Friday, January 01, 2010

Tokens of the 2000s: The dog-ears on my dad's copy of The Da Vinci Code

Check this snappy motherfucker.

I read the shit out of that motherfucker. I remember among white people who defined themselves by their own perceived intelligence (which is basically how nuclear wars get started, yo) The Da Vinci Code was this avatar of everything that was ridiculous and uncritical and lazy and unthinking about the culture, and we would just sit in coffee shops and listen to Pink Floyd and drink chai and look across at the young man peering transfixed into his copy of Alvin Toffler's Future Shock (we were in our 20s! There is no excuse for this carryon!) and we would talk about how much we hated The Da Vinci Code, and then we would exchange copies of the works of Terry Pratchett and Neal Stevenson. GOD.

Anyway, I was like the kid who gets told that doing drugs will rot his brain and turn all his thoughts to mush until he just has to smoke some acid, so I read The Da Vinci Code; and it was better than that, because it came pre-mushed, like the brain equivalent of baby food. And there is no person in the world that does not love the taste of baby food. Also, if I could dress every day like Dan Brown, I would do so, at least three days a week.


ontic5 said...

I never read one of his books and I am not exactly a fan of the films.

I probably was out of the whole "the church covers up everything" well before Dan Browns works hit the shelves. It´s not as if he was the first to come up with that stuff.

Homage said...

The mistake the Dan Brown books make is allowing themselves to be marketed as "the Church covers everything up" books instead of "the bar of soap flew into the night" books.

Sky Garry said...

It is so charming how you look down on people who look down on Dan Brown.

Unfortunately I side with the chap who looks down on people who look down on people who look down on Dan Brown.

He wins at faux cultural superiority.

The people who merely like or dislike Dan Brown depending on their personal taste in literature... they are distressingly sincere. I do hate them so.

I remember when the book came out and I was all like, "this reads like crap, but I won't tell anyone I feel this way because I don't want to be perceived as a 'white people who defined themselves by their own perceived intelligence'. No no no! I will instead somehow contrive to enjoy the book, just so I can gloat about it later on.'

Because, you know... I perceive my intelligence to be greater than others. And that's how I define myself.

Sky Garry said...

To summarize, 'my contrived authenticity is more genuine than your genuine authenticity'.

Homage said...

Clearly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Sky Garry said...

You could say that... OR you could expand upon what I wrote and provide some further argument as to why disliking Dan Brown is solely the occupation of the faux intelligentsia.

Homage said...

I'm not sure when you're being sincere and when you're adopting a posture for the purpose of contrarianism, both of which are fine and fun things to do. I fear that if I come down on the side of "you are being silly", I will be looking down on people who look down on people who look down on people who look down on Dan Brown, and I have already forgotten what argument that position forces me to adopt.