Stephen Tonkin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sue Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hmm.. I think The da Vinci Code as a book
> has
> > never been considered anything but fiction.
> There
> > are some interesting facts and historical
> truths
> > contained in it,
>
> Specific non-trivial examples, please.

Good grief, kemosabe. I don't even have a copy of the book to look at. I read it almost two years ago; of course I remember certain parts about da Vinci and the church are historical, but only as ins to the plot. As Joanne pointed out, it's a work of fiction with a bit of non-fiction filler which gives the reader a bit of added frisson as the thrilling and very interesting plot unfolds. It's not fiction as art or even literature though; but it's a great work of suspense.
>
> [...]
> > especially referencing Baigent and Leigh,
> whose
> > book is supposed to be considered
> non-fictional
> > and researched, I think.
>
> It may be researched, but it is not factual. They
> claim that it is non-fiction, but the substantive
> claims made in it have been repeatedly
> demonstrated to be utter tosh. Those with a
> religious devotion to the book find it difficult
> to cease their devotion.
>
Okey dokey, masked man. I agree. You're pretty much preaching to the choir here....
>
> >
> > I just don't see the point of making an
> issue
> > about the relative truthful merits or
> deficiencies
> > of TdVC.
>
> Brown claims that it contains certain
> facts/truths. These claims have been shown to be
> substantially false.

As Joanne said, so what? It's a work of fiction.
>
> > The one to go after is the Baigent and
> > Leigh.
>
> It's been done. However, blind faith is not swayed
> by such trivialities as overwhelming contradictory
> evidence.

Ah issues....

Sue