Dan Brown sued for plagiarism

[Josh]

Egad!

As Jeffrey Overstreet wrote in his blog, not only is Dan Brown full of crap, he's full of STOLEN crap!

[Josh]

...and now, in this interview, Brown almost sounds like he's a believer! What an interesting quote:

"Suggesting a married Jesus is one thing, but questioning the Resurrection undermines the very heart of Christian belief," Brown said in a statement released to reporters.

[Vlad!]

I haven't read either the DaVinci Code or Holy Blood, but this doesn't seem like a very strong case (even though Richard Leigh does have some awesome facial hair). After all, it is not improbable that Brown stumbled on this theme himself, did some spotty research on it, uncovered some of the same things the Holy Blood authors did (including the existence of their own book, though he didn't read it), and then wrote his own bestseller.

Note that plagiarism (side note, it's spelled plagiarism, not plaigarism as it is in the title of this thread) isn't a crime in itself; it's only the violation of copyright/intellectual property that is plagiarism. And you can't copyright a plot or a (supposed) historical event; both are fair game. Naturally, if I write a story that is so substantially similar (say that five times fast) to another that it is quite probable that I used the other as unreferenced source material, I may be open for suit. However, unless the British legal system is significantly different from our own, I don't think this case holds much water.

[Josh]

I haven't read either the DaVinci Code or Holy Blood, but this doesn't seem like a very strong case (even though Richard Leigh does have some awesome facial hair). After all, it is not improbable that Brown stumbled on this theme himself, did some spotty research on it, uncovered some of the same things the Holy Blood authors did (including the existence of their own book, though he didn't read it), and then wrote his own bestseller.

That's what I thought at first, but note that Brown's book contains internal references to Holy Blood-- in fact, he directly names it, citing it as a book on one of his characters' bookshelf, and one of his character names is an anagram of Holy Blood's author's name. So there's certainly no coincidence involved-- the question seems to be one of theft versus homage.

[Vlad!]

Yes, the article mentioned internal references. However, that's not evidence of plagiarism nor of theft. I'm not saying that he didn't, but the matter is much less certain in my mind than it is in yours. After all, if I were writing a book that incorporated historical speculation, I would certainly do research on it. Since Holy Blood was itself a bestseller, it wouldn't take much research to unconver its existence. These textual references, then, can also be interpreted as sort of a "see, I'm not just pulling this out of the blue", or perhaps even a nod to the authors, acknowledging that he is treading some ground they have already trod. It is not uncommon for authors of speculative fiction to incorporate as many real things as possible into their stories just to give their less accepted notions the air of authenticity.

I have no particular attachment to Dan Brown, and as far as I know he could have lifted the entire plot of his book from the works of others. But it seems unlikely to me that he would intentionally lift material from other authors to the extent that is being claimed, and (perhaps more importantly) it is very unlikely that he has done anything prosecutable.  

[Josh]

I have no particular attachment to Dan Brown, and as far as I know he could have lifted the entire plot of his book from the works of others. But it seems unlikely to me that he would intentionally lift material from other authors to the extent that is being claimed, and (perhaps more importantly) it is very unlikely that he has done anything prosecutable.

I agree. I'm just saying that he is clearly aware of the similarities between his book and this other one, and one wonders exactly what his motives were for not only creating these similarities, but of acknowledging it in the pages of his own work.

[Tom]

speaking as someone who is...let's say, mostly disinterested in the Da Vinci Code book, i'm not surprised at all that this has happened.

for one thing, it had hardly been out for long at all before some friends of mine noted how much is was similar to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, even to the point of it being semi-covert plagiarism. but i guess that is the point of plagiarism. you don't want to be too obvious that you're ripping someone else off.

now do i really care about whether the movie comes out or not?

*yawn*

although, it would have been moderately cool to see Audrey Tautou speaking english in a movie.

^Raymond Khoury's novel "The Last Templar" which was recently released looks very suspect as well. a rip-off of a rip-off so to speak. sad to say, there is little that is novel about novels anymore. ^

[Vlad!]

Perhaps my view has been distorted by my profession, but just being aware of similarities doesn't strike me as unethical at all. I mean, let's say someone tells a story based on a certain historical premise. Let's say you also want to tell a story based on this premise, but you want to take it in a different direction. Is that really bad?

And yes, Tom, I too don't really care about the fate of the movie.  

[brenton]

Can you get sued for genre confussion?

[Vlad!]

Can you get sued for genre confussion?

Sadly, no.

[brenton]

Sadly, no.

Aw well. My disappointment is broken into a million little pieces.  

[Aaron]

Aw well. My disappointment is broken into a million little pieces.

freyyyyyyyyyy

[Josh]

Heh. Reminds me of Jon Stewart's coverage of Oprah blasting James Frey on her show. "She tore him into... oh, I'd say numerous pieces."

[Vlad!]

Apparently Brown is now saying that he read the Holy Blood book and used it as reference.

article

[Josh]

Apparently Brown is now saying that he read the Holy Blood book and used it as reference.

article

He's been saying that all along, actually-- or at least he has been for a while. I noted it in Reel News a week or two ago.

Some good news for Brown, though-- at least one of the authors suing him has admitted that some of his claims against Brown may be a little "inflated."

[Vlad!]

In the original article, it says

But Brown had said The Holy Blood was not "crucial or important" to the creation of the central theme of his novel and when he wrote his synopsis, he had not even read it. "This cannot be correct," said Mr Rayner James.

and

He said Brown claims The Holy Blood was "incidental" to the creation of his book and was consulted only at the end of its making.

I somehow mixed these two quotes in my mind to come up with "Dan Brown claims he hadn't even read the book until after TDC was published", hence my post. I haven't been following this case too closely, and only noticed that article because it appeared on Google news.