My eyes scan the article about the latest happenings regarding author, Dan Brown, and the fate of
The Da Vinci Code. I, frankly, think the charges are absurd. Yes, an historical framework for Dan Brown's work is similar to, and I'm sure, influenced by,
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. That book, after all, is categorized as
nonfiction, which means that it is a book of facts; in this case
historical facts. Fiction, particularly, historical fiction, gains depth if it quotes or emulates historical facts.
I'm also sure that Dan Brown isn't the first author to take a great historical legend, myth, or sequence of events and write a fictional story based on them. If he was the first, then we would be without stories and movies about King Arthur, William Wallace, the Munich tragedy, the Romans, Vietnam and World War II, or even the McCarthy era in the 50s. All of these stories are based on facts. None of the authors of the most current version of these stories have been dragged into a courtroom accused of "stealing" the framework of a
nonfiction book. Stories about McCarthy, Watergate, and Munich are based on historical facts which are owned by no one except humanity.
Perhaps Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh (Henry Lincoln is not involved in this case interestingly enough) are desperate for money and are using Dan Brown as their own publicist for their book. It is apparently working, sales for
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail has risen since this whole fiasco has come about. Hopefully, they will reimburse the British taxpayers paying for their new-found fame.
Until then, all facts associated with or influenced by me, Planet Shortbread, cannot be used without the written consent of the historical character, which in this case, is me, Planet Shortbread. Any attempt to reproduce historical events associated with or influenced by me, Planet Shortbread, will be considered plagiarism and will be punished to the highest extent in a British court of law.
