h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

How much of what is in the book 'The Da Vinci Code' about Opus Dei is true?

Hello Cyzaki. There is a background of some truth in the locations, but that's about all. For example, the Information Office in Britain (where I spend part of my time) is in Orme Court. You may recognise this place as a venue from near the end of the book. I don't think Dan Brown got the right building, though, from the description.

Of course the book is a novel, and some latitude should be allowed. On the other hand it was the author's choice to involve Opus Dei, rather than a fictional organisation whose members could not get hurt.

A few things... the allegation is made (and presented as fact) that Opus Dei helped the Vatican Bank in 1982 to ensure it would be established as a personal Prelature. This is false, although the allegation has been made before so the author does not deserve to be castigated for inventing it, he merely repeated it.

However, other allegations invented by the author are also reported as fact. One of the lists includes a true fact (about Hanssen), but the other items are false: use of drugs in recruitment, ascetic practices giving a near lethal infection (ugh!), signing over one's life savings before attempting suicide.

In general it is hard to recognise anything in the book relating to Opus Dei as even the 'scenery' given is completely inaccurate: centres of Opus Dei are described as monasteries, with members in their cells praying all day; members dress with habits like monks; Orme Court is described as having a courtyard and an open door to anyone who wants to come; the prelature is presented as a special status within the Catholic church; the top man has been a missionary, etc.

Incidentally, I think the book is also wrong about the way ecclesiastics treat one another. I'm not one myself, but I do know a few, and Mafiosi they're not.

Enough! I could rant on for ages...

Back on the Da Vinci Code, the assertions the book makes about early Christians and Church history are questionable to say the least. Not to mention the weird interpretation of Leonardo's 'Last Supper'. But it's a novel after all.

Have you been to Dan Brown's website? On there he states that the majority of his theories aren't his at all, but have been around for a while and he's just put them in his book.

That's right as far as church history is concerned. I did look at his website, and his feat has been to bring various strands together in a cliffhanging novel.

If you want an example that appears to predate his book, there's an example very close to home: take a look at the h2g2 entry on the Council of Nicea, A307487. With a little editing it could have been put straight into the Da Vinci Code. The only changes necessary would be a comment here and there, such as 'Teabing chuckled', or 'Sophie's head was spinning.'

Actually it would be more in place in a novel.

I thought the novel made great reading, and what he describes about the Last Supper is in fact in the painting.

I noticed that! Once I read that passage about the last supper I spent 30 mins running round my house looking for a copy of it and ended up finding one on the net to look at while I was reading

I don't know whether it's worth being picky, but... the normal interpretation of Da Vinci's 'Last Supper' is something like the following: the painter selects the most dramatic moment of the evening. Jesus has just made the announcement, "One of you will betray me." The composition accordingly shows the wave of surprise that flows from these words.

Da Vinci places all the twelve apostles on the far side of the table, so there is a ripple effect from Jesus (framed by a window) out toward the apostles who are grouped into threes. The most important set of apostles comprises Peter, John and Judas. Peter impetuously thrusts himself toward John, asking him to ask of Jesus who the betrayer is. In doing so, he pushes Judas outward toward the viewer.

What the book does is to reinterpret this painting for the purposes of the story. It claims that the apostle John, painted as a very young man, as usual, is in fact Mary Magdalene. She is said to be the Holy Grail, also shown by the absence of the chalice. But its absence is not surprising, because the painting is showing the betrayal announcement, and not the consecration of the bread and wine. And one might ask, if one of the twelve really is Mary Magdalene, which of the apostles is absent?

This is no problem, as long as it is taken for what it is: fiction.

All I say is, I know a girl when I see one, and so, presumably, did DaVinci.

Well yes, I agree!

The thing is, throughout the Renaissance artists painted St John that way - e.g the Last Supper by Ghirlandaio, and another by Andrea del Castagno. And Leonardo in particular sketched many figures of men who to us look a bit like women.

This is not to decry Dan Brown's book as fiction - there are other tests for that. It's when it's taken as fact... remember, it's in the fiction section of the library.

Hello... I'm subscribed to this page, so I noticed the thread... mind if I interject?

Andrew, you said: "What the book does is to reinterpret this painting for the purposes of the story. . . . . This is no problem, as long as it is taken for what it is: fiction."

This implies that there might be a problem if it's taken as something other than fiction... what's at stake here, exactly? Da Vinci's reputation as an orthodox interpreter of scripture? I'm puzzled by your phrasing.


GTB

Hello GT!
Sorry, I didn't mean to be confusing. It's not Da Vinci who I think has painted Mary Magdalene there, it's Dan Brown.

Does it seem to you that many people are taking his novel as somehow more than fiction? I haven't read it myself...

That's a good question, now I think about it. I think the answer is probably yes, as shown by book reviews in various places; but on reflection perhaps I'm also reacting overmuch.

Evidently the action in the novel is fiction, and I don't think anyone takes that as fact. At the same time, as in other novels, there is a background that relates in some way to reality, e.g. The Louvre, Biggin Hill Airport, the Circle Line, etc.

In this book there is an unusually extensive in-between area that is ambiguous, such as the discussions on church history - and also the treatment of Opus Dei, which I think was unnecessary. It's these areas that are being taken as more than fiction by at least some readers.

The point as to what is at stake is also interesting. I think there are two elements: firstly the question of what someone actually did, wrote or meant has a certain value. But also for some people there might be more at stake, and this stake could be direct or indirect.

Well, it's the beginnings of an answer!

Perhaps one of the reasons why a lot of people take it for real is because for the most part it makes a lot of sense.

That's a better answer than mine, although obviously I don't completely agree...

I thought it made sense.

The reason I asked the question in the first place is that I knew nothing of most of the things in the novel, and everything in the novel seems plausable to me (as in it wouldn't be impossible for it to be true, not as in it is true). I therefore didn't know which bits, if any, were taken from life and which bits were invented. For all I know, Dan Brown could be in the Priory of Sion and this could be his way of getting the truth out. Or it could all be an invention from his mind.

I actually thought he had invented Opus Dei for the book, until I did a bit of research after reading it, so if one thing I thought he had made up turned out to be true, why not the rest of it?

Opus Deï may not have been invented, but the behaviour of the members probably is.