_text_

I just want to mention that I had this all typed out beautifully but then it got deleted. -.-

Anyway, One thing I love and hate about Dan Brown's books is that he always minipulated art history to his own advantage. I like it because it obviously makes the book more interesting, but I don't like it because it makes ignorant people argue with me about art history that they don't really understand because they think Brown is writing something factual. I think I told you both how much my favorite art history professor, Dr. Weston, hates Dan Brown. Being one of the best art historians in America, Dr. Weston was contacted by Brown while doing research for both Angels & Demons and The DaVinci Code. Unfortunately, Brown decided to do the exact opposite of everything my professor suggested and ended up really minipulating history, like I said. Thus, the hatred. However, this caused my professor to discuss with me every single factual error in Brown's books lol. This is another thing I came to kind of enjoy about his books -- I got to read it, and then in researching the art history facts, I got to learn more about art history. Luckily for you guys, I have done this for you! lol

I found this Web site about 50 fact errors in Brown's books. I thought it was pretty well-researched and interesting, but I did find one error in this list where Brown was actually right and the UK Telegraph was wrong. They claim that Brown was wrong in there being 140 statues in St. Peter's Square -- they say there are only 13 of Jesus and the Disciples. However, anyone who has ever been to Vatican City will tell you there are definitely more than 13. The Telegraph makes the mistake of only counting the statues on the facade of St. Peter's Basilica, instead of the entire square, which holds statues of 140 saints watching over the square from the roof.

Okay, so here are my notes lol I tried to keep them to a minimum:

Pg. 75 -- I really liked the quote "Knowledge is a tool, and like all tools, its impact is in the hands of the user." I think this is a theme throughout the book and I like it.

Pg. 85 -- Brown says "Brumidi had laid claim to the Capitol Rotunda in the same way Michelangelo had laid claim to the Sistine Chapel..." Okay. Michelangelo definitely has a claim on the SC, but I think this line is misleading and I just want you both to know that Michelangelo did NOT choose to do the SC. He was forced by the pope and the ruler of Florence. Florence sent Mike to the Vatican as a peace offering and the Pope held him there and forced him to paint the SC. You can see in Michelangelo's "Last Judgement" a portrait of the Pope at the time naked and holding Michelangelo's skin (as if the Pope had skinned him alive) on the side of the painting that is supposed to be hell. Yeah. That's how pissed he was, he wasn't exactly screaming his claim to the SC to the world.

Pg. 157 -- I think it's interesting that Brown decided to make a political comment here: "Well they shouldn't, Langdon thought, imagining how different a world it might be if more leaders took time to ponder the finality of death before racing off to war." Just...interesting.

Pg. 256 -- Just throwing this out there: Durer's Melencolia I is hardly the "seminal work of the Northern European Renaissance." His work The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" is a much more popular and studied piece from the period.

Pg. 332 -- Additionally, he makes another social commentary about a fork and knife being "America's favorite pictogram." :-/ Rude. lol

Pg. 360 -- The Egyptian obelisk in Vatican City. Actually no one knows when it was originally created, but it was moved from Alexandria to VC in the early years after Christ died. Also, I know from my professor that obelisks, which are all over Rome, were put all over Rome as landmarks so that people could navigate the city -- they could be seen above all the buildings at the time they were erected. Here's a Web site about some of the most famous: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/egypt/raising/rome.html

Pg. 412 -- Seriously? Are "oxygenated perfluorocarbons" real? Liquid breathing? I found this Wikipedia saying that it has no practical applications yet and I tend to believe that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113676181

Well -- that definitely answered some of my questions! Crazy!

I totally agree with what you said about how Dan Brown uses historical facts liberally in order to make his books more interesting, but how frustrating it is when people confuse his fiction to be actual fact. Some people are just too ready to believe everything they read is true lol. Taking that precaution in mind, I always find his books to be entertaining. My only real criticism for his books is how he seems to try and squeeze in as many plot twists as possible into one book. Every chapter is a cliffhanger lol.

I can never decide whether I feel empowered or cheated at the end of this book lol. It kind of seems like a cop-out to go through this entire book thinking there's some mystical treasure or knowledge, then have it be like 'hey, read the bible, you doof'. But at the same time, I think it is a nice message, the idea that we don't need to look any further than our own knowledge and insight to reach a higher state of learning. IDK.

From my shady memory of obelisks in Egypt, they also were erected more as a landmark than any religious significance (though everything they constructed had heiroglyphs and whatnot all over them). I think whatever ancient city it was that had the two obelisks (can't think of the name right now) were erected mostly just to show they could lol.

Yeah the liquid breathing thing was weird. Though, if that's an accurate description, no wonder babies cry after birth; what an unpleasant experience lol. I'd rather go to the spa to relax :P

BTW Michelle I loved your anecdote about your professor and why he hates Dan Brown; I've told everybody I've talked to about the book about it lol.

I'm sorry I said 'lol' so much. Kind of a personal problem; I'll try to work on it...... lol.