AKMA’s Random Thoughts

I enjoy trash novels, but my reading of Dan Brown's "Digital Fortress" was labored at best. The technology wasn't particularly convincing, the NSA procedural writing was no more well informed, and the characters were boring. If I had checked this out from the library I might have returned it unfinished. What does it say about me that I felt compelled to finish it since I paid for it? In any event, I'll probably read the "DaVinci Code," but I won't be purchasing it!

I think if he'd cared enough in "Digital Fortress" to cool his massive parallel processing array with something besides common household freon, I would have enjoyed it more.

Your instincts are so right: it's so bad.

I'm with you on the Eco thing. I loved _FP_ so much that I don't think any similar story would measure up for me; though I do admit watching The Maltese Falcon was a bit interesting after reading Eco.

Your instincts are right. It's a "good read" but bad writing, worse history.

I'm reading it now, based on a recommendation from a friend. Lame, shallow characterizations, poor fact checking and questionable sources; it's exactly what laura (above) says. Brown has definitely read his Tom Clancy, but even Clancy does better work with his characters. I'll finish it, just because, but this is one I'll never recommend to anyone.

Agreed -- poor writing, shallow characterization, lame story. Which is really too bad, because in the hands of a good writer this would have been a fascinating set of puzzles to work with. Much more has been made in many more interesting ways of the "feminine" undersides of religious history by many more talented authors (Marion Zimmer Bradley among them).

whaoo ... I've got it on hold (The DaVinci Code). Sounds like I should read FP. I have problems with Eco ... he's ... pretentious. The Name of the Rose was great, but everything else I've read bogs down ... it's not so much a novel as wildly tengental comments on eveything. I prefer Douglas Adams for that sort of thing ... hehehe.

I'm not impressed with these reviews. I see a lot of "good read", but no one's backing up their critiques of the "history". Hey guys, it's speculative. It's also intriguing. I'd never read Brown before, but although the subject matter is what drew me to this book, I'd read another one of his. It's well thought out, and the characters are developed and very human. I hope the topic gets more press; it deserves it.

Wow.

This is literally the FIRST place on the whole damn 'net where I've found people expressing anything but glowing praise of Dan Brown. I haven't read The Da Vinci Code, but I did borrow Angels and Demons from a friend, and I was quite dissapointed. Very average prose, a plot that just hinges on too many twists to really feel believable, insufficient data-density for a story that's supposed to draw on a lot of research and yes, that whole Tom Clancy way of writing.I wouldn't bother reading another book by him, and it's good to know I'm not alone.

I come from a different perspective than any of your commentators thus far. I am just now completing a scholarly book on the Holy Grail (roughly 700 pages and twenty-two years of research). I am an art historian (Ph.D University of London Courtauld Institute of Art) and Museum director, Springville Museum of Art. I sadly admit that I have not read popular fiction for many years. But "The Da Vinci Code" was a must read book as "Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail" was a must see movie.

Frankly I was intrigued at some of the ideas presented. For example that Rose Line through Paris and Rossyln Chapel was very interesting. I have heard little of the "Mary Magdalene Diaries" even though Lawrence Gardner and Wallace-Hopkins refers to them slightly. I would appreciate anybody enlightening me on the subject. I did enjoy the book, more for its touching of the Grail legend than for anything else. I'm pleased the Dan Brown's effort will further popularize the study of the sacred marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.

Well, a parisian to start with and a fan of Umberto ECO from 'Name of the Rose' onwards, I saw numerous american couples coming throught the hotel where i work as a pianist toting the Da Vinci Code tome with them. They all raved about it, so I thought why not, get a copy and wade throught it in 3 days. The geographical inaccuracies concerning paris were the first thing that struck me - who did the research on this? Also, being a commercial pilot, there were certain points concerning the 'flight ' to Biggin Hill that were just unthinkable! That put the rest of the plot and the religious and historical facts into a really shady area _ what fun ECO would have had writing this, and what a fascinating read it would have made. Brown's short chaptered work is an ideal trans-atlantic flight time passer and nothing else - how it got to a N°1 best seller says a lot about the people who judge such things.

good reading

I think many have missed the point. Yes this is light and fast moving reading with interesting intrigue and twists enough to captivate. But, the point is; look at the rabbit holes you have never gone down, which now need to be persued. Perhaps 85% of the world population is religous. Most of that religion origonated from the same Hebrew melting pot of ideas blended from captivity by one pagan culture after another over thousands of years. The history of each of these religions while distinct, has common ancestry, and competes for validity as the only true religion. Hundreds of wars and scourges, and millions of deaths in the name of the one true religion, yet you cannot find one person in a thousand, of any religion, who understands the historic basis of the religion their parents tought them to be the absolute truth. The gift that Brown gives in the Da Vinci Code is clues to where some of the questions are. They are the rabbit holes. Once you start down a rabbit hole there is no telling where it will take you. There are enough clues in this book to raise some good questions. The book should be the beginning of the search for verification or refuting the issues raised, not criticising the authors style.
Female goddesses and Mother Goddesses dominated the religions of antiquity and were in fact wiped out and discredited by the developing modern church. Were the Knights Templar holders of information as the source of their power, Was DaVinci a believer and part of Priory Sion?
Was Mary Magdelin married to Jesus. Did they go to France or to Anglia with the Druids. Brown did not origonate these questions. He has brought them into public view and made it possible to discuss them without being burned as a heretic.

I thought the book was great and I think people should try to remember that it is a novel.

I was not a stranger to the concept that Mary Magdalene was an equal to Jesus and possibly his spouse. The A&E channel did a Biography on Mary Magdalene a couple of years ago that put forth many facts about the translation of the Bible that supports those theories. Here is their description of the video:

"The first person to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection has been the victim of a 2,000-year smear campaign. This groundbreaking profile strives to set the record straight.

Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. Rather, she, was a woman of wealth whose financial support was crucial to the early survival of Christianity. But, as BIOGRAPHY® reveals, the special relationship she had with Christ led to resentment among the other disciples, and her reputation was tarnished as a result. Drawing on ancient texts, rare art and the research of top scholars at Harvard, Yale, Catholic University and the University of Wisconsin, this far-reaching portrait compares the evidence we have with the stories we have heard--and tries to reconcile them.

She was a disciple who believed in the word of the Lord long before many others, yet her reward was to be misrepresented for millennia!"

Being an Art History Buff of sorts, I particularly loved the possibilities of the secret messages hidden in DaVinci's art. I searched for the original "Last Supper" painting and there is obviously a woman sitting to Jesus' right. That picture can be found here: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/L/leonardo/lastsupp.jpg.html

For those Christians reading this book and others, do you find your religious foundation cracked and incredible? I am questionning my Southern Baptist roots and wondering if the world has been duped...is the Bible true or altered "fiction?"

I think to many read to deeply into 'Da Vinci Code'. Brown simple mis-interprets ancient writings to make himself sound smart. It is only a novel to make money. His radical claims are so poorly researched that I really do pity anyone who takes it seriously. It is a cheap read, like a one night stand. If you do read it don't read to deeply into the book. Such poor claims that the man next to jesus is a women is so incorrect that Da Vinci Would turn in his grave. The figure in question carries the same feminine pose and face as every other figure in the scene does and if you believe the figure has breasts then so does every other figure including Jesus. The Figure in question is proven to be St John as taken from Da Vinci's own sketches and texts relating to the fresco.
Basically all of Browns "research" comes from a book called 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' and he obviously didn't read the resource to well. For a mine field of evidence Opus Dei members have retaliated to the claim they are evil, self-mutilating murderers and all their evidence can be found here http://www.opusdei.com/search.php?w=32&
Happy Reading

I just wish Brown fans would spend as much time reading the one true book (the Bible) as they do such nonsense and DEFINITELY FICTION as the Da Vinci Code.

Why bother putting garbage into your head when there's so much more?

Well, I finished my read of da Vinci Code several weeks ago, but it took a long time to get the rotten taste out of my mouth. Suffice it to say that if Brown could enlist any historians of repute on behalf of his unbaked theories, he would proudly have named them. Instead, he takes the sensational, fraudulent, but profitable path paved before him by Leigh and Baignet (Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the authors providing the anagrammatic name of one of the characters; that’s the level of Brown’s research and ingenuity).

There may be some facts strewn about in this book — I do agree, for example, that Paris is in France — but one might best sum up the historical merit of this rubbish with the standard disclaimer from film and fiction: “Any resemblance between the persons in this work and actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental.”

In response to Robert (11-15-03): Have you personally looked closely at Da Vinci's fresco? The figure to Jesus's right definitely looks like a woman - even my ten-year-old daughter, unaware of the reason I asked - said it's a woman. Was John the Baptist so effeminate? This is why I'm so intrigued and spiritually shaken...none of my Baptist preachers ever mentioned a woman sharing the Last Supper with Jesus. Could Da Vinci have painted fiction?

And to Denise - I do read the Bible often and believe in Jesus's messages...I'm simply questionning the patriarchal interpretation of the scriptures which are the foundation of Southern Baptist beliefs. Our new pastor, in his very first sermon, made a "cute" joke about Eve "eating Adam out of house and home." Evil woman - the reason for Man's demise.

Perhaps Constantine was really a patriarchal genius and did indeed distort the truth. Doesn't change the way I see Jesus if he actually was married to Mary Magdelene. That would simply make him more real and understanding, in my opinion. God bless.

Terri, Leonardo (as well as many others before him) depicted John the Evangelist as a young and fine-featured teenage male — effeminate, perhaps, but this is a long-standing pratice in the Christian iconographic tradition. And of course da Vinci could have painted fiction; anyone can.

Your concerns about the effect of a partirachal cultural system on the writing and interpretation of the Bible are on stronger ground, but it’s not Constantine who would be responsible. He arrives on the scene very late in the development of the early church, and though his influence deflects it strongly toward mirroring the social structure of the Empire, many of the male-centered assumptions had been affecting the church all along.

With regard to Jesus maybe having married Mary Magdalene, there’s just no historical evidence for thinking that. It might be an appealing idea to some readers, it might be a possibility, but neither of those changes the fact that all our earliest and clearest evidence suggests that Jesus was single.

To Whomever Needs More Research:

The Illustrated Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed / by Laurence Gardner, Prince Michael of Albany;

Also:
The Gnostic Gospels/ by Elaine Pagels

And:
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene /by Jean-Yves Leloup (Editor), Joseph Rowe

LAST BUT NOT LEAST:
The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus / by Lee Strobel

Elsee, the book by Pagels is an unimpeachably scholarly work; it’s a little old for academic work on Gnosticism, but it’s a classic.

Leloup’s translation of the Gospel of Mary MAgdalene is supposed to be sound, but I haven’t looked it over; I can’t vouch for it personally. The Gospel of Mary itself has been dated to the second century — long after Jesus and Mary Magdalene had died.

The Gardner book is fantasy unadulterated by the faintest hint of scholarship.

Strobel's book has strengths and weaknesses, but is at least making an effort toward sound argumentation. It tends to fall on the side of special pleading on behalf of conservative evangelical conclusions, but Strobel at least seeks out scholars to ground his preferred version of Christian origins.

Please, let us not be too quick to dismiss the Gardner as fantasy. Eight pages of Notes & References couldn't have been for naught. It is unfortunate that some of the illustrations may cause the browser to categorize the entire work in the fantasy genre. But the entire book must be read with an open mind. Just like we do the Bible.

There is the usual undertone that the bible is fact and all else is fiction. The old testament was written about 500 bce and codified the oral history of the Hebrews 3500 years prior. If your great great great grandparents handed down a story of the family by word of mouth how accurate would it be. That would be a hundred years. Think 140 generations, All the new testament gospels were written by persons unknown and the earliest was 70 to 80 ce. That was 40 to 50 years after Jesus death. Some up to 100 years after his death. There were dozens of such books in the 312 ce era when Constantine decided all other books were heresey and all other religions were illegal. All the other christian, gnostic, essenic, Hebrew, and whatever religions were punishable by death and the history destroyed. The Council of Nicaea under Constantine decided for all what would be believed and what would be the "words of the one true god" This had happened many times in history, but the world was changing, and history was finally being recorded more regularly. MEN decided what would bew the one religion for political and controlling reasons. Is it any wonder then, that throughout history groups and individuals have tried to learn what the information was that existed in the first fifty years of the common era. The Nag Hammadi and the Gnostic texts are the first insights into books not destroyed or controlled by the early catholic church. Why was no one even allowed to read the bible up into the 1600's when Wycliffe translated it into english, for which he was ex-communicated and the church was so mad a hundred years later they dug him up and burned his bones and threw them in the river. The organized church has two thousand years of bad history of hiding the truth, duplicity, money, power, and land grabbing, torture and murder of non believers, and worse. Why would anyone believe absolutly their version of what happened without question. Even within the church most orders were arm twisted into the party line. The African Catholic divisions, the Knights Templar, the Order of Sion, Martin Luther,just did not fall in line as easily. These were all serious , dedicated believers who di not buy off on the official version. I for one believe that Jesus was a man, probobly an Essene, who lived, and loved, and taught that God, the cosmic force of the universe existed in us, not in a church or temple; that we, like he, were god or children of god in that we were part of the same oneness. The organized church clearly has no need for a religion which does not need a church. That is what was found in the Gospel of Thomas, and Mary Magdalene, and the others. That is why they were not "cannonized". The early church created through editing and selection of gospels the controls they needed, i.e. an all powerful and vengeful god, sin, punishment and best of all fear and control.

I was pretty surprised by the number of historical and theological inconsistencies in The da Vinci Code. I guess you can get away with anything in publishing these days so long as the target is a form of traditional Christianity.

The Catholic journal Crisis had an excellent article in its September issue by Sandra Miesel(archived on the web), that points out Brown's many, and sometimes ludicrous, assertions.

One might also want to look at The Hidden Gospels by the Episcopalian theologian Phillip Jenkins. He does a thorough job of exposing the problems with the Gnostic Gospels, including their relatively late date, and the many people who would (ab)use them for their own ideological ends.

As for myself, I hardly find my "religious foundation cracked and incredible" after having read the book nor do I believe the world has been duped, but I understand Terri's confusion. There are many in the culture who seem to take every opportunity to push the most provocative and daring new theories, however far-fetched, so long as they discredit established religion. That isn't to say we shouldn't engage in healthy discourse or tune out those with whom we happen to disagree. For instance, I don't necesarily agree with Elaine Pagels on certain topics, but I recognize that she is a most respected scholar whose aim is to find the truth. As for the likes of Dan Brown, however, his assertions are so far gone that a little knowledge of religious history (and for that matter symbolism, architecture, art, etc.) rather easily demolishes his ravings.

I have read Mr. Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" with interest. It seems to be a compilation of many sources some which may or may not have been throughly researched.

However, I admit that it is impossible to put myself in the mind frame of the populas 2,000 years ago. I think only in a modern sense. It is possible that such events took place. We will never be able to accurately understand the motives of those eras. We choose what to believe and the degree of belief.

For Ray:
"Stories" that are passed down do change, but not when something is told through the Holy Spirt.

I just want to say i loved the book, who really knows what is true and what is not, we were not there, we do not know, history is what others tell us, we do not see or hear it unless we are there, just like chinese whispers things get distorted. We saw 9/11 on tv that is real, Who knows what happened 2000 yrs ago. The church is a way of controlling people, faith is in all of us.

To those who say, “We’ll never know, I can believe it if I want to”: Go right ahead. At least you aren’t trying to make a case that anyone else should believe something just because you want to.

To Ray Wms: Much of what you say is simply untrue. “There were dozens of such books in the 312 ce era when Constantine decided all other books were heresey and all other religions were illegal.” — but Constantine didn’t make other religions or other versions of Christianity illegal. He issued a decree granting tolerance to Christianity. Christianity wasn’t declared the state religion of the empire till Theodosius, seventy years later, and Theodosius didn’t outlaw pagan religious observances for ten years after that.

“The Nag Hammadi and the Gnostic texts are the first insights into books not destroyed or controlled by the early catholic church.” They are not, in fact, the first insights into such books — although they are the most complete and most surprising.

“Why was no one even allowed to read the bible up into the 1600's?” This claim is strange; anyone who could learn Latin could read the Vulgate, anyone who could read Greek could read the New Testament in the Eastern church, and Jews never stopped reading the Bible. Conspiracy theorists show a marked proclivity simply to assume that the Eastern church and Jews don’t count.

“Why would anyone believe absolutly their version of what happened without question.” I don’t know; I certainly don’t believe what the Church of Rome teaches without question. You seem to be requiring that I ask the same questions as you, or that I reach the same conclusions as you — but just the sort of critical thinking that you claim to advocate reveals the groundlessness of some (not all) of your claims.

As a follower of Christ and one who is more than confident in the authenticity of the Bible, I found the Davinci Code to be mistaken in many areas of its claim to factually support the "church's" power play to defame early pagan religion by creatively editing the Bible.

I would like to post a link that I believe will direct readers to a path that will show you some real facts that may enlighten your spiritual journey!

http://www.frontline.to/resources/series.asp?SeriesID=28

GOD BLESS!

As for me, the book might make good fiction, but Jesus is still God and His marriage is to the church, His bride!

I was quite disappointed with the Da Vinci Code. I have been quite surprised by the amount of people here who agree with me. I think it was very poorly researched and just another ploy to try to make people question their faith and belief in Christ in a time when we need our faith more than ever.

I do agree however that Mary Magdalene has gotten a bad rap all through history. She was not the prostitute as so many falsly believe. Mary Magdalene was the woman with the 7 demons that Jesus cast out. She was crucial to the early church because of her financial standing and her devotion to Christ.

A wonderful book about Mary Magdalene is called Mad Mary By Liz Curtis Higgs. This book will help set the record straight about her life as will reading your Bible of course :o)

I read The Da Vinci Code...

It was a fast read... liked the twists... better than any of the Left Behind books I read (stopped after one of the first couple).

What annoys me is that I've talked to a couple of people about it, and they go so far as to look at the Last Supper, get convinced that there is a woman sitting there, and stop thinking at that point. They then think this is somehow proof that all the stuff behind this book is true...

Just like Left Behind, I wish people would read the Bible more than these... But if it gets people interested, thats all fine and dandy

After 119 pages, I'm giving up on the Da Vinci Code. Weaving historical "facts" around a contrived who-done-it/romance is a lot too much for me.

Am thrilled with the DaVinci Code. Wish more books like this would surface. At last, the Goddess lives. Too bad She has been so repressed. We wouldn't be in the environmental, not to say spiritual, fix we are in today.

Having read "Foucalt's Pendulum", "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Gnostic Gospels" as well as assorted other works on early Christianty, The Knights Templar, the alleged "Priory of Sion", the Masons and several works on Da Vinci and Newton, among others, I have this comment to make; I was not at all impressed with Dale Brown's book. I found it to be a rather commonplace murder mystery with some quasi-historical and pseudo-religious gloss. Eco did a much better job with this topic.

Furthermore, I found nothing in the book to make me question my Southern Baptist faith. If anything, the book was merely a poor precis of early Christian thought, most of which is not new or original.

Did the early church repress pagan matriarchal religion? Yes. Did the church repress opress and even kill followers of sects which deviated from offical doctrine? Yes. None of this is new.

Was Mary Magdaline Jesus' bride? Who knows? Who cares? There is a huge amount of evidence which supports the view that Jesus was single, but we may never know the truth.

Are the Masons or the Knights Templar or the Priory of Sion or the Rosicrucians or insert a secret society name here, the keepers of powerful secrets which will allow them to control the world? I seriously doubt it. If they were, why hasn't this power, which is so potent, been used?

Is there a "Holy Grail"? Perhaps, but it may never be found. Of course, I have my own ideas about the Grail and the Ark of The Covenant, but rather than deeply heald beliefs, they are mere fripperies.

Will this book cause people to examine their beliefs? Perhaps, but only if they are painfully ignorant of the history of their beliefs.

Doug

Check out this website. I just started this book, a Christmas gift from my husband, and being a natural questioner of organized religion, have enjoyed the conspiracy theories purported thus far. However, the prose is very limited; it is a thriller that will certainly be turned into a Hollywood film someday. The true value is the amazing attention it has garnered - both exaltation and indignation. Anyway, this review I found to be quite exceptional and given what I have read above, may be of interest to some of you.
http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=6755

I'm halfway through the book--I got it for Christmas--and I'm finding it irritating at best. Just a question: Was da Vinci's "Last Supper" a PHOTOGRAPH??? For heaven's sake, Brown seems to put a lot of historical emphasis on what is basically an artist's fanciful idea. I'll finish the book, but I surely won't recommend it to anyone else.

I think the emphasis on the woman in "The Last Supper" is irrelevant to the notion of Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus. If she was romantically engaged with Jesus, I doubt Leonardo Da Vinci would have concrete knowledge of this, seeing how he lived approximately 1490 years after Jesus died. Where would Leonardo's knowledge of this come from? Besides this, art is based on personal perspective and bias, thus if Leonardo could paint whatever was important or symbolic to himself, not necessarily portraying fact. However, just like Leonardo Da Vinci himself was human and prone to human error, I think it must be some sort of fallacy to believe the Bible itself is not also prone to human error, after all it was compiled by humans, and told through humans, and I have never met a perfect one. I think anybody should be justified in doubting the Bible. Everybody seems to claim The Da Vinci Code is not based on fact but on fiction, making it a poorly written novel, but I hear nobody asking where all the proof is for the information and "facts" in the Bible. This appears to be a contradiction. I don't mean to attack any fervent believers in God or the Bible, I am one myself, but I do believe the only way to come closer to truth and knowledge (which I do not believe is attainable since we can never be 100% positive of anything) is to evaluate all sides of the arguement as unbiased as possible using our reason, language, perception, and emotion, and NEVER take anything as absolute fact. Thus, the facts in The Da Vinci Code themselves may not be entirely accurate, however the novel's theories on the Church and the certainty on which we look at our religon are not without basis, and a serious critical assessment should be made before we believe the Church and the Bible blindly. I understand this is personal for everybody, but to believe everything we are taught is not helping any but the naive.

The book is classified as "fiction", isn't it?
C'mon folks, you don't and shouldn't believe everything that is in print-especially in a novel that is classified as fiction. I often wonder why people never refute a single idea or word just because it appears in the bible... a book written by MAN. Those of you who had trouble getting through the book because it goes against what you believe to be true about Jesus, history or the Catholic church are just being closed minded. You are reading this book as if it appeared in Newsweek. I like the comment made by another reader
For those people on this site who suggested that people spend more time reading the bible than the Da Vinci code: I wish you could see how egotistical that remark is. YOU read the book. YOU thought about it. YOU agreed or disagreed with it. If you disagreed with the ideas, then so be it. You have remained what you think to be a good Christian.
As for Regina's comment about da Vinci's PAINTING of the last supper. I think you completely missed the point made in the book. The Last Supper was PAINTED by an artist. In case you didn't know- artists use their works of art as an avenue to express ideas. Perhaps da Vinci had his own ideas about Catholicism and maybe they are different than yours. Don't take everything at face value.
History is exactly that "His story". Everyone has an opinion, everyone takes sides. Our history books have been inaccurate, one-sided or have just plain left out parts of the story. Why should we think that the bible is any different?
It is a good story that has definitly made a lot of us think even after we have finished reading it.

I've been in an interesting discussion about science fiction, one point of which might illuminate why so many people object to this novel.

Science fiction readers accept some impossible or highly improbable technologies--faster-than-light travel, time travel, teleportation--as a means to telling a story. There's usually no pretense that these are scientifically sound; some plausible, not unreasonable justification may be made for them, or perhaps they're just given. Either way, they are simply out of synch with reality, the story goes on, and the reader is entertained.

However, if you write a story in which some basic, everyday engineering reality is denied or some fundamental scientific principle is contradicted, the knowledgeable reader--not knowledgable in fiction, but in technology--will find the story less enjoyable. If there's some other point of interest--perhaps the story shows great insight into human nature, or makes interesting political or sociological speculations about the consequences of the impossible technology--the reader may not reject the story outright, but still, the story, and the reader's enjoyment of the story, is damaged.

Why? Perhaps the conflict between what one knows is and what one thinks could be becomes intolerable when what one knows to be true is flatly contradicted. Or perhaps the author is seen as untrustworthy, having broken the agreement with the reader to tell a credible story. (A story which is based on knowledge current at the time of writing, later discredited, such as those told on a fictional muggy Venus covered with swamps, is usually still enjoyed, suggesting the latter reason is the most accurate.) Perhaps it's a bit of both, along with the suspicion that the writer has simply been careless and sloppy. In any event, the damage is done.

There is an interesting branch of science fiction, the alternate history story, wherein some known historical fact is flatly contradicted and the consequences of the contradiction are explored. These can be tiny changes--I recently read a charming story, "George Patton Slept Here", exploring the possible consequences had Patton had another vision of his ancestors, warning him against slapping that poor soldier--having vast consequences. (Generally, either vast consequences or none are the most acceptable in such stories; a half-vast consequence--lukewarm, if you will--is most often spit out by the reader.)

Again, these stories gain their credibility with the reader by honestly admitting their unreality, and then, having earned the reader's trust, telling the story, a fiction.

I have been searching the net for some argument's on the Da Vinci Code, and I am glad to say I have found it. I wasn't able to find a good arument against the book. All I am reading is, a bunch of people say how it is a giant "assumption" well, to me it makes a lot more sense then the Catholic Church. I think it is a good message Jesus was married. All the comments that have been posted are because, your whole life you have been told this one thing. Someone comes out agaisnt it, and thinks outside the box, and there hasn't been one logical arugment agaisnt it, but I guess he is wrong.

Here is what I can't understand, why are so many religious people taking this book personally? It is a work of fiction that basically expresses an alternate view. If your faith is as solid as you tell us it is, why are you so threatened by alternative views? There are many religions in the world, and really, no one can say if any one is correct. I am athiest, however, I don't get upset everytime someone writes a book about religion.
As for the book, I found it both entertaining and thought provoking. I don't know how accurate all of his research is, and quite frankly I don't care. The book did exactly what books are supposed to do, entertain me and cause me to think a little. Do I believe everything in this book is accurate? --no. Do I belive everything in the bible is accurate.--no.

Oh my god. It's a fiction novel, not a revision of the King James Bible. Chill out, and enjoy the book for what it is, a Fiction murder mystery in which you might learn a couple of biblical facts.

I can't wait for the movie...