Well, I didn't see the 2003 interviews, but I did see him on something when the movie was released, and he said he based it on some story that some guy said he had proof that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and the whole nine yards about the Knights Templar, Opus Dei, and on and on. And he explained that this guy made it all up and it was a big hoax. I wish I could remember the name of the other guy, but he wrote some book in the 60's. It was 10 years ago, so I really don't remember the details, but I did remember Dan Brown saying it was just a work of fiction.
The book you're thinking of is
Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh. The book is based on forged documents by Pierre Plantard. The authors took his claims further than he intended, and he has since walked back from them. However, to my knowledge the authors of the book still stand by it.
As for an interview you remember Brown giving, I remember Brown giving several other interviews. In an interview with Matt Lauer, Brown was asked, "How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that really occurred? I know you did a lot of research for the book." Brown's response: "Absolutely all of it. Obviously Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact."
There used to be a link to the interview on Brown's own site, but it's long since been taken down. A Google search of the quote, however, will show several publications that have transcripts.
In an interview with Borders, Brown stated: "One of the many qualities that make
The Da Vinci Code unique is the factual nature of the story. All the history, artwork, ancient documents, and secret rituals in the novel are accurate..."
I'd be interested in seeing a transcript of the interview you remember, and in particular the date it was given. I remember one of the frustrations of scholars was that, despite clear evidence to the contrary, Brown wasn't backing down from his claims that his novel was historically accurate. I'm curious if the interview you saw was him finally conceding the point.
reply
share