This is the nonfiction story of one man's quest to publish a fiction novel:

**Is The Da Vinci Code really offensive?  Read the book, read this blog, and then decide for yourself and let me know via the comments.**

Last week, the second highest selling book of all time (behind only the Bible) was released worldwide in movie form, and made $224 million in three days.  I am of course talking about The Da Vinci Code.

Part of what is so great about writing this blog (as opposed to say, a how-to book) is that I can keep the contents of my “book” up-to-date.  I can write about current events in the world of story telling, and as I read countless blogs, listened to countless radio shows, and watched countless television programs last week discussing The Da Vinci Code, I realized that it can’t get more current than that.  So, for today, I’d like to write about the most popular commercial book ever written.  And I'd like to write about it in a way that I have yet to see.

I went to see the film it’s opening night, and there were protestors outside the theater trying to stop me from seeing it.  They were saying things like, “The author wants you to believe this is real, but it isn’t,” and “I trust Jesus Christ.”

These protesters perplexed me.  In response to the first comment: no, Dan Brown does not want you to believe this is real.  That is why if you go to Borders you will find his book in the fiction section, and why on the first page it says, “All characters, events and actions are a work of fiction and are products of the author’s imagination,” just like any other fiction book.  To spur any potential argument, the next page then says, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate,” implying that everything else is not accurate, because it is not real, because it is fiction.  I compare the book to Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which begins with a similar warning of, “This is a work of fiction.  Characters, corporations, institutions, and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination, or, if real, are used fictitiously without ay intent to describe their actual conduct.  However, references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate.  Footnotes are real.”  In response to the second comment from the protestors: I’m glad you trust Jesus Christ, and so does the movie you are protesting.  In it, Tom Hank’s Robert Langdon (the main character) explains that when he was trapped in a well as a child, it was Jesus Christ who saved him.  That seems to be trust to me.

So why were these people protesting?  I recently had a conversation with someone who was against the book and the movie, and I discovered why: they never actually read the book or saw the movie.  I'm serious.  I had a conversation with somebody who was condemning the work and making statements about it, even though the person had never read it and so had no idea if those statements were true.  The people outside the movie theater can't really know what it is they are protesting.  If they did, they wouldn’t be spending their day holding signs and yelling at people.

Because, when you really look at it, what do they have to protest?  What is so offensive about the book?  Right off the bat, let’s point out that the book is fiction.  Dan Brown did not come across this startling information that nobody else knew, and instead of writing a commentary in Time Magazine or USA Today, decided to tell the world by including it in a story with imaginary characters and incidents.  I hope none of these people actually believe that he is claiming the remains of Mary Magdalene are buried in the Louvre, or that the curator of the museum was murdered there.  I’ll say it one more time: Dan Brown is not claiming that the contents of this book are fact.  Robert Langdon is a fictional character.  In fact, he appeared in another of Dan Brown’s fiction works, Angels and Demons.  

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s dig a little deeper.  Are the claims that Dan Brown makes within his fictional world really that offensive?  Do they really diminish the power of Christianity?  I have never had a conversation with Danny about this, so I don’t know his intention, but my answer based on reading the book and seeing the movie is no.  Especially the movie, which tones down some of the more controversial elements, making it extra silly to protest.

First we’ll look at it on the surface.  Dan Brown created a fictional world.  Yes, it mirrors our own, but it is fictional.  While there is a Harvard University, there is no Robert Langdon who teaches symbology there.  While there is an Opus Dei, there is no Bishop Aringarosa overseeing it.  The curator of the Louvre is not Jacques Sauniere.  The person to the right of Jesus in The Last Supper is not Mary Magdalene.  This all takes place within a fictional world that Dan Brown has created.  Therefore, anything he says about Jesus or any other figure in history or religion he is not saying about our Jesus, but about his fictional representation of Jesus.  Compare it to a skit on Saturday Night Live.  When Dana Carvey as the first George Bush considered shooting Will Ferrell as the second George Bush while on a hunting trip during a famous SNL scene, Lorne Michaels and the writers weren't making the claim that such an incident actually took place.  They weren't claiming that the first Bush president is capable of murdering his son.  They simply took real people and planted them into a fictional universe where a fictional event took place.  They used the familiar idea of people to tell their own story.

Nonetheless, even if it a fictional Jesus being blasphemed, people could still be offended, so let’s decide whether the book/movie is really blaspheming.

The Da Vinci Code claims that Jesus Christ was married, and that his disciples knew this and that gospels were written about it, but that a thousand years ago a few corrupt members of the church covered it up.  I don’t think anyone can argue that there were corrupt members of the church a thousand years ago.  The church was the government, and corrupt deals occurred quite often.  If you are offended at that claim, then you must also be offended by The Three Musketeers, Robin Hood, and any other story about corrupt cardinals or bishops.  

So then let's discuss Jesus’s marriage.  The Da Vinci Code is not saying that Jesus lied or withheld information or sinned.  The book is saying that he made it quite known he was married, but humans (fallible, imperfect, potentially corrupt people – you know, the Pat Robertsons and child molesting priests of the world – covered it up).  So don't come back at me with the argument that, "But Jesus never mentions being married in the Bible."  In Dan Brown's world, he is saying of course there is no reference in the Bible, because it was covered up.

So now we get to the real crux of it.  Is the idea of a fictional version of Jesus being married offensive?  It shouldn’t be.  Yes, Jesus is supposed to be God, but he is the human form of God.  He came here as a human being.  He was born, grew up, went to the bathroom, felt pain, and felt emotion (John 11:33 - When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled) just like any other human.  He bled, he cried, he got angry when people used a temple as a marketplace and started attacking them and destroying their belongings (John 2:13-22).

If Jesus didn't feel pain or temptation, if Jesus didn't know what it was like to be human, how could he understand them?  If Jesus couldn't feel pain like a human, would his crucifixion have mattered?  Hebrews 2:18 says, "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."  To me, this means that by experiencing what humans feel firsthand, he was better able to understand them, and he wanted to understand us, so he did everything a human did.  The website ChritianAnswers.net tells us that one of the reasons Jesus came to Earth as a human being was, "To show us an example of how to live."  Therefore, wouldn’t he want to show us how to be a family?  Wouldn’t he want to show us the right way to treat a loved one, raise children, etc.?

Again, I am not stating that Jesus actually was married.  I am simply making the argument that a fictional Jesus being married shouldn’t be offensive.  The Da Vinci Code does not undermine the important messages of Christianity.  It never says Jesus was not the Son of God.  It never claims he wasn’t actually crucified and then resurrected.  It never second-guesses his teachings.  

The movie that these people were protesting does not go against the Christian religion.  It simply says, “This imaginary version of Jesus told us all the same things he told you, and all of those things were true, but he was married in the process.”  Why is that so offensive?  Why is that worth protesting?  Why is that worth judging and condemning other people when your religion teaches you that only God has the authority to do that?

This whole debate poses some interesting considerations for future authors.  Obviously, something that has been known for years is the truth that sex sells.  The other guranteed seller, perhaps even more effect than sex, is controversy.  Dan Brown managed to compile both into one mega-successful seller.  Will this always work, however?  No, because only a very specific type of controversy sells.

Just being controversial for controversy's sake isn't necessarily a golden ticket.  Your message has to hit home with the audience.  It has to really bother some, and really inspire others, so that both sides can fight each other about your work, all the while giving it attention and publicity.  Just making the most violent movie or most rascist album or most offensive book is not necessarily going to draw the type of attention you need for success. 

For instance, if a young aspiring screenwriter were to start a movie off with a conversation about whether God raped Mary, would that brew controversy?  Would it get people talking and make them want to see such a movie?  Or, would it just disgust them and make them want nothing to do with the film?  An artist has to be careful to brew just the right tea of controvery, otherwise it will simply leave a bitter taste in the audience's mouth, and the person will be scratching his head wondering why it worked for Dan Brown but not for him.

This chapter is being posted on Tuesday do to the extended holiday weekend.  On Thursday, I will post an excerpt from my book that makes this entry at least somewhat relevant.  Meanwhile, thanks for reading.  I look forward to the hate mail and death threats from the tolerant, commandment abiding Christians of the world.