Debates
20 Mar 06
20 Mar 06
The trial on The Da Vinci Code is nearing its end. it seems there is more evidence than i previously thought. But I don't believe that the ideas were stolen. What do you think?
And is anyone familiar with the "The Holy Blood, the Holy Grail", the book form the 1980's that is accusing the theft?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11924504/
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by PocketKingsWhether he "stole" the ideas or not, he cannot deny 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' was one of his sources; he's listed it in his bibliography:
The trial on The Da Vinci Code is nearing its end. it seems there is more evidence than i previously thought. But I don't believe that the ideas were stolen. What do you think?
And is anyone familiar with the "The Holy Blood, the Holy Grail", the book form the 1980's that is accusing the theft?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11924504/
http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/bibliography.html
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by PocketKingsI have not read the plantiffs' work, so I cannot address the relationship between their work and Brown's. However, Brown's failure to recall specific months in the process of writing does not surprise me, nor does it trouble me.
The trial on The Da Vinci Code is nearing its end. it seems there is more evidence than i previously thought. But I don't believe that the ideas were stolen. What do you think?
And is anyone familiar with the "The Holy Blood, the Holy Grail", the book form the 1980's that is accusing the theft?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11924504/
When I was working on the biggest research project of my life (my dissertation) I could recall what I read where, even whether it was on a recto or verso page, and where I was reading (library, home, coffee house, tavern) each book or article. One year later, I could only vaguely describe the sequence in which I'd worked on the individual chapters. Brown almost certainly went through the entire manuscript of his novel many times. As his work was fiction, rather than scholarship, he did not likely track footnotes after the first draft.
I believe Brown's book is not worth the attention it deserves, but the historians who filed this lawsuit are attacking the very academic freedom that should be their lifeblood. I'm certain they steal more ideas from others in the lectures they present to their students (assuming they teach) than Brown stole from them.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by PocketKingsEngland sure has some peculiar laws regarding free speech; I cannot imagine an author of a NON-FICTION book suing an author of a work of fiction for "copyright infringement" in any state in the US and not having it dismissed as "frivolous". The idea that asserted historical facts are the "intellectual property" of the asserter is too absurd for words.
The trial on The Da Vinci Code is nearing its end. it seems there is more evidence than i previously thought. But I don't believe that the ideas were stolen. What do you think?
And is anyone familiar with the "The Holy Blood, the Holy Grail", the book form the 1980's that is accusing the theft?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11924504/