FWIW, I enjoyed the Da Vince Code. I need a nice, easy don’t-have-to-think-too-much read every once in a while. It did raise some questions in my mind about the history of christianity - but the questions it raised were more along the lines of “Hmm - I wonder if that’s really true? I should check it out.” It just flabergasts me that anyone would rely on a work of fiction for factual information. (Even one with copious references - e.g. State of Fear (g)).

Ron, thank you for the compliments. I have a post ready to announce the article with a link, but I haven’t been able to open up the site all morning. I’m just waiting until it is accessible.

I like the effect it has had on allowing christians to at least consider that what they ‘know’ may not be historically accurate - and Brown’s book has done a lot to teach people about biblically contemporary literature that didn’t make it into the Bible.

I agree with Terry - the book was pretty awful, Dan Brown writes in a transparent style with a strained grasp of the language. His dialog is worse than bad comic books. I’m glad he played with interesting material, though, and that it somehow made it into the public eye.

PS - Noell, your latest piece in HNN was great! Don’t forget to announce your column and link us here on the blog - I’m sure nobody would mind! We can all subscribe to HNN - but some people probably read your work online at work - during breaks, of course :).

The controversy around the book has helped make him a multi-millionaire many times over. I remember seeing him on some show or other wherein he claimed that what he wrote wasn’t history. It was a novel. He used certain elements of what is believed to be historical fact and embellished it, changed it, made it up, so as to work dramatically.

I read the book and, frankly, I think its not very good. Virtually every chapter leads to a mini cliff hanger. It’s repetitious and, consequently, tedious. Ultimately, it’s all just so much claptrap. But that’s beside the point.

It is true that most of the attacks on evolution are at best specious. For the most part, the attacks are made with only cursory reference to facts. They know that most of their target audience has never studied Darwin or any other scientific works regarding evolution.

I remember that clip of the Dawkin’s program and the exchange with the evangelist, what was his name?- Haggard? Haggard made the claim, in an almost off handed manner, that the bible was all true without error or contradiction. Dawkins didn’t challenge him on that. But, as most of us know, that is about as far from the truth as he could get. It is that hucksterism, which is part and parcel to their modus operandi, playing fast and loose with facts. Using just enough factual information to seemingly lend credence to their crap.

The X-Files and most of Stephen King’s work is of a similar nature to the Da Vinci Code. It is never presented as anything but fiction or fantasy. Of course, there are always some nutballs who believe it. We don’t worry too much about such responses. But when the same kind of pseudo-science is presented as fact in an effort to debunk evolution and other sciences it is near criminal.

TLS