Critical looks at 'Da Vinci Code'

A COMMON THREAD that weaves through critiques of ``The Da Vinci Code" book and movie was echoed in Ethan Gilsdorf's op-ed article (``'Da Vinci's' imaginary world" (May 18). He asks, ``How did we lose the ability to distinguish an invented story from a piece of information?" He offers possible explanations, including that citizens do not question authority, and are not critical thinkers.

I contend that ``The Da Vinci Code's" popularity is a reflection of an entire generation's questioning of the authority of the Catholic Church, and our willingness to critically examine the stories and arbitrary rules that have been imposed on the masses over the centuries. I am one of many who was raised Catholic and chose to leave the church precisely because I questioned.

Gilsdorf also suggested that citizens have ``poorly educated themselves or not made time to read broadly." I've always been a reader, and ``The DaVinci Code" has inspired me to read even more, to delve into European history, and to explore nonfiction works that challenge the dominant church paradigm. Despite criticism from literary elitists, ``The Da Vinci Code" offered the perfect combination of mystery, thriller, and religion -- delivered at the perfect time, to a generation hungering for an alternative explanation to the stories we grew up with.

PATTY O'DONNELL
Amherst

ETHAN GILSDORF'S op-ed piece made a well-reasoned statement about ``The Da Vinci Code." The book and the movie have chosen a soft target for their attack on the Catholic Church, and it has difficulty in defending itself. If the movie were about a conspiracy based on ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," it would be condemned, quite correctly. The Priory of Sion has a lot in common with that forgery, since it was created in the mid-1950s by Pierre Plantard, who went to great lengths to make the myth seem plausible.

BERNARD BURKE
Cambridge I READ with no small sense of irony Ethan Gilsdorf's op-ed article in which he expresses his concern that the general public cannot distinguish a good story from ``actual history." Who is to blame for this shift in perception?"

By relying on faith, billions of people accept as fact the stories contained in various religious writings, despite the obvious conflicts within and among them, without any need for factual proof. Mr. Gilsdorf uses the word ``Gospel" as synonymous with ``truth." But if one is raised to accept Gospel as the standard of truth, then one is conditioned to believe just about anything. To blame the media for this propensity, or even to imply that this is a recent development in the history of humankind, is preposterous. We are all born with an innate gift for accepting as plausible the most impossible notions. Religion, magic, and other artifacts have been explaining the unexplainable since the origin of our species.

HOWARD A. NUNES
Swampscott

ETHAN GILSDORF is correct that ``The DaVinci Code" is only a work of fiction. But I'm amused by his contrasting this with what he calls ``actual history" regarding the novel's explanation of events.

History can be determined archeologically to some degree of ``actuality." But our social interactions have largely consisted of warfare and class conflict, where ``history" is written by the victors to suit their needs. ``The Da Vinci Code" controversy centers around Dan Brown's imaginative spin on the life of Jesus, as against the Bible's equally imaginative account promoted by the church as authoritative.

With a work of fiction, the reader must practice Coleridge's ``willing suspension of disbelief." And this is equally true of the biblical story of Jesus, which defies our scientific understanding of the world and cannot be proven factually. But when Brown supposes that Jesus had a spouse like most other adult males in Nazareth, it seems that the burden of proof for actuality, as distinct from belief, belongs to those who would deny this very reasonable sociological supposition.

RICH LATIMER
Falmouth

INSTEAD OF ``The Da Vinci Code," let's call it ``The Akmed Code" and instead of Jesus allegedly marrying Mary Magdalene, let's say it's Mohammed allegedly rolling around in the grass with one of those 72 virgins. Now let's all guess how many articles this newspaper would have published featuring this type of trash. You are correct, the answer is none. Now let's say there are several cartoons circulating featuring Jesus playing Texas Hold'em at the Last Supper, working the online dating scene with apostles John and James, and serving as a caterer with the tag line, ``If he could feed thousands with a few fish and a loaf of bread, just think what he can do for your next party!" These cartoons then prompt rioting and mayhem among Christians worldwide with a call from the pope to kill those responsible for them. Does anyone doubt that this paper would have run countless articles and editorials featuring the cartoons and chastising Christians for their violent overreaction to nothing more than a permissible expression of First Amendment rights? The only thing worse than a newspaper without integrity is a newspaper motivated by fear.

KENNETH A. TASHJY
Westford

NOW THAT ``The Da Vinci Code" movie is playing, there is much writing and speaking about how wrong it is. It is hard to see how one can say a work of fiction is wrong. It does not pretend to be historically accurate. However, this is the problem that most of its attackers have with the book. It presents statements about the life of Jesus of Nazareth that are almost certainly more historically accurate than the teaching of most Christian churches. In particular, it is extremely likely that Jesus was married, because it was almost mandatory for Jewish men to marry in his time. It was even more required for a Jewish rabbi to marry. Jesus was often called ``Rabbi."

The book's attackers are eager to restate the traditional myths, such as that Jesus was celibate. The idea that celibacy was the most desirable option for religious people was not widely held until many hundreds of years after Jesus' death. Myth is the core of all religions. There is no harm in believing myths. If it gives people's lives more meaning and provides inspiration, good. But all this conversation about ``truth" is out of place. The churches promote myth every day, and historical accuracy is a very minor part of the New Testament.

NORMAN BEECHER
Concord