Dan Brown on Gender

The first time I got acquainted with The Da Vinci Code, it was several years back when my friend, Karen, loaned me her CDs of the book. Tonight I finished reading the print copy. And I have to ask this: Is it just my observation, or does Dan Brown seem fixated on sex?

Reading the book reminded me of a joke a youth pastor once told us about a man who went to a therapist. The therapist drew a picture of an elephant and asked the man, "What do you see?" and the reply was, "Sex, sex, sex." The therapist then drew a circle and asked, "What do you see?" and the reply was "Sex, sex, sex." Finally, the therapist drew a straight line and asked, "What do you see now?" The reply again was, "Sex, sex, sex." The therapist said, "I think you are obsessed with sex," and the man replied, "What do you mean me? You're the one drawing all the dirty pictures."

See the spade on the card here? See a resemblance to the "male" in the shape of the spade? Yeah, I never saw it as phallic imagery until I read Brown. And on the one hand he says cathedrals are designed to make the shape of a cross; on the other hand he says the long, narrow passageway in a cathedral is symbolic of a woman's vagina, complete with labia and clitoris. So which is it?

Don't get me wrong. I thought the book was entertaining fiction. I really did. It had its literary weaknesses (like, he adores the verb "began,"), but it was a rollicking good read with mind-bending mysteries and suspense. And I'm not suggesting we boycott. I know we have a big opportunity here if we can just mind our manners a bit.

Still.

Besides the whole goddess thing being a lie, he writes like he is some big friend to women by recapturing what we have "lost." But I suspect him of being a chauvinist cross-dressing in a radical feminists' clothing. Why is Sophie's character somewhat of a dimwit when it comes to believing all the two male "experts" tell her, unquestioning as she receives their "wisdom." And Brown presents sex as an elevated spiritual state that "man can only achieve through union with the sacred feminine" (p. 310). And what, pray tell, does the woman get out of the deal?

I don't mean to sound harsh here. Honest, I don't. But we don't do women or men a favor in an already oversexed culture when we encourage viewing women as a means to an end and point out sexual imagery in everything from playing cards to cathedrals. How 'bout we just call a spade a spade?