I have always been suspicious of that book! It’s so poorly done literarily, and oddly similar to his other book, Angels and Demons. Maybe Dan Brown just re-did A&D with new info from Lewis’ book. I’ve heard that the only reason Da Vinci sold so well in comparison to A&D was the promotional work Doubleday (the publisher) did (namely sending tons of advance copies out to bookstores). Ironically, I worked at a bookstore and sold hundreds.
Current score: 0+1
Vanessa | April 28th, 2005 @ 8:43 am
Well, I for one have read most of the books involved in the debate. I found that they differ in writing styles and content. Yes there are similarities, but what fiction books doesn’t have any similarities with other books of its genre. I don’t consider the similarities to be enough to say that there is plagiarism. But I’m sure there are many who will disagree, and I guess that makes the whole debate interesting!
Viele danke for mentioning The Da Vinci Crock blog.
Random House and its parent company, Bertelsmann want very much to silence me. They are trying every sleazy tactic to keep this from going to trial.
The Da Vinci Crock Blog (http://davincicrock.blogspot) highlights many clearly documented instances (verified using mostly other filings in the case) where Random House lawyers have deliberately written things falsely to make it appear that I agree with one of their points (when I don’t), that I have not contested something (when I have), that I have said something or done something that I have not.
As you’ll read on the blog, the Random House actions suggest that, perhaps Dan Brown did not conduct his “extensive” research or actually write The Da Vinci Code.
We really need the trial to settle many issues.
Thank you again for bringing this to the world’s attention.
Basil Crow | April 26th, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
Yes.
Tony | April 26th, 2005 @ 9:08 pm
I hate to quibble, but i think you mean “was the Da Vinci Code a plagiarization?”
Gregory Wild-smith | April 27th, 2005 @ 12:31 am
Well the actions of Random House aren’t exactly helping them…
… it would appear yes.
Willful Exposé | April 27th, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
I have always been suspicious of that book! It’s so poorly done literarily, and oddly similar to his other book, Angels and Demons. Maybe Dan Brown just re-did A&D with new info from Lewis’ book. I’ve heard that the only reason Da Vinci sold so well in comparison to A&D was the promotional work Doubleday (the publisher) did (namely sending tons of advance copies out to bookstores). Ironically, I worked at a bookstore and sold hundreds.
Vanessa | April 28th, 2005 @ 8:43 am
Well, I for one have read most of the books involved in the debate. I found that they differ in writing styles and content. Yes there are similarities, but what fiction books doesn’t have any similarities with other books of its genre. I don’t consider the similarities to be enough to say that there is plagiarism. But I’m sure there are many who will disagree, and I guess that makes the whole debate interesting!
Lewis Perdue | April 28th, 2005 @ 6:03 pm
Viele danke for mentioning The Da Vinci Crock blog.
Random House and its parent company, Bertelsmann want very much to silence me. They are trying every sleazy tactic to keep this from going to trial.
The Da Vinci Crock Blog (http://davincicrock.blogspot) highlights many clearly documented instances (verified using mostly other filings in the case) where Random House lawyers have deliberately written things falsely to make it appear that I agree with one of their points (when I don’t), that I have not contested something (when I have), that I have said something or done something that I have not.
As you’ll read on the blog, the Random House actions suggest that, perhaps Dan Brown did not conduct his “extensive” research or actually write The Da Vinci Code.
We really need the trial to settle many issues.
Thank you again for bringing this to the world’s attention.
Mofo | April 28th, 2005 @ 6:49 pm
The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail are also suing him on the same grounds. Good book, I recommend it.
Pingback: derivative work » Blog Archive » yippee yippee