on losing one's symbols

Music: And Also the Trees: (Listen for) The Rag and Bone Man (2007)

I finished reading Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol a couple of weeks ago, but have been waiting to post my thoughts about the novel because folks are still getting around to reading the book. In general, I think it's far superior to The Da Vinci Code for a number of reasons: it's less predictable; there are fewer "lectures"; and Brown frequently pokes fun at himself. I appreciated the self-depreciation, as it were. While this book also read like a screenplay, I also liked how much Brown referenced the book as a form; this is a novel very much about books (and their confrontation with video). It was a fun read, and Brown's writing---while still far from pretty---has improved. I have not read Angels and Demons, but those who have read it say that this newer one is closer to theme and style to Brown's Vatican thriller.

Now, for those who have yet to read the book and plan to, no worries: I'm not going to spoil it for you. I will say, however, that The Lost Symbol is a castration fantasy---the (lost) phallus to The Da Vinci Code's chalice, so to speak. Remember: in alchemy, it takes two. You got a lot about the chalice in the last book. This one's obsessed with the Washington Monument. (Where are Beavis and Butthead when you need them?)

As a Freemason, however, I do have a number of issues with the book and how it portrays the fraternity. Although it seems Brown did go out of his way to paint the Masons in a very positive light, he did so at the price of ignoring its sexist and racist past. The fraternity is exceedingly complicated, and its history, very complex and not easily detailed in a book---or a blog post, for that matter. Yes, men from all racial and sexual orientations can petition a lodge, but it was not always that way, and in some states it's not that way today. Yes, women do have a Masonic order (The Eastern Star), but notably a male, Master Mason must be present for ceremonies to be conducted. There's just no way to get around the masculine or patriarchal center of Masonry. The fraternity is changing---and owing to its sworn fidelity to tradition, very slowly---and the goodwill is there, but Masonry is simply much, much more complex than what Brown presents, and it's very far from being the egalitarian beacon that Brown suggests it to be.

Another major problem with the novel is that Brown presents Freemasonry as having some sort of central leadership, and that leadership is the Scottish Rite, seated at the House of the Temple in Washington, DC. This is grossly misleading. At best, Masonry in the U.S. is a decentralized "tribal" structure. Masonry came to the states when we were still colonies. Consequently, the Grand Lodge of the UK approved lodges under their leadership to each colony. Then there was this thing, the revolution, which severed ties to Britain. In the U.S., the decision was made to let each state have its own grand lodge and carry on as independent jurisdictions. This means that what is practiced in the lodge of one state differs from that of another: the ritual is different; the customs are different; etiquette is different; attitudes are different. Now, the ritual is very, very similar, and one can easily hold "Masonic communications" with Masons across state lines, but the wording is differs a bit from one state to the next. So, for example: I learned my ritual work in Louisiana, which is much longer than it is here in Texas. Yet, the Louisiana catechism is much shorter than the one memorized here in Texas. So, it's different.

Membership practices differ, sometimes wildly, between not only states, but districts within a state. Here in Texas we have people of color and gay men in some lodges in my district, while in other state distracts (e.g., outside of Austin) and in other states all masons are all white men.

In short, there is no centralized Freemasonry in the U.S.

Here are some other issues that irked me:

• Brown suggests that wealthy men can buy their way into the 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite. That's just preposterous. The 33rd degree is bestowed on Masons who have given a lifetime of service, either to the Craft or to humanity. It's a very serious honor, really, not so much a revelation of a secret rite or something. 33rd degree Masons are typically older and have done a lot of stuff with the Craft and/or with the community when they are asked to experience the degree. Owing to my job and the limited time I dedicate to Masonry and community service, I know I will not be a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Mason, and that's ok. Those who are 33rds are truly exceptional people, and did not get that recognition for their wealth. Period.
• The novel opens with a ritual that does not exist in official Masonry (drinking wine out of a skull). The ritual it advances is a "blending" of many different degrees, as well as a renegade degree (there's nothing stopping some folks making up degrees and calling them Masonic and then publishing them as such). Basically, Brown makes the ritual seem really, really cheesy. It's not so cheesy, and we don't drink from skulls. That would be cool and all. But it's not true. I worry men will start petitioning the Craft thinking it's a role playing game with swords and dragons and such . . . (it ain't).
• The novel presents the Scottish Rite as the supreme, central organization of Masonry. Actually, the Scottish Rite is simply the most visible of a host of related groups that have spun-off, so to speak, of Masonry. There is also the York Rite, the Shriners, Grotto, Eastern Star, and so on (the list is seemingly endless). Masonry is a basic three-degree system. We call that system the "Blue Lodge." One can petition the Scottish or York Rite after he is a Master Mason, but it's not required, nor is it expected. I am Scottish Rite, and this is because of the character of the degrees, which are non-denominational and, after Pike's revisions, just jaw-droppingly fascinating (lots of occult stuff is in them--alchemy, kabbalah, etc.). The York Rite, for example, is a Christian set of degrees. The Scottish Rite also has some fairly involved, extremely interesting rituals that one can study for a lifetime. I've been studying the first grouping of degrees, "the Lodge of Perfection," for some months. It's complicated.
• Brown suggests that the Masons guard a secret that so important that we'll let brethren die before we let it be revealed. That's just not true. No secret is above a man's life. Period. The secrets of Freemasonry are, at one level, various ways to recognize a fellow Mason (handshakes, words, etc.). At another level, however, the most profound secret of Masonry is the ineffable experience of each Mason---an incommunicable experience of transformation. That is secret because it cannot be put into words, just as any mystical or religious experience. Brown knows this, and yet . . . .
• Brown suggests degree work takes place at the House of the Temple. Understand that the House of the Temple is the business office and showpiece of the Scottish Rite---if ritual happens there, it's of the "special occasion" variety. Lately, it's been used in a lot of movies . . . .
• Brown's thriller concerns "publicity." Indeed, publicity is what the plot revolves around. He states he's very enamored of the Masons, but then doesn't have any problem with revealing some chunks of the degrees that are, more or less, secret (of the first kind). I'm not gonna say what chunks those are; I will say, though, that it's a bit hypocritical and the device he uses to "leak" ritual without seeming to leak ritual is really a cheap shot.

I think the book is great entertainment. What troubles me the most about The Lost Symbol, however, is the way in which Brown knows it will be read as truth. I've just spelled out some obvious untruths---and the liberties he took with Masonry. Yet, Brown insists on beginning the book with statements like "All organizations in this novel exist, including the Freemasons, the Invisible College, the Office of Security, the SMSC, and the Institute of Noetic Science" and (the most damning) "All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real."

Uh, no. The opening ritual is not. Nor are the honorary titles given to Masonic leaders. Nor is the suggestion that Masons covet a secret or symbol that cannot be revealed to all of mankind. None of that is true.

What is perhaps most annoying is the ending chapters, which are very preachy---overly preachy. Everything Tom and I wrote about in terms of the religious appeal of The Da Vinci Code applies even more so to this book: Brown unabashedly argues his book is delivering a spiritual truth in fiction, setting himself up as Master. Alchemy. Indeed.