[stevek2]

Well said birbear. Come on folks... It's fiction and it was a good read and very entertaining.

Knocking Dan Brown, Ron Howard and Tom Hanks seems a little silly.

[jobim]

Yes, a novel, but have you seen any patterns in the reactions of your aquaintances who have read it?

In my anecdotal polling, those who normally would have not the slightest interest in a book about Jesus and Mary Magdalen and Opus Dei, those with an animus against belief and Christianity and Catholicism in particular, are positively riveted by this book. I am convinced that it has provided anti-Catholics with reasons to continue their anti-Catholicism.

[CheyennePress]

Well, there was that whole detail about Brown claiming that all details relating to the history of the art was true. To quote him directly: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. There are way too many historical errors and fabrications in his work relating to artwork for Brown to have taken this statement seriously. The panels in the Louvre, for one. The six-sided star in the Rosslyn Chapel that does not exist and never did. The John-Mary Magdalene issue. Brown was clever in promoting this book, and he shied away from answering to affirmatively one way or the other. Yeah, it's a good read, but he misled a lot of people into thinking that what he was saying was truth.