...
Show More
This book is presented as an approachable and “friendly” apologetic (or explanatory) response to the furor around Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. One can understand why since Brown claims in the preface that “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
Whether by design or happenstance there are a number of similarities between the original Da Vinci Code and McDowell’s response; each is divided up into very small units and neither has believably human characters. The first of these similarities is easier to explain than the second while both reflect more negatively on Brown than McDowell as a writer. The original book by Brown seemed to be formatted in a manner that made it easy to digest in very small chunks while conveying the illusion of having read much at each sitting. The response appears to be formatted so that each point of rebuttal has a section of its own. This may make it easier to locate specific information but it does make it more difficult for the reader to experience the book as anything but a study companion.
McDowell’s book is written with leaden obviousness and painful dialogue. Characters point out the inaccuracy of various claims Brown puts forth as facts but all the while these same characters talk of The Da Vinci Code as a fascinating page turner. Leaving aside the painfully long time it takes these characters (purportedly college students) to read what they claim to be a hard-to-put-down page-turner they are presented as, at best, naïve readers in the sense that they do not critique the writing, the plot or the characterization of the book that they are supposedly discussing as a group over several weeks. One might almost suppose that McDowell presumes that critical or thoughtful readers will be suspicious as to the accuracy of Brown’s alleged facts when they notice that Brown is barely competent at writing English and clearly unable to create believable human beings who act in believable ways. Unfortunately the pedestrian nature of McDowell’s writing and the obliviousness of his characters to occurrences and claims that are clearly counterfactual suggests that McDowell’s work is not aimed at the informed or critical reader.
When one turns one’s consideration to the purpose of this book this reader feels that it falls far short of its goal. In order for this conceit to work (that the book follows the experiences of three college students attempting to determine the truth of the claims made in Brown’s book) the students should at least be vaguely believable as students. The idea that college students would seriously struggle with the relative factual merits of scholarly books written by academics and a book written by a popular author of mysteries and thrillers makes this reader wonder if the author is writing a book set in an alternate universe. In point of fact what McDowell has done is create ‘straw doubters’ to make the arguments of the experts in the book seem far more persuasive than they would otherwise appear. Time after time, as an ‘expert’ demonstrates that something in Brown’s book is factually wrong, one of the students will say something to the effect ‘but everything in the book can’t be wrong so why not believe this other claim it contains?’ After the four or fifth time something such as this would happen in real life the expert would suggest that when a source has been repeatedly proven to be unreliable the reasonable thing is to take all further claims with a grain a salt rather than presume that, for a change, Brown is correct.
It further undermines the utility of this book as a study companion to The Da Vince Code that McDowell’s “experts” explanations of, among other things, the conversion experience of Constantine and the Arian “heresy” are so over-simplified as to be misleading if not simply wrong. At least some of McDowell’s readers will themselves do the research to notice this and end up doubting the veracity of McDowell’s debunking of Brown at least as much as they doubt the veracity of Brown.
Whether by design or happenstance there are a number of similarities between the original Da Vinci Code and McDowell’s response; each is divided up into very small units and neither has believably human characters. The first of these similarities is easier to explain than the second while both reflect more negatively on Brown than McDowell as a writer. The original book by Brown seemed to be formatted in a manner that made it easy to digest in very small chunks while conveying the illusion of having read much at each sitting. The response appears to be formatted so that each point of rebuttal has a section of its own. This may make it easier to locate specific information but it does make it more difficult for the reader to experience the book as anything but a study companion.
McDowell’s book is written with leaden obviousness and painful dialogue. Characters point out the inaccuracy of various claims Brown puts forth as facts but all the while these same characters talk of The Da Vinci Code as a fascinating page turner. Leaving aside the painfully long time it takes these characters (purportedly college students) to read what they claim to be a hard-to-put-down page-turner they are presented as, at best, naïve readers in the sense that they do not critique the writing, the plot or the characterization of the book that they are supposedly discussing as a group over several weeks. One might almost suppose that McDowell presumes that critical or thoughtful readers will be suspicious as to the accuracy of Brown’s alleged facts when they notice that Brown is barely competent at writing English and clearly unable to create believable human beings who act in believable ways. Unfortunately the pedestrian nature of McDowell’s writing and the obliviousness of his characters to occurrences and claims that are clearly counterfactual suggests that McDowell’s work is not aimed at the informed or critical reader.
When one turns one’s consideration to the purpose of this book this reader feels that it falls far short of its goal. In order for this conceit to work (that the book follows the experiences of three college students attempting to determine the truth of the claims made in Brown’s book) the students should at least be vaguely believable as students. The idea that college students would seriously struggle with the relative factual merits of scholarly books written by academics and a book written by a popular author of mysteries and thrillers makes this reader wonder if the author is writing a book set in an alternate universe. In point of fact what McDowell has done is create ‘straw doubters’ to make the arguments of the experts in the book seem far more persuasive than they would otherwise appear. Time after time, as an ‘expert’ demonstrates that something in Brown’s book is factually wrong, one of the students will say something to the effect ‘but everything in the book can’t be wrong so why not believe this other claim it contains?’ After the four or fifth time something such as this would happen in real life the expert would suggest that when a source has been repeatedly proven to be unreliable the reasonable thing is to take all further claims with a grain a salt rather than presume that, for a change, Brown is correct.
It further undermines the utility of this book as a study companion to The Da Vince Code that McDowell’s “experts” explanations of, among other things, the conversion experience of Constantine and the Arian “heresy” are so over-simplified as to be misleading if not simply wrong. At least some of McDowell’s readers will themselves do the research to notice this and end up doubting the veracity of McDowell’s debunking of Brown at least as much as they doubt the veracity of Brown.
