But it's author claims that its factual underpinnings are true! How very confusing. I guess it takes a really smart person to see that when the author says some thing is "true," he really means that it is fiction! Wow!



See, what I was against was the story. I thought by virtue of the fact that Dan Brown said there was some dude named Thomas Langdon and some chick named Sophie <<whippersnapper, insert real name>> that he misled people into believing they really exist so that people would go and try to find them and have a date or something. I really objected to the description of the naked dead guy in the Louvre. I thought for sure that people would try to go find the naked dead guy.

I recommend that a Catholic NOT read the Da Vinci Code unless they need to do so for a very good reason (i.e. they are writing a book against the specific blasphemies in the book). Even those firm in their faith are forced to entertain certain subtle messages in their minds that sometimes they may not even realize they are entertaining. In old days the Index of Forbidden Books served to protect the faithful from these kinds of dangers. Today, after the Index has been abolished, there is still a moral obligation to avoid reading books simply out of curiosity that are blasphemous, heretical, or otherwise a threat to your faith.

I read half the book and read the movie. It was lame.