Recently I have been reading quite a few articles that are, quite frankly, just hating on Dan Brown and his writing. Mostly it’s because of the liberties he took with the life events of certain religious/ historical figures and other facts. This leaves me perplexed. When I pick up a book knowing that it is a work of fiction, I expect to be intrigued. I certainly don’t expect all of it to be true. I really enjoyed all of his novels so far. It didn’t matter to me that he was making stuff up when he wrote them. Isn’t that what a fiction writer does? I fail to understand why religious accuracy has anything to do with it. Nowhere in his writing does he claim that he is stating facts. All he did was pose an alternative reality. If people insist on believing that everything he wrote about the Louvre, for example, is true and then are disappointed when they go there and find out otherwise, well then they will fall apart when they travel to Forks and realize that the vampiric Cullens do not actually live there.