differences split the church.

And then we have the pulp fiction that is The Da Vinci Code, interweaving conspiracy theories and facts (the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei are very real) into heart-stopping fiction that takes the reader and its beloved character, Harvard’s professor of Symbology, Robert Langdon from Paris to London to Edinburgh. What it does is bring little known conspiracy theories (unless one is already a fan of such ‘genres’) to the mass audience, hence threatening not only the position of the Bible as the most read book in the world (which I’m sure it won’t), but also the Vatican’s position on secrecy and secret organisations. Who knows what is really hidden in the Vatican’s vaults, but by coming out and loudly proclaiming that Catholics/Christians should shun the book and disbelieve it as a pack of lies only draws more attention to the book and the conspiracy theories. Mindless protectiveness suggests that one has something to hide, and if what is suggested in the books and countless others in conspiracy theory discussion boards, popular science/religion books aren’t real, why the need to draw more attention to it than it warrants? You make your own decision.

For what it’s worth, I find Brown’s books to be rather formulaic, and despite the controversy, The Da Vinci Code pales in comparison to Angels and Demons, which is where we first encounter Robert Langdon. In the latter, you really get to see him at work, as an expert in deciphering symbols and what they could signify. The Da Vinci Code will undoubtedly make a better Hollywood blockbuster. Except for those of us who are not convinced Tom Hanks will make a good and believeable professor, dressed in tweed, rather good-looking and speaks with a honey-timbered monotone. No offense to his fans (which I know they are legions, and I’ll probably get flamed for even saying this), but TH is a little bit too Forrest Gump-y to play a Harvard professor.

Now if the film comes out a blockbuster (which of course the producers are banking on getting an A-List star like Hanks) and he’s believeable (to me!), I shall gladly retract what I said. Until then, I reserve the right to remain unconvinced.