The Da Vinci Code (again)

Boy has there been a lot of ink (and electrons) spilled over Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. On the one hand, what's the big deal? It's a thriller novel, which are almost as notorious for outlandish plots as action movies are.

On the other hand, the book claims that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." This threw me for a loop when I read the book, before I realized it different from your average thriller. Was the vote at the Council of Nicea really that close? Was there really documentary evidence that Jesus was romantically involved with Mary Magdalene?

Many people probably see the church's complains about the novel as sour grapes; of course they would argue with a book like this, despite the truth it might contain. However, this page on WikiPedia exposes a number of these inaccuracies and fabrications.

Look here, Dan, write any book you like, but don't claim that it's "accurate" when it isn't. In fact you might want to put a note in the front saying "This is all for fun. I've made no pretense of historical accuracy, so just enjoy the book."