magemanda said:
I've seen that kind of response a few times across the site and it perturbs me. So what if I liked the book? It's not as if I'm foisting it on folks - I'm just mentioning why I brought a recent book!
magemanda, it's nothing to do with the book itself (personally I dislike it, well
hate it while others here liked it - that's all down to personal taste and what you are looking for from a book).
The worrying thing is people believing the tripe that is in the story and going out to buy books that Brown used as his sources:
The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail,
The Templar Revelation, and
The Women in the Alabaster Jar for example.
You mentioned
Holy Blood, Holy Grail so I'll focus on that - while the historical sections of the book are full of facts - the mystery of
Rennes-le-Chateau, the Cathars, etc. the ultimate conclusion is, at most, tenuous and to be honest it is completely laughable.
If you want to research the history Brown skirts across and garnishes like a blind chef then I'd suggest you go straight to the source documents: buy the
Nag Hammadi Library - read its apocryphal texts and draw your own conclusions; that's the thing with history books - rather than report facts the author typically wants to force their opinions/conclusions on the reader too.
However, as you enjoy Dan Brown, you'll probably enjoy
The Cult of Dan Brown. Yes, I'm a member.
it never mentioned anywhere that I should not mention Dan Brown's recent effort.
We should expand that to all his efforts.