am amazed! i mean - your editor must have been sleeping to let something so inane and stupid get past their scissors! That the author of the article has not read the book is criminally plain (or having read it, not understood a word or having understood despised the book on grounds of religious prejudice). But to take the first few lines of the book and trash it so crassly - come on, the readers deserve better than that. Maybe the author was too busy and did not have time to comment on the book - hence, produced a rubbishy article with lots of name dropping of a lots of other books that she may have read in the past! Just to make the pretense impressive
The clearest point is that she has not referred one bit fo the most interesting aspect of the book - the celebrated work of art by Leonardo Da Vinci, and how new interpretation of it is the core of the book
I have read the book, and Angels and Demons too, and a lot of other books referred to in the article (most of which are acknowledged in Da Vinci Code). I have also made it a point, subsequently, to go see The Last Supper - and the whole thing has a lot of depth
So please read the book; don't be put off by this article
