Look, I know that Dan Brown isn’t an idiot. Idiots don’t sell millions of copies of their book. I know Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh might be idiots. They brought a suit against Brown in UK court over charges of plagiarism. They lost. Well, they lost the case. At the same time sales of their book “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” have taken off. Unfortunately for them, the profits from the increase in sales won’t cover the huge court fees they have to pay.

My question is, why would you bring this ridiculous suit to court when “The DaVinci Code” has done nothing but good things for your book? The world may never know.

Dan Brown seems to have escaped unscathed. As I said before, he’s no idiot – he simply relied on the fact that most of his audiences are ignorant. Only a genius could take one of the most critically slammed religious theories in recent history, put it into a badly written novel, and then sell 40 million copies.

But Dan Brown isn’t unscathed. The case has inevitably attracted attention to the one of the psuedo-historical books that his novel is based on, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail.” Readers of Brown’s novel may have been content to remain ignorant, but now there is a new reason to seek out the 1982 book and read about it. And then, they will inevitably find that both are garbage.

It is my hope, at least, that this is what will happen. Unfortunately, I know that people aren’t that smart. “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” will be consumed as uncritically by readers as was “The DaVinci Code.”

And all this in time for the movie.

You see, my opposition to Brown’s novel is multi-leveled. My original disdain for the book stemmed from the fact that it was historically and theologically unsound. Reviewers spoke of Brown’s “impeccable research,” but anyone willing to go beyond the delusion that Dan Brown presents would realize the book is utter rubbish. Basically every “fact” in the book – from Brown’s description of the Council of Nicea, to his description of Opus Dei, to his ideas on agnosticism and the “sacred feminine” – are complete garbage. He has taken half-baked ideas from quite a few half-baked books and thrown them all together.

But, I still decided to give the book a chance, because so many people spoke of it as a great novel, even if they didn’t believe what was obviously fiction on Brown’s part (note: Brown believes this stuff).

Upon reading the book I discovered quite honestly the worst piece of literature I can remember reading. The cardboard characters are completely one-dimensional and unbelievable. Brown’s syntax is atrocious. The plot is almost more outlandish than his religious philosophy with the former, clearly serving as a simple vehicle for the latter. Brown has appealed to the lowest common denominator by making his riddles ridiculously easy – so that readers feel good upon solving them before the main characters (who are supposedly experts in their field).

Here’s the kicker: When I talk with people who loved the novel, they admit that it will make a better movie than a book. This unheard of – no one talks of stories being better in movie form. No, the book is always better. The fact that this story will make a better movie than a book testifies to its atrociousness as a piece of literature.

My point here is not to provide a full-fledged critique of the novel. Many more talented critics than I have already done so. The book has been torn apart by religious historians, secular historians and literary critics. Of course, much of the mainstream media has gobbled this book up, but keep in mind that no one ever accused the media of being too intelligent for their own good.

No, all I ask is that people reject the movie this coming May. Please, for the love of all that is good and truthful, see anything but “The DaVinci Code.” Anyone who has long lamented the dumbing down of America should see that by not rejecting this historical and literary disaster, they only make things worse in our society.

John Ostrowski is a junior in Communications. His column appears on Tuedays. He can be reached at [email protected].