I read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" ages ago.
Then I read Dan Brown's the "Da Vinci Code", and I was so surprised by how much it reminded me of "Holy Blood..." that I went back and re-read it to ensure I wasn't imagining things.
In a nutshell, these are the questions that Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh ask in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail":
Is the traditional, accepted view of the life of Christ in some way incomplete?
• Is it possible Christ did not die on the cross?
• Is it possible Jesus was married, a father, and that his bloodline still exists?
• Is it possible that parchments found in the South of France a century ago reveal one of the best-kept secrets of Christendom?
• Is it possible that these parchments contain the very heart of the mystery of the Holy Grail?
According to the authors of this extraordinarily provocative, meticulously researched book, not only are these things possible — they are probably true! so revolutionary, so original, so convincing, that the most faithful Christians will be moved; here is the book that has sparked worldwide controversey.
"Enough to seriously challenge many traditional Christian beliefs, if not alter them."
— Los Angeles Times Book Review
And sure enough, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing Dan Brown, claiming he more or less directly pilfered from them.
I don't blame them, frankly.
Even from my distant viewing, the similarities were so noticeable as to be more than coincidence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
The thing is, Dan Brown references "Holy Blood & Holy Grail" in his book, mentions it's title on a few occasions, and even the character "Leigh Teabing" is a nod to Leigh and Baigent ('Teabing' is an anagram of Baigent).... so the speculation is, the whole thing will be thrown out of court because Brown has acknowledged that he openly used "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" as source material, along with many many other non-fiction books that mention the same theory.
I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the case threatens to delay the release of the movie, and that the two sides come to some sort of financial deal out-of-court to keep the movie's release on time. That's where the money is...
Interesting, interesting. I think Kimber may be on the money.
I too, suspect Kimber knows things we mere mortals could never suspect!
So called 'intellectual property' has ALWAYS had a struggle to be upheld in court. It's so vague.
I suspect that unless he copied direct passages verbatim, they won't have much of a leg to stand on.
Are historical theories copyrighted though, even if they're not mainstream?
Because if they're not, then wouldn't a novelist be able to use those ideas in a fictionalized way?
I may have to go read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Is it fiction?
I don't know what to say about that one, but you definitely make me want to read both books now.
I've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Monty Python's Life of Brian more than 20 times each, so I consider myself to be a home-schooled biblical scholar and I must say that YOU ARE A GODLESS HEATHEN INFIDEL DEFILER WHO'S GONNA BURN BURN BURN!!! Same thing goes for whoever comments here. Except me, natch. :p
Actually, my view of xtianity was best expressed by Ghandi: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. I do not think your Christians are like your Christ."
The old adage "there is nothing new in the world" is *this* writer's greatest fear for this very reason. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
The book is drawn from historical aritfacts/documents etc.
It's just a theory about what, exactly, the 'holy grail' is.
(And no, NO coconuts were involved in this particular book!)
thanks for the congratulations. i've been "thumbing" through your blog and i like all the book talk. i'll be checking back...
Hi Tai, coincidence we were thinking on the same lines!
The Catholic Church are correct in their assertion. It is rubbish. However, the Catholic Church does contain interesting secrets . I am sick of Dan Brown and his cheapskate book anyway, and the pathetic furoré. Are people so desperate for mystery they buy an obvious fraud?
In respect of what Kimber said, it's not sufficient (here in UK) to acknowledge someone else's work and the proceed to devolve from it, derive from it and enhance it without acknowledging their authorship continually and getting their permission. The fact that the original authors are concerned enough to sue, speaks volumes. You should acknowledge the source first and then next, on every occasion the source gets derived from, acknowledge it again. Anything else is theft. I hope they get it, as the Dan brown book is just an easy buck. ( Of the type that frustrate me!)
There is no copyright on ideas, only on the presentation of ideas, so the authors of the nonfiction book are likely to lose.
And I can't disparage Dan Brown's book too much. Even though I agree it's not great writing, it did sell tens of millions of copies worldwide and got many people reading that might not have picked up a book otherwise.
And perhaps it even got them to question their beliefs and think for themselves for a change instead of just parroting a religious party line.
-- david
I enjoyed reading Da Vinci Code, and though he may have borrowed from the ideas revealed in Holy Blood you've gotta ask yourself, why didn't that book (published 20yrs ago) sell millions upon millions of copies? Clear, it was Brown's talent that sold Da Vinci, and his book is fiction unlike the other one and he did cite it, so where's the plagarism? To me it sounds like a money-grab and I hope Mike & Rich will get a small financial settlement and then be gone.
Got to agree with the statements about not being able to copyright ideas or historical events...for instance could the shipping company that actually owned the Titanic sue the makers of the blockbuster movie??....could I sue penthouse for publishing all those letters that so obviously relate to my life??...the bottom line is that of course Brown stole ideas..but thats what artists do...painters, photographers, writers, singers...remember Grunge music...how many bands came out with a sound that sounded almost exactly like Pearl Jam??...How many melting clocks got painted during the surrealist movement??....The most interesting question is the timming of this law suit....oh and even if no settlement is awarded sales of a book that no one has bought in a decade will soar.
Adman, those ideas are all fine just so long as no one gets annoyed enough to take you to Court!
Of course you copyright your research discoveries.
Both books were marked as fiction. However, whether it was a true belief or not--they had to mark it fiction so they wouldn't get sued ...(in my own opinion...) but it makes sense, right?
I watched this on the history channel the other day and was amazed with all the theories that went behind it.
I'm with Lisa where I do believe what the bible says about Jesus and that He came to earth to save us---that was His mission. I do believe He died on the cross for us.
Interesting concept of his bloodline being continued...but I doubt that to be true.
Post a Comment