Posted on 03/01/2006 3:46:25 PM PST by Dallasblog.com
Virtually every British daily has featured a major story on the trial that has just begun in London accusing Dan Brown, the author of the controversial best-seller The Da Vinci Code, of plagiarizing his work from a previous book entitled The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Two of the authors of that book have sued, claiming that the "central theme" of their book was used by Brown to concoct his story; or, as the Daily Mail puts it more bluntly, "You ripped us off, authors accuse Da Vinci Code man."
da_vinci_code_Cover.gifBrown’s fictional work has sold more than 40 million copies worldwide and will soon be a movie starring Tom Hanks. The film is set to be released in May. If the lawsuit is successful, it may threaten the scheduled release of this film in addition to resulting in the award of substantial damages.
The authors are suing Random House, which published Brown’s work of fiction. Ironically, the same publishers previously had published The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Michael Baigent, a New Zealander, and Richard Leigh, an American (the two authors suing) claim that the major thesis of their book (and much of the data used by them to support their argument) was appropriated by Brown in The Da Vinci Code. Both books allege that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had a child together, with the "bloodline" being protected down through the ages by "secret societies".
Brown has admitted that his wife, Blythe, an art historian who "has been credited with having a major role in the Da Vinci Code" (according to the Daily Mail) used materials from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail in her research for him on the book. The plaintiffs assert that the questions for the court to decide are what did Mr. Brown copy from the other book and whether what had been copied amounted to a "substantial" part of the plaintiffs’ book.
The trial is expected to last nearly a month. British columnists are having a heyday with the Da Vinci Code trial. Francis Warren of the Evening Standard notes that there are some disputes "in which no sane person should take sides" and this is one of them. He makes the point that: "Whatever the outcome of their dispute, none of the parties to this case deserves any sympathy. All are equally guilty of peddling conspiratorial codswallop disguised as truth. Far from being a sinister sect dating back to the 11th century ("a real organisation", Brown insists in his preface), the Priory of Sion was a hoax devised in the 1590s by French fraudster Pierre Plantard."
Columnist Sam Leith of the Daily Telegraph doesn’t have much use for either the plaintiffs or defendants in this legal action, reserving his best jibes for the plaintiffs: "The delightful things about this case is this: how do its greedy and silly plaintiffs have any hope of winning without shooting their own credibility to tatters? … Baigent and Leigh must be aiming to prove that The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail – which they presented as a work of serious historical scholarship – was actually a piece of fiction. If I am right, then, their argument runs as follows. We flogged a bunch of cobblers to a publisher. Now Dan Brown has flogged the same bunch of cobblers to a publisher, and damn it, he did it better. Can we have some of his money as a consolation prize?"
This is one spectacle that will be fun to watch. I’ll say one thing for the Brits – they sure have a much livelier press than we do have in the States. Maybe, that what competition does for you.
Don't say things like that... pretty soon we will see Lawrence O'Donnell as Anchor for CBS news...
I don't care what people think of the da Vinci Code. Unless this guy copied their words I don't think they have a case. This "story" has been going around for years. They didn't come up with the story. It's like writing a book about aliens and then suing someone else who does the same thing. As if aliens is your idea.
Read both books - you could say they both then plagerized the Bible ... you're right, the story has been around for centuries ....
Seems pretty clear but these authors presented their "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" book as historical non-fiction which would negate their claims against the da Vinci Code author.
Apparently they now are at least tacitly, or maybe overtly, admitting their book was the load of hooey that is is.
Somehow I don;t think the Bible has the part where Jesu and Mary Magaldene have children and their is a blood lineage that exists today still (somehow in France) from their marriage.
So, I don't think that would be plagerism.
It was clearly the same riff.
On stage the guitarist said 'yeah I stole it, but from Muddy Waters same as Jimmy Page did!'.
Now if someone could apply the same logic to disneys 'ownership' of the jungle book characters. (They made a movie a very few years after the book fell into public domain, now they hold trademarks and keep packs of starving lawyers in their vestibule).
If they had the same nerve 20th century fox would hold trademarks on Moses (based on the 10 commandments movie).
Stop lying you creepy liar. That's a bunch of lies. : )
I read the book, and found it childish and obvious. It's not the Mary Madeline thing--it was just trite and utterly expected. One scene has the "da vinci expert" character fretting over a bit of scribbling, and I thought, "That can't be a ref to Da Vinci's famous Mirror Writing, that'd be too easy, and this guy is supposed to be a scholar"--sure enough, it was. That mirror writing is in any junior high bio of Leonardo, any Nat'l Geo article about his work.
Willie S. is famous on the basis of doing the same (retelling a story in a superior manner to critical acclaim).
Me too.
The troubling aspect, if there is one, is that the fad 20 years ago or whenever the Holy Grail book was published was still rather fringe. Now it is mainstream.
To this day I still cannot get over that. I got it burned on DVD somewhere...
I watched the clip recently, remembering O'Donnell had done something really crazy once. But I'm not sure that was it. I seem to remember him screaming like a maniac on some appearance, but I can't recall what he was talking about.
I read the original book about when it first came out. The storyline does predate the Da Vinci Code and is pretty much the same.
The book claimed, however, to be a non-fiction book based on true facts. I don't know how you can plaigiarize 'true facts' unless you actually copy sentences word for word. Otherwise you could only have ONE history book.
bump
Since HBHG was published there has been a great deal of research on, and books published about, the historical Jesus, or Jesus the Man versus Jesus of Faith.
Whereas Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln were members of the media, many with credentials have published since then.
Proper scholarly terminology is seared...SEARED, (in, on, into, onto) etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.