The author claims it's based on facts.
The book opens with the following statement BEFORE the fiction starts:
FACT:
The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million World Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.
The first paragraph is pure lie. The second paragraph is slander. The third is laughable. It is an attempt at popularization of the Gnostic heresy which specifically denies the divinity of Christ. This is the same theme that Heinrich Himmler embraced as part of the core beliefs of his harmless little group of like minded individuals.
It ain't harmless and it ain't "just fiction." I also don't think it's coincidental that it's coming out and being pushed right now. I bet you Ahmadinejad will heap praise on this movie.
Now, would you argue that a movie of the Satanic Verses was "just fiction" or that a movie that portrays the Protocols Of the Elders of Zion as fact was "harmless," or perhaps we should see Hanks make a movie out of Mein Kampf? Hey, it's only a movie!
If you don't believe or if you just don't care, fine, but don't condemn those who are deeply offended by this grotesque and hate filled crap.
3rd paragraph: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
You should have indicated why you think it's laughable, but since you didn't, I'll explain why I think so too.
There is a contingent here on this forum that thinks that at least this claim is legitimate or can be considered legitimate. Do I have to bring up the old example of Kurosawa's Rashomon? (I mean this is freshman college stuff.) OK, if you think Brown's declaration can be taken at face value, describe to me, let's say, the Lincoln Monument in D.C. I'll then describe it to you. Our descriptions will differ, won't they. Which one is accurate? That depends on the meaning of "is", doesn't it. That's why such a declaration, the likes of which I for one haven't seen in any literary work, is laughable to this cat.