The Da Vinci Code Trial

Background: two of the three authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" are suing Dan Brown, author of "The Da Vinci Code" for stealing their ideas, in an English court. I don't presume to know the English law on the subject.

Opinion: "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is a GREAT book, and the product of a large amount of research, developed into a thesis through the use of imaginative leaps of creativity, and (perhaps) more or less true. It purports to be history; nothing in it says, "don't believe a word of this". It is very well written.

Brown reads the book (actually, he cites it) and several other similar books, and writes a mediocre suspense novel, showing no imaginative leaps of creativity. It is not particularly well written. But the thesis of his book is basically the same as the thesis of "Holy Blood" (with snatches from other sources thrown in). It has sold millions and millions of copies.

When I read "The Da Vinci Code", I said to myself: "It's a crime that this guy is making so much money of others' work. There is nothing value added here, except that it sells."

So, how do I come out on the trial? I think that intellectually, I have to come out on Brown's side, although emotionally, I am with "Holy Blood". If "Holy Blood" were portrayed as fiction, I would change my position, but as long as it is portrayed as history, I don't know why a fiction writer can't write a historical novel. Historians may own their words, but I don't think they own their history.

Dan Brown may be a parasite when it comes to writing, but there is no crime in that, is there?