So, it's not alright to buy the book and read it in order to be informed about it's claims, but it's alright to buy the books that refute the DaVinci Code. In other words, if you don't buy one, buy the other. In other wrods, it's a matter of money. Or anyone here thing that those whop wrote about the DaVinci Code, did so with the altruistic desire to inform you, not to make money?
And even if I am to accept that I should only buy the books that refute the claims, will I not be limited to only the views and opinions of the author? How reliable the author's writing is? He is after all a human being too, right?
An example:
If anyone did read the book, there is a passage where the author describes DaVinci's nasty habit of expressing his own ideas and beliefs in the paintings he was commissioned to paint, to the point that sometimes a painting had to be redone because it did not met the description requirement of the client. The same habit of DaVinci may have applied in the painting of the Last Supper, giving him a free hand to include in it any "jokes" or distortions that characterized his works. In other words, DaVinci was expressing his personality which at that time was not know to be Christian friendly.
From all I have seen in the rebuttals, I never heard of anyone bringing up the sarcastic side of DaVinci expressed in his paintings, and pointed out by Brown in his book.
