Final (?) thoughts on The Da Vinci Hoax, relativism, revisionism, history, and truth*

Last week I wrote a critique of The Da Vinci Hoax, by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel. That critique prompted responses from both Olson and Miesel. Those replies have caused me to reevaluate my opinion of Olson and Miesel. I originally believed that their grasp on how history was rather naive and unsophisticated. It's now clear that they both have a firm grasp on the various problems historians face. However, I stand by my critique of The Da Vinci Hoax as a misreading of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.

First, I'd like to reiterate once again that, on the whole, The Da Vinci Hoax serves an important purpose: debunking the rather absurd claims that Dan Brown makes throughout his books. It seems as if people are attracted to Brown's writing due to his superficial erudtion, so it's good to see him knocked down when it comes to his facts. It is my sincere hope that everyone who read The Da Vinci Code and took it seriously would go out and buy a copy of Olson and Miesel's work.

It was not and is not my intention, then, to "demonstrate that [Olson and Miesel] failed to demolish Brown's claims," as Miesel initially believed.

Instead, my purpose was to illustrate that Olson and Miesel misread and misinterpreted Brown's work and rather broadly painted him with charges of relativism and revisionism, charges that are, respectively, unfounded and intellectually lazy.

Relativism
First, regarding Brown's supposed postmodernism and relativism, Olson and Miesel have made the following statements:

This [statement by Dan Brown] may strike some as thoughtful commentary, but it is simple sophistry, based on a mixture of popularized post-modernism and deconstructionism. (DVH, p. 27).

The offending statement by Brown, as far as I can tell, is this question: "How historically accurate is history itself?" I fail to see how asking this question is in any way "postmodern." To be sure, postmodernism is a notoriously difficult concept to define precisely, but is it really postmodern to question the accuracy of written history? Historians long before the late 20th century were questioning the accuracy of, say, Herodotus. Was Macaulay a postmodernist?

One of the great dangers of a popular, entertaining work such as The Da Vinci Code is that it reinforces the relativistic attitudes that are already prevalent in Western culture and offers additional reasons for readers to embrace such attitudes. [...] This idea [of relativism] is evident in remarks made by the character Robert Langdon, who talks about "faith" as being built upon "fabrication" and beliefs that cannot be proven in any way (DVH, p. 37).

Here Olson and Miesel accuse Brown (through Langdon) of propagating a relativist view of religion. Two points are made to support this claim: 1) Langdon views all tenets of faith as ultimately unsupportable by fact, 2) Langdon views religious faith as based on lies. The first is so self-evidently true (matters of faith are, by definition, unprovable) that I'm not sure why it's included as evidence in support of Langdon's supposed relativism. As to the second point, I'm not sure whether Langdon's expressing his opinion of Christianity or religion in general (it's not clear from the context in DVH and I don't have a copy of DVC nearby to check). Let's assume that Langdon's claiming that all religions are based on lies and are, therefore, equally valid. This is a relativist perspective; in fact, it's the only example of genuine relativism that Olson and Miesel cite.

It's crucial to note, however, that Langdon seems to have changed his mind by the end of the novel. At its heart, DVC is a detective story. Sure, there are bits of romance thrown in, but the central action of the novel is concerned with discovering the nature and location of the Holy Grail. And, by gum, by the end, Robert Langdon has found the answer. This last bit bears repeating: Robert Langdon has found the answer. In order for the plot to work, there needs to be a definite answer. That answer (I doubt I'm spoiling this for anyone) is that Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail, and "true" Christianity recognizes the sacred feminine, a belief Langdon enthusiastically embraces as he falls to his knees at the end of the book (assuming I'm recalling the ending correctly).

Put as simply as possible, The Da Vinci Code is deeply anti-relativist in its basic assumption that the Truth is out there. The protagonist, Robert Langdon, makes one potentially relativist statement in the whole of the novel (at least as substantiated by Olson and Miesel). And it is this relativism that Olson and Miesel so thoroughly decry as a dangerous element of Brown's work.

Dan Brown's work is deeply flawed. The problems with it, however, are almost entirely factual. As Miesel herself writes, "the kinds of errors that Dan Brown makes require no lofty analyses of 'discourse.'" I'm in complete agreement with her on this point. Brown is easily debunked purely on the facts he presents. Why Olson and Miesel bring up relativism at all remains a mystery.

Revisionism
On the question of revisionism, Olson and Miesel are entirely correct. Dan Brown's version of the past is revisionist and explicitly challenges long-held beliefs.

But (and I cannot emphasize this enough) there is absolutely nothing wrong with revisionism in of itself. All good history is revisionist, for it improves our understanding of the past. "Non-revisionist" history, quite frankly, would be boring as all hell, merely repeating the same conclusions that have already been reached.

Calling someone a revisionist is a lazy and almost meaningless attack. Anyone who suggests an analysis or interpretation that in any way differs from the current consensus is a revisionist. To be sure, some historians write more extreme versions of revisionist history. But this is not a bad thing. Only when revisionist views are based on shoddy research and interpretation are they bad, just as "traditional" views are disproved in light of new evidence and more enlightening analyses.

The Da Vinci Code is a bad book. The Da Vinci Code is revisionist. That both these statements are true does not entail that they are in any way related. In fact, there are plenty of explanations for DVC's wretchedness that do not mention its revisionism, namely its factual inaccuracies, its formulaic plot, and its painful prose. Here, again, Olson and Miesel are tilting at windmills: the problem with DVC is not its revisionism but its inability to present the facts.

[I wrote up another few paragraphs, but Blogger ate them and I'm too tired to type them up again. I might retype them tomorrow.]

*You didn't actually believe me, did you? I've got plenty more to say about history. But this could prove the end of my posts on The Da Vinci Hoax, depending on whether Olson or Miesel have further responses, which I would gladly welcome.