This title makes me think of the song "John Brown's Baby" for some reason. Ok, anyway.
I think the most interesting part of reading The Da Vinci Code was realizing how insidious Dan Brown's claims are. He mixes truth with half truths and not-truths and throws it all into a huge pot of "might-be-truths". Every few pages I found myself thinking "I need to look that up. It might be real or it might not be." Some of them were true (Opus Dei really exists and the late Pope really did like them) and some of them weren't (there is no actual historical evidence - religious or secular - for Jesus and Mary Magdalene having been married). Some of them were easily verifiable, and for some of them I can't find reliable answers (the existence of the Priory of Sion seems to be hopelessly debated, and I am not a historical scholar! Linds, help!) Some of them were such wild claims that I can't imagine any but conspiracy theorists take seriously...but they were couched in so much half-truth that it just might be possible to believe them. It is sad to me that half the world seems to have just swallowed the entire book...but it is also understandable. I read it with all my Torrey-training in high gear, and could recognize the different layers of fact vs. fiction (or at least, could recognize that the author didn't want me to know the difference!) Most people don't read novels with such care, and evidently most people also don't notice that "novel" actually means "not non-fiction". ;) I guess what I'm saying is that I get why people like the book, and I get why people think the claims are true. I am also pretty firmly convinced that, because of this, the book is dangerous to true Christianity. I think that we would do well to read it and check our facts so that we can defend ourselves if the need arises.