The Da Vinci Code is the only book I've ever actually thrown across the room. :-)
Yes, a lot of the ideas in it are based on real history and real research -- but a lot of them are not. So half the "facts" in his books are things that every biblical scholar already knows, but he writes them as though somehow he's brilliant and subversive for saying these things. And the other half of the "facts" are completely absurd, but he writes them as though they're just commonplace truths.
So, for example, the ONE thing he says for sure is historically true in that book is the information about the Priory of Sion -- but that's not really true at all. And the things he talks about as though they're breaking news, like the idea that Jesus could have been married, are things that biblical scholars have been talking about for centuries.
Mostly, though, I just think he's a shoddy researcher. Here's my favorite example: In another of his books, Angels and Demons, the camarlengo (that's the pope's own priest) SAYS THE HAIL MARY WRONG. (That's like... writing a book where a main character is the muezzin at the Masjid Al-Haram, and having him say the adhan wrong. For a writer, it's not something that's hard to get RIGHT, but over and over he gets things like that WRONG. It just totally destroys any enjoyment in his books, for me.
I mean, I know they're fiction, and I don't expect them to be totally true! But if the whole premise of your book is that you're unearthing secrets that the Church wants you to hide, then you ought to at least be convincing when you pretend you know anything at ALL about the Church!
The Da Vinci Code is the only book I've ever actually thrown across the room. :-)
Yes, a lot of the ideas in it are based on real history and real research -- but a lot of them are not. So half the "facts" in his books are things that every biblical scholar already knows, but he writes them as though somehow he's brilliant and subversive for saying these things. And the other half of the "facts" are completely absurd, but he writes them as though they're just commonplace truths.
So, for example, the ONE thing he says for sure is historically true in that book is the information about the Priory of Sion -- but that's not really true at all. And the things he talks about as though they're breaking news, like the idea that Jesus could have been married, are things that biblical scholars have been talking about for centuries.
Mostly, though, I just think he's a shoddy researcher. Here's my favorite example: In another of his books, Angels and Demons, the camarlengo (that's the pope's own priest) SAYS THE HAIL MARY WRONG. (That's like... writing a book where a main character is the muezzin at the Masjid Al-Haram, and having him say the adhan wrong. For a writer, it's not something that's hard to get RIGHT, but over and over he gets things like that WRONG. It just totally destroys any enjoyment in his books, for me.
I mean, I know they're fiction, and I don't expect them to be totally true! But if the whole premise of your book is that you're unearthing secrets that the Church wants you to hide, then you ought to at least be convincing when you pretend you know anything at ALL about the Church!
OK! Whew! Glad I got that out of my system. ;-)