Thinking Activity - "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown

This blog is part of my academic activity. To know more about it, click here.

1. Brown states on his website that his books are not anti-Christian, though he is on a 'constant spiritual journey' himself, and says that his book The Da Vinci Code is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith."

I agree on what Brown is saying. His book “The Da Vinci Code” has many interesting things which will attract people. The book is highly controversial but what Brown is saying is also can be taken in to the consideration. He is on a constant spiritual journey, and if there he finds some faults in religion, it is his duty to let others know about that. There is not only one religion in the world and if Brown is finding other religion better than one which he knows that, then he can try to change it, after all religion is made by humans. Spirituality is in knowing our own self and this book let the characters do it. He also have shown some flaws of Christianity, which if we look at it with sceptic eye seems true to us. Then everything needs change with time, so does the religion. So I agree what Brown is talking about debate, that this book give us the different angle for looking towards the things and it doesn’t mean to be anti – Christianity. It provides us the ground for healthy discussion and debate and the book can be used as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.


2. “Although it is obvious that much of what Brown presented in his novel as absolutely true and accurate is neither of those, some of that material is of course essential to the intrigue, and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman has retained the novel's core, the Grail-related material: the sacred feminine, Mary Magdalene's marriage, the Priory of Sion, certain aspects of Leonardo's art, and so on[1].” How far do you agree with this observation of Norris J. Lacy?

I do agree with Lacy’s observation. What film is trying to show as fact those are just made up theories. But it obviously held the viewers attention as it is unfolding in very interesting way. It will beautifully fooled those who don’t have enough historical sense and proofs to prove Brown’s narration wrong. I do agree with second statement also that screenwriter has held the core of the novel till the end, by focusing on Grail, Sacred Feminine, Mary Magdalene, Priory of Sion, and Leonardo Da Vinci’s art.

3. (If)You have studied ‘Genesis’ (The Bible), ‘The Paradise Lost’ (John Milton) and ‘The Da Vinci Code’ (Dan Brown). Which of the narrative/s seem/s to be truthful? Whose narrative is convincing to the contemporary young mind?

If we look towards these three text by its style of genre of narration than, “The Da Vinci Code” is more convincing to the contemporary young mind than “Genesis” and “”The Paradise Lost”.  “Genesis” (The Bible) is written as words of God, where there is no space to question anything which seems totally foolish or unbelievable. “The Paradise Lost” (John Milton) tries to give some different personality to the characters of “Genesis”. But it still shows the fear of God. When we talk about “The Da Vinci Code” (Dan Brown) he is trying to free human being from blind faith in religion. It also tries to give logical reasons (though not fact) to convince the readers. Other texts are trying to show God as divine but “The Da Vinci Code” is trying to show God as human being who has done good deeds. It tries to says that religion is made by human being, for the betterment of human being according to the ancient time, and if there is necessity we can make change according to the recent time. So, “The Da Vinci Code” is more convincing to the contemporary mind.


4. What harm has been done to humanity by the biblical narration or that of Milton’s in The Paradise Lose? What sort of damage does narrative like ‘The Vinci Code’ do to humanity?

Every narrative left it imprints in the mind of human beings. Same every narrative has done something good or bad for humanity. Here we are looking for the harms which has done by “The Paradise Lost” (John Milton), and “The Da Vinci Code” (Dan Brown). Milton by portraying God as punishment giver, it tries to make humans afraid of something and tries to control the free will of human being. It also seems to say that questioning mind is not good because it leads towards the punishment. So it kills the basic human instinct to be curious and free. While on the other hand “The Da Vinci Code” is trying make humans free from the shackles of religion, but humans also need something to believe in it, from which they gain strength to fight the difficulties in their life. On the other hand there are some people who have grown up with religion and if suddenly someone snatch the very base of their existence it will become hard to live for them. So from both the ways it damages humanity.

5. What difference do you see in the portrayal of 'Ophelia' (Kate Winslet) in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, 'Elizabeth' (Helena Bonham Carter) in Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or 'Hester Prynne' (Demi Moore) in Roland Joffé's The Scarlet Letter' or David Yates's 'Hermione Granger' (Emma Watson) in last four Harry Potter films - and 'Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautau) in Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code? How would justify your answer?

Mostly these all female characters are similar but at some extent they differ from each other. If we talk about Ophelia and Elizabeth are portrayed as subordinated to the male characters while Hester Prynne, Hermione Granger and Sophie Neveu have their own voice in movies. Another big difference between all these characters and Sophie is objectification of their body. Directors have shown women’s body very openly and also when there is no need of such scenes, but Ron Howard has remain faithful to the theme of novel and which he keeps in his film is that Female Sacredness. He has not shown Sophie’s body as a object. This is the big difference between portrayal of all other female characters and portrayal of Sophie Neveu.


6. Do novel / film lead us into critical (deconstructive) thinking about your religion? Can we think of such conspiracy theory about Hindu religious symbols / myths?

Yes, this novel/film leads us to think about our religion in same way. Like the novel says that Jesus was human not divine. Same we can find in Hindu religion that there are some books which says that when Ramayana and Mahabharata was written for the first time The Rama and The Krishna were portrayed as a humans only but after that deification happen and everybody starts taking both of them as divine. If we talk about symbols then the Shivling, has been interpreted by Wendy Doniger as male and female phallic symbols and people worship it, but then people denied this theory.  So Hindi religion also have conspiracy theories.


7. Have you come across any similar book/movie, which tries to deconstruct accepted notions about Hindu religion or culture and by dismantling it, attempts to reconstruct another possible interpretation of truth?

Wendy Doniger has written many books which are challenging the accepted notions about Hindu religion. “The Purpose” by T. P. Kailasam also tries to break the accepted notion about Pandvas and especially about Arjuna. Amish Tripathi has also written many books on retelling the myths of Shiva and Ramayana. Many movies like PK and OMG tries to break the boundaries between religion and also the portrayal and many beliefs of God.

8. When we do traditional reading of the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’, Robert Langdon, Professor of Religious Symbology, Harvard University emerges as protagonist and Sir Leigh Teabing, a British Historian as antagonist. Who will claim the position of protagonist if we do atheist reading of the novel?

If we do atheist reading o the novel, Sir Leigh Teabing will claim the position of protagonist. Because if he knows the secret of Holy Grail, he will reveal it to the world and will show the real face of Church to the world. He wants to give freedom to the humanity and for that he will do anything. Some may find Sophie as a atheist protagonist but then she is not knowing much about religion, she just knows what is popular. But after that also when she comes to know about herself, she can come front of the world and can give the whole new way to the Church but then she choose to be silent. So Sir Leigh Teabing will be better as protagonist as atheist.


9. Explain Ann Gray’s three propositions on ‘knowability’ with illustrations from the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’.
a.       1) Identifying what is knowable
b.      2) identifying and acknowledging the relationship of the knower and the known
c.      3) What is the procedure for ‘knowing’?

Three proposition of Ann Gray on “Knowability” is very much present in the novel, “The Da Vinci Code”. This concept works through out the whole novel.

1) Identifying what is knowable is a process to realize what we actually know. Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu both are trying to decode the codes given by Sauniere, so they are identifying what they know and then they are applying their knowledge to make a way.

2) Identifying and acknowledging the relationship of the knower and the known. This leads to the knowledge of self. We can again see this in the characters of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu. They both know so many things but they don’t know why there were knowing those things. After reaching at particular point they both come to know about their own self and the reason behind their knowledge of particular things.

3) The procedure of knowing is to walk alone on the path of quest. Sauniere was used to laugh upon Robert Langdon, because Langdon was knowing everything but then even he was unknown to the things. To get this thing Langdon has to walk on that path quest by himself. No one else can provide him that understanding of his knowledge. He has to get it by himself and at the end by walking on the path of quest he come to know the procedure of knowing. It is like, “Knowledge always dawns when time comes.”

Thank you.

Thinking Activity - "The White Tiger" by Arvind Adiga

This blog is part of my academic activity. To know more click here.

1) How far do you agree with the India represented in the novel The White Tiger?

The India which is represented by Adiga is poor, corrupt, uneducated, and cheater also. Well I do agree that not only India but all countries in the world do have these bad kinds of problem in it. But it doesn’t make them all bad. Adiga has represented the darker side of India. This novel was written in 2008, after that India has progressed in many ways. But then even we can bot fully deny that poverty, corruption, and illiteracy are vanished from India. Still in some remote place there are landlords who ruled over town people. Still there are many people who are not educated properly. So, we can not deny the India which is represented in “The White Tiger” by Adiga, but we can say that, India is not only what is represented by Adiga. There is bright side of India. By bright side I mean There are people who are educated, rich enough and honest.

2) Do you believe that Balram's story is the archetype of all stories of 'rags to riches'?

We can see that the stories which portrays poor as central character at the end of the story the poor becomes rich. We can see many people who are same as Balram. Same like who belongs to poor and wide family, who didn’t complete their studies, who goes to work from early childhood, and who has bearing insults from those who are rich. These types of stories shows the struggle of poor to achieve their dream and for that becoming rich. The ways of reaching to the destination of wealth might differs of each stories but the suffering always remain same. So this way we can say that Balram’s story is archetype of all stories of “Rags to Riches”.

3) "Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique, deconstructive criticism aims to show that any text inevitably undermines its own claims to have a determinate meaning, and licences the reader to produce his own meanings out of it by an activity of semantic 'free play' (Derrida, 1978, in Lodge, 1988, p. 108). Is it possible to do deconstructive reading of The White Tiger? How?

Yes, it is possible to deconstruct “The White Tiger”. We can deconstruct it with the help of Derrida’s concept of free play of meanings.  To break the language we need to find the loose stone of it. The loose stone of “The White Tiger” is that Balram himself says that he is “Half-backed”. This word breaks all the philosophy and all the ideals which Balram is presenting by giving his own example. Because he is not fully educated. He understand things with his limited power of analysis. He appropriate the deep philosophies with his shallow ideas and thinking. For example, he compares his idea of killing his master and get freedom with the enlightenment of Buddha. This proves his shallow knowledge about Buddha and his idea of enlightenment. So, this way we can deconstruct “The White Tiger”.

Thank you.

Fear Funda

Once one prisoner was sentenced to “Hang till death”. Some scientist decide to do one experiment and rather hanging that prisoner they choose to kill him by the bite of very poisonous snake. The poisonous snake was shown to the prisoner and then scientist blindfolded the prisoner. Then they pierced the toe of prisoner with needle and waited for the reaction. Within few minutes the prisoner’s body has turned in to blue and the foam has started coming out of his mouth.

I don’t know weather this story is fact or fiction, but it speaks about the idea of fear which is in the mind. Our mind react in particular way when it comes to fear. It always try to save the body from danger. Here in this story the fear which is shown was real but was not acted. But that was not seen by eyes, so the new knowledge was not reached to the mind and that is why mind and body has reacted in same way in which it suppose to react. The idea of fear inside mind, which was not possible to overcome and that is why the prisoner died.

This speaks about our habit of mind. It reacts in the same way which it has already thought of. Most of the times, when someone fears anything in the beginning, at that time the fear is imaginary one. Person has just assumed that these things can happen which can harm them. Because of this imaginary fear people mostly resist the new things. But one should have to think that this fear is only in the mind. It is believed that the outer world is reflection of our mind. What we think, we see the same. So, if this also works with fear, then it first came in mind and then in to physical world. We can try to fight it inside our mind only and it can be happen that we will not face it in our physical world. Because every fear first take place in our mind only. It is our mind which signals us about fear. It is needed when the danger is real, but sometimes it is just imagination of mind. So at that time one should try to differentiate between real and imagined fear. This can solve half of our problems, which we have only thought as a problem. One should try to know and control their mind. Ultimately what works is power, weather your mind’s power over you or your power over your mind.

Thank you.

"The White Tiger" and "Slumdog Millionaire"

This blog is a part of my academic activity. We were asked to compare the novel "The White Tiger" written by Arvind Adiga and the movie "Slumdog Millionaire" directed by Danny Boyle. 

1. Narrative structure

Narrative structure of both the movie and film are same. They both have used flashback technique to move their plot. In the novel “The White Tiger” writer has used the wanted poster. Balram Halwai was reading something from Wanted Poster and then he was telling something from his past. Same happens in the movie “Slumdog Millionaire” Jamal Malik was in the show “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?”. There are questions in the show and with each questions there are events from past. So, basically there was a parallel structure. Some thing from past and present go hand in hand. The narrative is from first person point of view, which describes narrator’s journey from rags to riches.

2. Indianness

The novel and the movie both has captured the Indianness very well. We can talk about few elements of Indianness from both works. For instance the trains, trains are very important in the life of Indians and both the director and writer had successfully captured it. Then both have shown the dark side of India, where poverty lies. They have also shown the importance of money in the dark side. The people from dark side, in short belongs to poor family, can do anything for money. Ultimately money is the only thing they want. Both movie and novel has shown the corrupt face of police system. Both have also criticized the religion and its division, which creates chaos. This is how we can find Indianness in movie and novel both.

3. List of questions asked in the film. If you have to replace or add a few questions, which questions would you like to add. Remember, questions shall be in-tune with the screenplay of the film.

There was nine questions in the movie. Which are listed as below.

1. Who was the star in the 1973 hit film "Zanzeer"?
2. A picture of three lions is seen in the national emblem of India. What is written underneath it?
3. In depiction of God Rama, he is famously holding what in his right hand?
4. The song " Darshan Do Ghanshyam" was written by which famous Indian poet?
5. On the American One Hundred Dollar Bill, there is portrait of which American Statesman?
6. Who invented the revolver?
7. Cambridge Circus is in which UK City?
8. Which cricketer has scored the most first class centuries in history?
9. In Alexander Dumas' book, "The Three Musketeers", two of the musketeers are called Athos and Porthos. What was the name of the third Musketeer?

These all were the questions in the show. Apart from this, if I would have to add some questions, I would like to add some questions of slums, where he passed his few years and also about trains, because he passed his most of the life around trains.

4. On what grounds can you deconstruct the film with reference to post colonial tools / theories.

Indians have problem with this film because it shows the poor India, the India which cheats for money, the India with people living in dirty places. But Danny Boyle deliberately attempts to make India reminds their days as a Colony, and white people as their saviours/rulers. We can give one or two examples of this deliberate attempt. One was when Jamal was guiding Americans to one of Dhobi Ghats. At that time the taxi was robbed by some boys and driver starts hitting Jamal. At that time Jamal says this is real India and the American lady says they will show him the real America and gives him money for medicine of his injury. This shows that Danny Boyle still thinks India is a Colony of Whites. He shows here India as all bad and America as all good. This can not be at all the truth. Indians also have the light side which director has skipped. This is problematic from the Post-Colonial view.

Secondly, director has choose only V.T Railway Station. Which reminds Indians of the White rule, because it was made by Britishers. Further director has choose a particular pillar with the name of some English man. He made Jamal sit at that pillar and the name was so much in frame focus. Why only that pillar and not any other? Why the name was not hidden and fully in frame focus. This was the deliberate attempt to make Indians remind of their rulers. This is also problematic from Post-Colonial view.

5. Compare with Texture and Treatment of subject content in film and novel.

The texture of both novel and the movie was dark and gloomy. Both have captured the Indianness very well. The narrative goes parallel with past and present in both movie and novel, and for that both have used flashback technique. Themes like corruption, and poverty were captured very effectively. The treatment of subject content was with dark humour, both novel and movie present some harsh reality with humour. We can take example of school from both. The situation of school in Laxmangadh from the novel and situation of school in slum from the movie, both are harsh realities but presented as humorous.

Thank you.