These days Dan Brown, author of highly-popular "Da Vinci Code" is in a lot of hot water. Apparently, his book wasn't entirely original, and in fact, may have lifted "plot structures" from another book based on an ancient conspiracy and cover-up in the Catholic Church - "Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. The book, by the way, is worth reading. Its essentially pulpy fiction, but very-fun-to-read pulp fiction with great value for stimulating controversy, as well as interest in the tremendous historical and artistic references that give the book its flavour.
[ 'Mary Magdalene'...or Jesus' secret concubine? Palazzo Pitti, Florence Circa 1533]
It also doesn't hurt that the Catholic Church has added this provocative book to its infamous list of "banned books". Really, all that does is bestow a certain level of credibility on what is basically a rather formulaic tract. Something about being in company with Huxley, Orwell and Galileo does that I suppose.
As to the claim that the book should be banned, or that the creators of 'Holy Blood Holy Grail' should be compensated monetarily for the significant degree of similarity between the two texts, well...it just seems silly - an indication more of opportunistic, short-term avarice than any kind of well-thought out challenge to the process by which Dan Brown created his book.
The day "historical facts" are copyrighted is the day "freedom of speech," goes out the window, well, more than it already has. No, I'm not talking about those silly Mohammed cartoons. I'm talking about the ability to reference, make fun of, satirize and use for speech purposes everyday information such as corporate logos, copyrighted film clips, TV shows such as the Simpsons, sports statistics and much more without fear of lawsuits. See here for more on this...
Recent Comments