It occurred to me this morning just how stupid that lawsuit against Dan Brown really is. There is an article on CNN.com (which I didn't bother to link) about an aspect of the case and now I have an inkling what this is really about. Two of the three authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail are pressing suit against Dan Brown for plagiarism or copyright infringement. Or just for flat out ripping them off. That's a big no no. I get that. I have a degree in English and a minor in History so I know all about giving credit for your sources and not to pass off someone else's ideas as your own. I know all about that.
But what gets me about this whole lawsuit and the rips on Dan Brown is that the source material that he is being accused of ripping off is non-fiction. Dan Brown writes fiction. If suddenly an author can't take some idea that he read about or heard about or discovered in research as something he wants to make a major framing device for a novel...fiction would dry up. It's not ripping off a non-fiction book if you take ideas from it, even major themes or ideas and turning it into fiction.
At least...I don't think it is. Perhaps I am wrong about that.
The article on CNN.com has a portion of the trial with the authors who brought suit (this is all in England) admitting that there are major details that Brown uses that contradict what is in their book.
I would say that I’m going to keep an eye on this, but I really don’t care that much. I just found it fairly interesting upon reading that article.
Please proceed with your regularly scheduled day.