View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Rachel Alexander |
May 8th, 2006
Anyone can write in a style that sounds like it could have been written during Biblical times by a legitimate author. So, all of you with student loans to pay, why not copy the success of Dan Brown and write your own mysterious novel discovering the Lost Book of Rachel or something? You mean you have never heard of the Lost Book of Rachel? Better see the movie, it's going to be at the top at the box office so it could be authentic.
The Da Vinci Code has been at the top of reputed bestseller lists since it came out three years ago, selling 40 million copies worldwide. It is the most popular fiction book of all-time and has made its author Dan Brown a millionaire. His secret? Writing the book in a style that sounds like the manner of speaking the Bible was written in, using holy- sounding words and phrases. It is a brilliant tactic, because most people are not familiar with the Bible enough to determine whether Brown is telling the truth or not. It sounds like official church jargon. Brown arrogantly states in the forward that the information he relies upon in the book is all fact, and has said on talk shows that he wouldn't change a thing in the book if he were to convert it to a non-fiction account.
Of course, his book has been easily refuted by clergy and Bible scholars all over the world, which wasn't too difficult considering Brown wrote it off the top of the head, not based on scholarly research, and freely admits he got the idea for the main theme - that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus - from his wife.
Since others much more knowledgeable than myself have exhaustively repudiated his drivel I won't bother going into detail but will point out some of the most obvious flaws. Brown claims that the Bible has been revised so many times over the years that it is no longer clear what is accurate. This is simply not true. The New Testament (which contains the story of Jesus) has been preserved from when it was written in the first century. Although some translations have changed a few words here and there over the past two thousand years (nothing substantive), early versions are still available to ensure the accuracy of the translated versions.
Brown contends there were other "lost" or apocryphal scriptures that should have been included in the Bible. If this is true, this lends weight to the possibility that the new information he writes about could be true. However, the first four books in the New Testament which discuss the life of Jesus were written in the first century by Jesus' disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and were accepted for the next couple hundred years after that by everyone as the only authentic true accounts of Jesus. There were a few books written well after the life of Jesus that were never accepted as historical, mainly because they were not firsthand accounts (although they were cleverly named after acquaintances of Jesus), were not written by Jesus' apostles, and contained numerous historical inaccuracies. Why some random guy making up stories about Jesus in the 21st century would have any more credibility than them makes no sense.
So if you too would like to become a millionaire, write a book just like The Da Vinci Code! Entitle it something like "The Riddle of Aristotle" or "The St. Augustine Enigma." Be clever, the more mysteriously religious the title, the better. Put cryptic-looking pictures and symbols with religious overtones on the cover. Use only religious names throughout the book, preferably ones associated with the Romans, Greeks, or Jews. Even better if they are names mentioned in the Bible but are not commonly known names like the books of the Bible, because those wouldn't be as believable. The names of lesser-known apostles are obscure enough - Bartholomew, Simon, and Andrew. And Steve Laib just suggested St. Stephen. Holy-sounding female names include Naomi, Evangeline, Ashira, Dara, and Jabez (oops, that last one is male, but most people won't know the difference).
Use lots of pious-sounding proper nouns and other words (consult a Catholic dictionary for a comprehensive list), that most people associate with religion but aren't really sure of their meaning, such as "apocryphal," "ecumenical," "ecclesiastical," "papal," "Babylonia," and "Tertullian." Put your own spin on official-sounding events in church history, such as inventing a bizarre real meaning behind the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and focus on rulers with Christian names, such as Martin Luther and Roman Emperors Titus and Antoninus Pius. It doesn't matter when they lived or what they actually did, as long as their names sound vaguely like they could have been associated with early Christians it will sound legitimate.
Ask your significant other to suggest a controversial plot, preferably something that will annoy the Catholic church, because once offended, Catholic church outrage will provide you with all the free publicity you need to become a bestseller. When you become a millionaire from book sales, please remember to credit me. In fact, you could credit me in the book - discovering the lost book of Rachel would work perfectly.
rachel@intellectualconservative.com
Visit their website at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/
Responses to "How You Too Can Become a Millionaire Like The Author of The Da Vinci Code"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Absolutely Love It, Rachel, Maybe I can capitolize on Saint Stephen?
Comment by Steven Laib | May 7, 2006
Good idea Steve, I'll add "St. Stephen" as another suggested name to use in the book, next time I edit this article. Thanks. Does anyone else have any other suggested names to contribute? I could add a list as a helpful appendix to the article. (Not like an up-and-coming author needs any of our help, one could write a dippy book like this off the top of one's head in no time at all without any research, solely based on memories from Sunday School)
Comment by Rachel Alexander | May 7, 2006
How about using the name Simon Templar from the old T.V. show "The Saint." You get to cleverly mix the crusading warrior/monks-the Knights Templar into the plot line and show them mercilously persecuting pious and prostrate Muslims!
Comment by Jeffrey Osonitsch | May 8, 2006
Great posting. St. Thomas the Apostle in Phoenix is having the author of The DaVinci Deception…, Dr. Ed Sri speak at the church on 22 May at 7 pm.
Comment by David Roney | May 8, 2006
Mah-velous! And The Lost Book of Rachel does have a nice sound to it. Of course, I've always likes the sound of "Rachel" as pronounced in Englsih (can't stand the original, Hebrew pronunciation — too guttural). Unfortunately, this is one prophecy that is bound to come true. Maybe plagiarist Kaavya Viswanathan will reappear under a pseudonym, stealing lines from Dan Brown.
Comment by Nicholas Stix | May 8, 2006
How long will it take for the next movie about Jesus and his disciples being gay to be made? It has always been a goal of the wacky left, maybe the Da Vinci code will be the springboard. I can see it now, "Jesus' Sermon on the Brokeback Mountain." The sad part is, people will believe that as well.
Comment by honker | May 9, 2006
Lighten up
Comment by Edgar | May 9, 2006
Whether Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus (and I doubt it) is irrelevant. My major issue with the Da Vinci Code is not its theme, but rather its flagrant lies and statements about history that even a high-school student with a little time and a first-year university textbook can disprove. My major issue is that people who have no interest in, or a bias against, Christianity (and I'm no Christian myself - I would say the same about any religion or philosophy) feel they can disregard 2000 years of teaching or wisdom simply because Dan Brown has proved to them the 'truth'.
It's like all those people with no knowledge of Homer and the Iliad, who went to see Troy and now know all about the Trojan War, despite the fact that the movie had very little in common with the tale or the historical evidence!
GRRR!
Comment by alex | May 11, 2006
I read the book. It's just recycled Gnosticism with some hedonism and misogyny added to attract today's humanists.
I recommend changing the title of your book to "Rachel's Tomb." That way you can relate whatever you invent to real biblical events and Jewish tradition. You now have instant credibility!
Comment by Jason | May 12, 2006
Dan Brown is on his way to being the next L. Ron Hubbard.
Comment by Tyler | May 14, 2006
If only it were that easy. Unfortunately, the bar for successfully selling out has been raised somewhat. In order to be the "next Dan Brown," you have to pick either a near-heresy or a full one, one different from the one which Mr. Brown seized upon (of course) and then use the content of such heresy as your story outline.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has been good enough to provide many and diverse heresies for your inspection. Just remember, though, that this one has been taken: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm
One cautionary note: not all qualifying heresies and near-heresies have marketable popularity value. There still is entrepreneurial risk to be faced by the aspirant.
Comment by Daniel M. Ryan | May 15, 2006
I can see no harm in a fictional book making claims that will challenge people to possibly do a little research on their own. Who knows maybe they will learn a little more about their own faith or take interest in researching other Da Vinci Code subjects. I think if High School history classes could be taught in the way Dan Brown writes more students might be eager to learn.
I don't think Catholics or other Christians should be worried that a fictional novel can undue 2000 years of Theology anymore than Democrats fear losing another member from listening to Rush Limbaugh's fictional talk radio show.
Comment by Ross Purdy | May 20, 2006
I enjoyed your article about the Da Vinci Code, particularly because you refute this book from a historical perpective. The Code is just one more example of what I have known for many years. The favorite way in which the left attacks our traditional beliefs is to attack the Bible via it's historical content. While working on my degree in Ancient History at Berkeley, I often experienced first hand the wide spread academic bias against the Bible as a history source. So there's nothing new about using a little fabrication, misrepresentation, or even an occational blasphemy.
Comment by Robert Brock | May 22, 2006
I just don't get why people are so up in arms about the DaVinci Code- and unlike most people who criticize it, I have actually read the book. It's fiction, folks. FICTION. Like all good fiction, it is based somewhat on fact, but elaborates on it to tell it's tale.
I think the people who complain most about it are those who secretly, deep down, believe it IS true, and because the possibility of that truth topples their world view they feel the need to air their own internal conflict out in the open.
Let's say Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a daughter. Heck, let's say he was black and had a bright blue mowhawk. Who cares? Does that in any way change the validity of Jesus' message?
Comment by MagentaStudios | May 30, 2006
I am sick and tired of people going on and on about Jesus' "message", as if Jesus were a great mortal teacher, but not God. As C.S. Lewis and many of the early Christians noted, Jesus was either the Son of God, or he was a bad man who deserved his punishments. There is no middle ground. Christ's main "message" was that he was the Son of God and died to ransom mankind from the devil. Christianity could not exist if Christ's "message" were given by someone else who was NOT God, but a mere mortal. Christ was more than a philosopher who taught a moral path for life, he was a personal saviour who saved with his ACTIONS and founded a Church that sustains itself through apostolic succession. If Christ were not God, then he would be a blasphemer or a lunatic, but not a "great teacher" with a good "message".
Christ's "message" was his own divinity. If that were untrue, his "message" would be untrue, and Christianity would not be a harmless delusion, as Dan Brown seems to believe, but a dangerous and blasphemous cult.
Comment by Ted | June 13, 2006
Except, of course, that Dan Brown's book does not question Jesus' divinity. The concept that Jesus may have wed and been a father no more diminishes his divinity than the concept that he ate food, wore clothing, had hair, walked with legs, or any other human aspects of his life.
All of the attacks on this book I have ever seen have nothing to do with anything said in the book or film. They are just about things some people incorrectly read between the lines and THINK are SUGGESTED by the book.
And BTW- his message was LOVE.
At that time, and now, people believed in hate-filled vengeful god(s).
Jesus brought the concept that God loves us, and would sacrifice his son for us.
Comment by MagentaStudios | June 14, 2006
I have always thought that the way to make a substantial amount of money in a very short amount of time would be by starting my own religion. The credulous and their financial resources are soon parted when they buy into the paradigm of belief without the utility of their critical thinking skills. In any event, the text of the current discussion is a work of fiction. Get over it.
Comment by Mark Smith | June 24, 2006
As you may already know, there have been 33 different Christmases but only 27 Easters established and observed amongst the various churches, all of whom must be believed since God Himself is speaking to us through them. If you don't believe me, ask them. So, Jesus was born 33 times but died only 27 times. (This is better than being born only 27 times but dying 33 times.) Therefore, 6 Jesuses are still at large. I should know: I am one. As for the others, I don't know and don't dare guess. I presume they either don't want to know or don't want anybody else to know, or both. As for me, I'm getting restless again. I hope my revealing and exposing myself again after all this time still excites the faithful. Thank you, J.C.
Comment by Joshua Christie | July 10, 2006
This post puzzles me a bit. You acknowledge you recognize the book is a novel, a work of fiction. You then go on to point out the factual errors in the work of fiction. Huh? Perhaps you could, for we almost-intellectuals-but-not-quite conservatives, include the current definition of fiction… because the one I learned (the one about fiction being stuff that's made up) is apparently wrong.
In keeping with the theme, there are a couple other millionaire fictioneers that'd be easy to slam. Maybe you could get Ludlum for using official-sounding secret spy agencies. That's just wrong… people might believe those agencies exist and that one in five people is an active, retired, or amnesient government assassin. Or maybe you could pop Crichton for using scientific-sounding words when writing about time machines and dinosaur islands when the scientific community overwhelming agrees that there's a pretty good chance those things probably don't exist. How dare he! For Christ's sake, doesn't he know he's a fiction writer and has an obligation to be factual in his fiction! Git 'em, Rachel, git 'em!
Facetiousness aside, your post has real value. Intended or not, your tip is actually spot-on for fiction writers. Good fiction is good fiction precisely because the author makes story seem so real (with imagined or semi-imagined detail) the reader is able to suspend disbelief and be drawn into the story while reading.
Comment by Mike Morgan | July 12, 2006
Rachel,
Your article, though very funny, does not quite belong on a site which claims to represent intellectual conservatism. Firstly, if you are going to attack the book by defending the Bible (a popular method), you need to deploy some sort of convincing research. As they stand, your statements on the canonization of the New Testament (particularly on the apostolic authorship of the gospels) are only defensible with recourse to Christian doctrine and have been greatly complicated by the last hundred years of higher criticism. It is of course possible to dismiss any effort to deconstruct scripture philologically or contextualize it historically as emergent from a liberal and anti-Christian bias, but such a stance would make your paragraph on the real history of the Bible meaningless. Without recourse to better research all you can say is that Dan Brown disagrees with your favored position, and the Truths you learned in church. This stance, while conservative, is hardly intellectual.
Also, the DaVinci Code is not written in a style which impersonates scripture. It is written as a punchy low-brow mystery novel, exactly what it is. It sounds like your real issue is not with the Dan Brown at all, but with the various apocrypha which have been published with increasing frequency since Nag Hammadi in 1945. There are many books including the Gospels of Judas, Phillip, and Thomas (but not including the DaVinci Code) whose recent popularity may understandably worry you, but which will not be challenged by your present tact.
Comment by Vince | July 21, 2006
Vince: Lighten up.
Methinks you have a considerable chip on your shoulder.
Brown is fair game for the avalanche of criticism he has received after creating a work of fiction while insisting that its premise is built upon factual bedrock. Conservative commentators such as Ms. Alexander aren't duty bound to dissect everything in a scholarly manner. Sometimes they are free to simply be sarcastic and poke fun. Ann Coulter has made a career out of it.
Besides, had Ms. Alexander attempted to generate some type of scholarly refutation, your response most likely would have been to dismiss it out of hand as:
A) "You don't have the credentials…you're a lawyer…not a Bible scholar or historian"
and
B) "You're biased…your religious beliefs won't allow you to come to any other conclusion."
Frankly, there is no need for Ms. Alexander to develop a scholarly refutation because so many have already been published and have so thoroughly disemboweled Mr. Brown's claims.
What I have yet to see is the other side of the coin: even one scholarly work proving the veracity of Brown's alleged "facts." The burden of proof rests with Mr. Brown and his supporters…not Ms. Alexander and the literally hundreds of millions of people worldwide who for some strange reason seem to think the historical account might just be accurate. Yes, how DARE they be such mindless sheep.
The truth is, I read the Da Vinci Code quite some time before all the media hoopla started, and found the book entertaining. Although as a Christian I found the premise both objectionable and silly, I have read other novels in which the premise was so fanciful as to be completely implausible. The difference is that those authors never claimed that their works of fiction were anything but that - fiction.
I would have had no problem with the novel had Brown said something like "claims of a conspiracy have existed for centuries, but have never been proven, and historical writings/musings on the topic were researched extensively in the preparation of this manuscript."
But he didn't. He apparently wanted to add to the mysterious allure by insisting that this ancient urban legend was fact. And for that, he has been justly criticized and overwhelmingly disproven.
Comment by nevadamistermom | December 16, 2006