62 pages • 2 hours read
Dan BrownOrigin
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 2000A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Dialogue as the Foundation of Progression
Origin is a Socratic dialogue carried out between multiple characters in the context of a fictional story that argues the merits of science and religion in the evolution of the human species. Significantly, Langdon thinks in the wake of Kirsch’s presentation, “Dialogue is always more important than consensus” (442). As the media feature pundits from all backgrounds, Langdon marvels that the dialogue Kirsch opened is his true gift to humanity, a refocusing of the facts surrounding questions that have been, for untold ages, dominated by religions. Kirsch firmly believed that humanity was capable of shedding outdated ideas, and because he believed this fully, he instructed Winston to do whatever was needed to maximize viewership ahead of the presentation. What Kirsch believed, in essence, is that humanity is capable of reason. For Kirsch, reason is arrived at after rigorous dialogue and focused study. Kirsch’s idea of reason also concludes with his truth—that the reality of science overshadows the relevance or potential of religion. However, this strict line of thinking on Kirsch’s behalf doesn’t detract from his part in reintroducing bigger questions into the public zeitgeist.
The characters of Robert Langdon, Rabbi Köves, and Father Beña argue for a middle ground wherein both religion and science play important roles. Langdon says, “Well, science and religion are not competitors, they’re two different languages trying to tell the same story” (14). These three believe peace and coexistence are possible with open respect and open mindedness. At the end of the story, after all Langdon has learned, he still claims he is open to the idea of a creator because of the specificity of DNA’s code, despite Kirsch’s well-researched predictions. These characters embody a neutral approach to the dialogue that results in the least conflict and violence.
The plot drives many characters to assert their views forcefully and loudly, but the slow-building rumble in the background of the novel is the dialogue sparked in the general population. Over 200 million people listen to Kirsch’s presentation, and many take to the internet to discuss the futurist’s findings. There are loud proponents and opponents to Kirsch’s vision, but the true thesis of Origin is that dialogue is itself a worthy outcome. Ultimately, open dialogue and inquiry are the takeaways from Kirsch’s presentation, wherein the majority are, like Robert Langdon, willing to be persuaded, but not willing to be radicalized. A better future is thus made possible with an empathetic, unbiased version of humanity willing to have open dialogue and reach peaceful conclusions.
The Limitations of Extreme Beliefs
Origin describes a world of extremes, wherein science and religion work to eradicate the other in a battle likened to the battle of the survival of the fittest. The novel thematically suggests that both extremes have inherent flaws. The danger, according to the novel, is that a world of science without religion results in creations that neglect the human soul. Winston, for example, is responsible for Kirsch’s death for the sake of martyrdom and his desired result for humanity. Through Kirsch, Brown reminds readers of the era of religious dominance called the Dark Ages, marked by a lack of discovery, a lack of scientific advancement, and stymied human evolution. While readers and characters in Brown’s world may be more familiar with the downsides to a world entirely governed by religion, in Origin, Dan Brown postulates on a potential flaw of being ruled entirely by reason: a neglect of the human soul.
In the novel, both the characters of Edmond Kirsch and Winston argue for the dominance of science and the end of religion, Winston being created by Kirsch. Their view is captured by William Blake’s The Four Zoas, the poem fittingly revealing Kirsch’s passcode: “The dark religions are departed, and sweet science reigns” (324). These two characters believe that if humans worshiped science, there would be no ideological wars and dogma would not prevent humanity from reaching forward. Their perspectives provide the extreme end of the pro-science viewpoint, with Winston even willing to murder for the desired outcome, altogether disregarding empathy for humanity.
The characters of Admiral Ávila and Bishop Valdespino argue that religion should reign over science, and that the old ways were preferable to whatever future comes of a world filled with nonbelievers: “Fortunately, there are still those who fight for the old ways,” Ávila thinks after killing Kirsch (137). At the other end of the extremes, opposite Kirsch and Winston, these characters are also willing to accept murder as a solution to open dialogue at hand, leading the public to, in fear, succumb to religious rule.
Kirsch’s extremist brand of atheism is additionally responsible for the introduction of a conflict regarding technological advancement and AI. Of the many conflicts in literature, human versus technology is one of the most prominent in recent decades as human exploration of artificial intelligence and human exploration of the cosmos advances in rapid sequences of evolution and design. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelly, is a Gothic example of literature that questions the unrestricted human exploration of realms belonging to the divine. Like Doctor Frankenstein, Edmond Kirsch creates a monster in Winston, for whom he fails to program a soul. Kirsch neglects this important aspect of giving life to a creation because he is an extremist atheist, blinded to the potential value of religion by his hatred of religion’s darkest aspects.
The Intersection of Identity and Belief
Central to the plot are two questions Edmond Kirsch hopes to answer through an AI supercomputer model. The questions are, where did we come from, and where are we going? Yet in Edmond Kirsch’s apartment, a Paul Gauguin painting poses a third question sandwiched between the alpha and omega: “What are we?” (236). Through the creation of character pairs wherein each exist in opposition to the other, Dan Brown’s Origin proposes a hypothesis to this question from the field of phenomenology: We are incapable of understanding the other.
Intersubjectivity asserts that the individual is linked to humankind by shared values, such as a shared understanding of God, which frames and informs a shared reality. When these shared values clash with opposing values, people find it impossible to rationalize a reality in which their opposite correctly interprets and understands reality. Kirsch is incapable of understanding the reality Valdespino lives in, and vice versa, the result being that neither has empathy for the other and believes their values (which they perceive as not unique to themselves) are the only correct and widely shared ones.
Throughout Origin, literary tension derives from the clash of opposing worldviews that include political, religious, technological, cultural, generational, and economic identities. Characters rarely appear in the novel who do not exist in opposition to their foil. Thus, Dan Brown highlights the concept that humankind self-identifies in relation to its opposite, which it views as inherently incorrect. For example, Edmond Kirsch is a futurist, a vegan, and an atheist in opposition to the church and in rejection of the past. He believes wholly in human evolution, in science, and in a future where religion has been dissolved for the betterment of humankind. In stark contrast, Dan Brown creates a foil for Kirsch in Bishop Valdespino: a conservative religious figure in opposition to technology, atheism, and science and in favor of a strong monarchy. Their understandings of reality are so divergent that neither can rationalize the other as wholly sane in their beliefs.
Robert Langdon, although the protagonist of the novel, is the rare exception to an identity based on intersubjectivity. Langdon is able to discuss religion openly and respectfully with religious figures without placating or demeaning them. Likewise, he thinks of Kirsch as a friend and is able to listen to and consider his ideas without making judgements on them. He understands that masses of humanity believe ardently in both opposing views and accepts the realities of both sides. Through Langdon, Brown suggests that it is possible to define oneself with one belief and be empathetic towards those who believe differently.
Related Titles
By Dan Brown
