Da Vinci Debate

It’s quite bizarre isn’t it that Dan Brown’s novel should cause such a stir? It’s not even named properly. “Da Vinci” is not how the great polymath was known, no one knows his surname or whether he was known as anything but “Leonardo” in his lifetime. The “Da Vinci” monicker was tacked on later, simply because he came from Vinci, Italy.

Anyway, Brown is currently embroiled in a legal debacle with the authors of another book (The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail) who claim that he plagiarised their purportedly non-fictional history of the alleged marriage to Mary Magdelene of Jesus Christ and the continuation of his blood line to modern times. Quite bizarre. It’s like someone trying to sue Michael Crichton for writing about dinosaurs (there must be thousands of non-fiction authors holding their breath right now), or nanotechnology, or global warming or emergency rooms…

As far as I recall, Brown cites the HB&HG in his book, so I’m not even sure how it could possibly be plagiarism, but then that’s English law for you.

The really odd (I don’t think) thing about this whole legal case is that both the dVC and the HB&HG are actually published by the same publisher. And, could it also be pure coincidence that it’s reached the courts in the same month as the film of dVC hits the big screens in the UK? I suspect not. Either way, the plot is pretentious and puerile and I really wish I hadn’t bothered reading the book. I can only recommend that if you haven’t yet, don’t bother. Jurassic Park is more likey, to be honest.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

4 thoughts on “Da Vinci Debate

  1. I really don’t understand why people get so hung up about this darned book…especially the notion that it might actually have an element of truth. First off it’s a boring and mediocre thriller, with no more merit than a bag of spanners.

    Second, it doesn’t (have an element of truth, that is)

    The author says as much in the foreword.

    More to the point, why does anyone want to believe these fictions anyway? The previous poster remarks that the idea that Jesus had a daughter is beautiful compared with actual history. What’s he talking about? The possibility that some one who probably did not exist 2000 years ago may or may not have had a daughter should be irrelevent to anyone with any reason. It’s like caring about whether Harry Potter goes on to have children or whether Bilbo Baggins is gay.

    It’s a non-starter when it comes to the human condition. There are many far more important things to worry about in the world today, such as whether or not fundamentalist extremists in Washington will lead us into yet another war…

  2. Der Da Vinci Code ist eine gute UCHRONIE.

    Diese Uchronie ist nicht unwahrscheinlicher als die Fabeln der Kirche.
    Die “Templiers” sind nicht wegen Blasphemie von Philippe Le Bel und vom Papst erledigt worden.
    Sie waren einfach zu mächtig und zu reich für die Karolinger geworden.
    Den “Templiers” das Geheimnis der Tochter Jesus: Sarah anhängen zu wollen,
    ist eine schöne kontrafaktische Geschichte.
    Warum sollten wir aber nicht daran glauben ?
    Müssen wir den eidesstaatlichen Versicherungen vom Opus Dei und ihrer Benedikten glauben?

    [Babelfish translates this as follows, with a little editing

    The Da Vinci Code is a good uchronie [a literary diversion based on historical allusions]. This Uchronie is not more improbable than the fables of the church. The “Templars” were not settled because of the Blasphemy of Philippe Le Bel and by The Pope. They had become too rich simply, and too powerful for the Karolinger. The Templars’ secret, the daughter Jesus: Sarah attach to want is beautiful compared with actual history. Why shouldn’t we believe in it? Do we have to believe the oath-national insurance of the Opus Dei and their Benedikten?

  3. The publishers of The Da Vinci Code AND The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail will be rubbing their hands all the way to the bank today as the UK’s High Court has ruled that DVC author did not breach copyright laws by writing about the subjects described in the HB+HG in the manner he did. Given that the publisher of each book is one in the same, then all this extra publicity is sure to push sales of both books, not to mention cinema tickets up, up, up.

    Like I’ve said before, the DVC isn’t really worthy of a bog-side book…

Comments are closed.