Are you kidding me?
So, I've been sort-of-following the 'Did Dan Brown Plagiarize The Da Vinci Code' trial. I find it intriguing to hear his side of things, having done a few writing projects that involved extensive amounts of research (well, extensive by my definitions. By comparison to what he's done, I've barely skimmed!)
I've gotta say, I find it just a bit alarming, the amount of detail that he's being asked about in the process of this. I mean, when I wrote 'For the Fans', I kept some kind of notes, yeah...but I didn't maintain any sort of detailed bibliography. And I certainly couldn't have told you the sequence in which I drew ideas from various sources, or the approximate dates of when I found Source X, relative to when I was writing such and such a scene. These are questions he's being asked.
It alarms me, the thought that any random guy whose work I look at in the process of researching a project, can get a wild hair and accuse me of stealing his work to build my own. Never mind the fact that the allegedly plagiarized work is rehashing a series of ideas that have been in circulation for centuries, and is hardly the only work on the subject. Never mind the fact that Brown has made massive, substantial changes and additions to any ideas which his work and the debated book have in common (that, in and of itself, constitutes enough for me to throw out any claim of plagiarism, right there...)
I may be reading more into the situation than is actually there (it wouldn't be the first time), but I find it very intriguing that the third partner on the book in question--the man who would actually stand to gain the most if the courts upheld the charge and demanded some financial reward--isn't even involved in the case. In fact, he has refused, repeatedly, to even comment on the case. I also find it interesting that the other authors (whose works provided research material for Brown) have not only not started any sort of litigation, they've been praising Brown's work in the press for promoting the sales of their works.
I seriously doubt, as a writer, that a man who's been churning out novels at a pace of one every couple of years would resort to plagiarizing in order to come up with a novel. Having read Brown's witness statement (a lengthy piece of writing, in and of itself!), he provides so many details of where he got inspiration for various aspects of the story that I find it incredible that there's even a trial. If he came up with all the information in his witness statement for the sole purpose of avoiding paying up, he could have fleshed out the story, turned it into another novel, and made enough money to make up for the lawsuit!
And, I have to say, had Brown actually borrowed the plot line for his novel from this book (which I find problematic--since Holy Blood, Holy Grail is non-fiction, talking about this particular theological school which has been actively suppressed by the Catholic Church for centuries, there isn't really a plot to it...non-fiction generally doesn't tell a story, unless it's some kind of biopic work or telling about a specific event), Brown fleshed out the locations, the events, the characters...(No, I am among the few who have still not read The Da Vinci Code).
Sorry, I'll admit to being a prejudiced audience already at this point...but all I see is a couple of opportunists who wrote a mildly successful book, and smelled a way to expand on their success in a totally unscrupulous manner. Even if they don't get any money awarded to them by the court, they've publicized their book to an audience far beyond anything they'd managed to reach before, and I've got no doubt that their sales have boomed since the lawsuit went public. I'd even be willing to bet that they were expecting the case to be settled out of court, to avoid any possible delays in the film release (yeah, the timing there only adds to my suspicion...Da Vince Code's been a top-seller for how long now? Yet they file their suit after word comes out that the film version is going to be opening this spring...)
Regardless, they will always have to live with the knowledge that it took a better writer to come along and make their work interesting enough to reach a wide audience.
So, I've been sort-of-following the 'Did Dan Brown Plagiarize The Da Vinci Code' trial. I find it intriguing to hear his side of things, having done a few writing projects that involved extensive amounts of research (well, extensive by my definitions. By comparison to what he's done, I've barely skimmed!)
I've gotta say, I find it just a bit alarming, the amount of detail that he's being asked about in the process of this. I mean, when I wrote 'For the Fans', I kept some kind of notes, yeah...but I didn't maintain any sort of detailed bibliography. And I certainly couldn't have told you the sequence in which I drew ideas from various sources, or the approximate dates of when I found Source X, relative to when I was writing such and such a scene. These are questions he's being asked.
It alarms me, the thought that any random guy whose work I look at in the process of researching a project, can get a wild hair and accuse me of stealing his work to build my own. Never mind the fact that the allegedly plagiarized work is rehashing a series of ideas that have been in circulation for centuries, and is hardly the only work on the subject. Never mind the fact that Brown has made massive, substantial changes and additions to any ideas which his work and the debated book have in common (that, in and of itself, constitutes enough for me to throw out any claim of plagiarism, right there...)
I may be reading more into the situation than is actually there (it wouldn't be the first time), but I find it very intriguing that the third partner on the book in question--the man who would actually stand to gain the most if the courts upheld the charge and demanded some financial reward--isn't even involved in the case. In fact, he has refused, repeatedly, to even comment on the case. I also find it interesting that the other authors (whose works provided research material for Brown) have not only not started any sort of litigation, they've been praising Brown's work in the press for promoting the sales of their works.
I seriously doubt, as a writer, that a man who's been churning out novels at a pace of one every couple of years would resort to plagiarizing in order to come up with a novel. Having read Brown's witness statement (a lengthy piece of writing, in and of itself!), he provides so many details of where he got inspiration for various aspects of the story that I find it incredible that there's even a trial. If he came up with all the information in his witness statement for the sole purpose of avoiding paying up, he could have fleshed out the story, turned it into another novel, and made enough money to make up for the lawsuit!
And, I have to say, had Brown actually borrowed the plot line for his novel from this book (which I find problematic--since Holy Blood, Holy Grail is non-fiction, talking about this particular theological school which has been actively suppressed by the Catholic Church for centuries, there isn't really a plot to it...non-fiction generally doesn't tell a story, unless it's some kind of biopic work or telling about a specific event), Brown fleshed out the locations, the events, the characters...(No, I am among the few who have still not read The Da Vinci Code).
Sorry, I'll admit to being a prejudiced audience already at this point...but all I see is a couple of opportunists who wrote a mildly successful book, and smelled a way to expand on their success in a totally unscrupulous manner. Even if they don't get any money awarded to them by the court, they've publicized their book to an audience far beyond anything they'd managed to reach before, and I've got no doubt that their sales have boomed since the lawsuit went public. I'd even be willing to bet that they were expecting the case to be settled out of court, to avoid any possible delays in the film release (yeah, the timing there only adds to my suspicion...Da Vince Code's been a top-seller for how long now? Yet they file their suit after word comes out that the film version is going to be opening this spring...)
Regardless, they will always have to live with the knowledge that it took a better writer to come along and make their work interesting enough to reach a wide audience.
posted by Curtis at 10:14 AM
2 Comments:
actually curtis, there are two of us who haven't read "The Da Vinci Code." I have read a large chunk of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" though. I think the court proceedings are silly, especcially when you see a large bibliography at the end of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."
I feel better for knowing that I'm not the only one who's missed this book so far. Of course, I also didn't get started on any of the Harry Potter books until #5 came out...
Post a Comment
<< Home