This has been discussed loads already here. He does everything he can to suggest that only the explicit plot and characters are fictional. Here are a few things I lifted from the FAQ section of his web site (http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html) when we last discussed it;


1) "My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history. "

So its not as if he was just writing a fictional novel for entertainment.


2) "SOME OF THE HISTORY IN THIS NOVEL CONTRADICTS WHAT I LEARNED IN SCHOOL. WHAT SHOULD I BELIEVE?
Since the beginning of recorded time, history has been written by the "winners" (those societies and belief systems that conquered and survived). Despite an obvious bias in this accounting method, we still measure the "historical accuracy" of a given concept by examining how well it concurs with our existing historical record. Many historians now believe (as do I) that in gauging the historical accuracy of a given concept, we should first ask ourselves a far deeper question: How historically accurate is history itself?"

This is what all the pseudo historians do as well. Say that all history is suspect so it doesn't really matter what I say, or what historians say. Its all equally credible at the end of the day.


3) "THE COVER OF YOUR BOOK MENTIONS "THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY OF THE PAST 2000 YEARS." WHAT IS THIS CONSPIRACY?
Revealing that secret would rob readers of all the fun, but I will say that it relates to one of the most famous histories of all time…a legend familiar to all of us. Rumors of this conspiracy have been whispered for centuries in countless languages, including the languages of art, music, and literature. Some of the most dramatic evidence can be found in the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci, which seem to overflow with mystifying symbolism, anomalies, and codes. Art historians agree that Da Vinci's paintings contain hidden levels of meaning that go well beneath the surface of the paint. Many scholars believe his work intentionally provides clues to a powerful secret…a secret that remains protected to this day by a clandestine brotherhood of which Da Vinci was a member."

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 ???


4) "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 ?


5) "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 ?

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


6) "WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Hardly. In fact, I'm quite the opposite--more of a skeptic. I see no truth whatsoever in stories of extraterrestrial visitors,..."

LOL

[www.hallofmaat.com]