I've only read Da Vinci Code. An assassin who goes out to kill multiple people armed with a revolver and doesn't bring any extra ammo.... An assassin who thinks that a shot in the gut from a handgun is a guaranteed kill.... Howdy Doody would be a more capable assassin.
I would have forgiven the vast historical inaccuracies if Dan Brown hadn't touted the book as being historically accurate. This snippet from Wikipedia agrees with my memory of his interviews:
Quote:
|
In 2003, while promoting the novel, Brown was asked in interviews what parts of the history in his novel actually happened. He replied "Absolutely all of it." In a 2003 interview with CNN's Martin Savidge he was again asked how much of the historical background was true. He replied, "99% is true... the background is all true". Asked by Elizabeth Vargas in an ABC News special if the book would have been different if he had written it as non-fiction he replied, "I don't think it would have."
|