Cracking Da Vinci's Code is by far the most illogical and least objective response to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code that I have read. There is no question that, despite Brown's claim of historical accuracy, there are serious inconsistencies between Brown's interpretation of biblical and art literature vs. that of more scholarly authors. Unfortunately, Garlow and Jones present what is at best a knee-jerk reaction to what they perceive as a personal attack on Christianity. Every chapter begins and ends with inflammatory rhetorical questions that are in most cases given only cursory answers, and in some cases not even addressed at all. The authors consistently spend entire chapters setting up straw-men, and then end the chapters without even having outright attacked them. The implication is that certain elements of The Da Vinci Code (as Garlow and Jones have explained them) are so absurd that they need no direct refutation. This tactic might work on the uninitiated, however anyone who has spent any time in an academic setting will see right through it. To make matters worse, when Garlow and Jones do attempt to provide evidence to support their arguments, they throw all rules of logic out the window. For example, the authors address the accusation that the Church retaliated against anyone who appeared to question the 'natural order' and brought about the execution of women branded as witches. The authors admit that many women were executed as witches, but deny that the Church was attempting to hold on to its authority. Somehow Garlow and Jones offer this quote from Jenny Gibbons in refutation: "When the Church was at the height of its power (11th to 14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable moral authority." Anyone even half paying attention should question how this passage could possibly disprove the idea that an insecure church was retaliating against what it saw as the greatest threat to its authority. In fact, that passage goes a long way the proving exactly what Garlow and Jones want to disprove. Moreover, this faulty logic seems to permeate every page, to the point that by the time I was halfway through, I realized I was reading just to see if a valid argument would be made at all. Sadly, I was disappointed.

In fairness, I'll admit that I thoroughly enjoyed The Da Vinci Code, though I take very little of it as a serious piece of literature - after all, it is fiction. However, as my library will attest, I own many other criticisms of Dan Brown's work and I can say with all honesty that there are far better books available for anyone that would like to explore the history and art of The Da Vinci Code. As an example of how strongly I feel about this, one should note that I have at this point been a paid member of library thing for more than 2 years, and this is so far the only work I have felt the need to review.

As an aside, I would like to point out that a highly positive review was written on Nov 13 2006 by an individual who admitted that she had never actually read The Da Vinci Code itself - and that is exactly the kind of person that Garlow and Jones are hoping will read Cracking Da Vinci's Code. ( )

I had two very dear people to me ask if the information in The DaVinci Code was true. After reading this book, I never intend to read the original. I think it would gag me. This whole "sacred feminine" thing makes me ill. I hate that people are getting caught up in paganism just as many in the world are being delivered from it! Anyway, this book offers plain fact and solid logic to refute the generalization and misleading "facts" of the other. For anyone who wants to know truth, this should help. ( )

http://ateam.blogware.com/blog/_archi... ( )