Blogger Party

Great blog topic. I read the Davinci Code but not the Holy Blood. I would like to hear what someones opinion is who has read both.

I've been following this case too. I thought of posting a blog on it but I don't know enough about English Copyright law to comment. Anyway, I would like to point out a few things.

* Brown is not being sued; the suit is against Random House, who published both books.

* The major points Brown is accused of "stealing", like the marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, are not unique to Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Also, The Da Vinci Code is not the first book to use these ideas in a fictional setting (for those of you not familiar with the work of Umberto Eco).

Now, I'm not defending Brown, although I think the timing of the trial is highly suspicious. Would this law suit have taken place if this book had not sold 40 million copies and if there was no movie? Who knows? In all fairness, it looks like Brown has made his share of mistakes. "Reworking" a passage from someone else's book could come back to haunt him. After all, that is a form of plagiarism. I also think shielding his wife from testifying is a bad move since she did the majority of the research for him. If he is truly innocent of the charges, her testimony would be valuable.

This is indeed a complicated case, and I'm not sure that I've done it justice. As Realitycheck said, I've only read one of the two books in question, and hopefully someone who has read both can share some comments as well.

-------------------------------

Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night. - Edgar Allan Poe

I have only read The DaVinci Code, but the case is very interesting. It is an eye opener for those of us in the writing business.

Thanks for the info. I am a law-addict. I love watching court tv. I have basically "home schooled" myself in the law by watching years of televised court cases, but I too am a little iffy when it comes to Copyright laws.
I do completely agree on both your points - 1. The timing is suspicious. I highly doubt this would be an issue if the book was a flop.

and

2. When people in general are restricted on their testamony is does raise a question. That question is "Why?"
I have wondered this time and time again. Almost every case I see some key person has decided not to take the stand. In my mind it makes them look completely guilty. In this case, as you say, if she's innocent why not?

So has anybody read both these books?...O' Ceal? You had to have read both these? We need a readers opinion!