Hi Simon,


>>If I'm making a big fuss over nothing, then why do so many people who read it come away with the impression that Dan Brown claims as fact an organisation that has existed for nearly a thousand years with the specific intention of hiding a secret about Mary Magdelane and Jesus. Why do they believe Newton and DaVinci where members of this organisation ? Why do they consider Dan Browns statement at the beginning implies that "Les Dossier Secret parchments" are genuine ?

I have no idea why some people think that things in a fictional book are true. What the author claims as fact is covered on page one - full stop.


>>You could say thats their fault for being gullible and reading too much into a novel, and that this is nothing to do with Dan Brown's intentions. On the first part okay fair point, but it is a good reason for people - including the vatican who ends up in their minds as the big bad ogre trying to hide the real truth from everyone - to come out and state clearly what is fact and what is pure fiction. Surely.

On the latter point I've just visited Dan Brown's web site and he continues the exact same thing of careful language legalistically with an intention to leave the gullible in error;

I don't think Dan Brown was trying to 'leave the gullible in error'. Anyone with interest in these topics can do research for themselves to find out what is 'fact' and what isn't - although the DVC being listed as fiction should be a clue...


>>This is what all the pseudo historians do as well.

Perhaps, but 'pseudo historians' don't list their books as fiction.


>>THE COVER OF YOUR BOOK MENTIONS "THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY OF THE PAST 2000 YEARS." WHAT IS THIS CONSPIRACY?

Well, the cover can say whatever the author/publisher wants it to... the book is fiction.


>>So does that seem like he is suggesting that the actual theories proposed by the characters in the book are supposed to be taken as fictional ???

Yes, his book is fiction, he clearly states it is fiction, and what he states are 'facts' you can find listed on page one.


>>"I spent a year doing research before writing The Da Vinci Code."

So all the factual errors where despite a years research before he started writing it ? And in a year of research he did not even come across the fact historians consider the majority of what he framed it on to be completely wrong for very good reasons ?

Many authors of fictional books do research for their novels (even Stephen King). What historians think about the topics under discussion doesn't matter - the book is fiction.


>>"HOW DID YOU GET ALL THE INSIDE INFORMATION FOR THIS BOOK?

Most of the information is not as "inside" as it seems. The secret described in the novel has been chronicled for centuries, so there are thousands of sources to draw from. In addition, I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me. One academic told me her enthusiasm for The Da Vinci Code was based in part on her hope that "this ancient mystery would be unveiled to a wider audience.""

Ahh so he consulted historians ? Can he name them ? What is their subject?

Perhaps they were 'pseudo historians'? Who cares? The book is fiction!


>>Again its not like he's allowing much room for the theories to be fictional in any way.

Erm, yes he is.... because the book is classified as fiction, and clearly stated as fiction inside the cover.


>>All from here -> [www.danbrown.com]

Yes, I've seen his website.


>>Anyway I agreed with Merc I would drop out as we've gone around this cricle anough times now. The facts of the matter at the end of the day are;

- that a large number of people who read this book take Browns initial statement of fact to mean more than could means in a strictly legalistic way (and even on this limited subsection of what people believe it is factually incorrect).
- many of the things it claims falsely in the story that are taken as fact by the readers are against the very foundation of the Catholic Church. As such it has a right to put the facts on the table.
- Brown himself does everything he can to propogate as much belief in the theories in the book as he can. The comments he make in public leave the casual reader in no doubt that he believes the background story to the book and sees no reason why anyone should not take it as seriously as any other history book (minus the characters)

Simon, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. However, that doesn't change the fictional nature of the book.

Best wishes,
Barbara