Da Vinci Code Verdict

gbh

Just read about the verdict on the internet. He was cleared of plagiarism.

The whole case raises questions about the work of fiction writers, and should they credit the research of others. It would be different if the work of fiction was a veiled autobiographical account. But when it relies on the work of others then it is different.

I think he should have thrown them at least an acknowledgement but then that would be conceding liability.

Basically what I would ask is, Would there have been any Da Vinci Code without the work of those other writers/researchers?

I think Brown was a bit lazy with his researching anyways, and had his wife do most of it. And what he seemed to do was change a lot of things around.

But I can't really see much originiality in his work just a rehashing of old ideas and research into something which demands to be accepted as art.

Saruman

What are you talking about? did you actually read the book? He did mention the book. Gave them all the credit they deserved which was they wrote a book with ideas others have had for a long time before they wrote their (non fiction) book.


This case was never about Dan brown copying their work.. this was publicity.. their book is now back in the bestseller list afaik

meldrew

This had to be the biggest farce ever , both books are benefiting as is the film and one of the other authors new book is getting publicised , if you ask me they all won with that verdict especially Random House .

Tristram

meldrew wrote:

This had to be the biggest farce ever , both books are benefiting as is the film and one of the other authors new book is getting publicised , if you ask me they all won with that verdict especially Random House .

Too true.