Da Vinci Hoax Blog

Michael Baigent and "The Jesus Papers" featured on "Dateline"

I didn't see it since I don't watch silly "investigative" shows that feature wingnut theories that aren't taken seriously by 99.9999999% of historians. Baigent, of course, is one of the three authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and one of the plaintiffs in the recent (and failed) lawsuit against Dan Brown's publisher for copyright infringement. Baigent's new book is simply another tired riff on the 1965 book, The Passover Plot: Jesus really didn't die on the Cross, but escaped and moved to Toledo, Ohio, where he opened an espresso shop and did palm readings. (BTW, John Lennon said of Hugh Schonfield's book, "My views on Christianity are directly influenced by [the] book." What's up with Brits and weird, nutty theories about Jesus?) Or something like that. Anyhow, NewsBusters.org has a piece about the nonsense that's worth reading. Personally, I can't wait for NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, etc., etc., to start doing "investigative" pieces about how Mohammed never existed, that Buddha didn't found Buddhism, that Moses was actually a member of the PLO, and so forth and so on. Should happen any day now, just as soon as the talking heads at N(ever) B(elieve) C(hristians) finish telling the world the truth about the "'Gospel' of 'Judas'."

By the way, NBC pitched the infomercial by using slogans including, "What if everything you think you know about Jesus is wrong?" (Sounds very similar to the ominous voice overs in the DVC trailers). I say: Hey, what if everything you saw on NBC was wrong? And everything spouted on "Dateline" was a pile of steaming mashed potatoes? Now that's something with a ring of truth to it.

Justice Peter Smith on Dan Brown: "the reality of his research is that it is superficial"

The newspapers and evening news have been announcing victory for Dan Brown and Doubleday in the now concluded trial that took place in London. Fair enough. But the point of interest for me has always been what the case and trial might reveal about Brown's "impeccable research" (New York Daily News and a bazilion other newspapers, magazines, and reader reviews. See some examples listed in this essay). Much was revealed, or brought into a brighter light. And while many news accounts are reporting this story as though Brown is some sort of literary martyr, the judge, Justice Peter Smith, was quite frank in his criticisms of Brown's vague testimony and scholarly pretensions (Smith's entire statement can be read here, in PDF format. My thanks to Lewis Perdue for the link. Pithy extracts from the 70+ page judgment can be accessed on this BBC page.) Here are some of Justice Smith's remarks:

In the synopsis for The Da Vinci Code he says it was written long before they bought or consulted The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. I have considerable difficulties with that statement.

I cannot accept the book was acquired at a much later time if it is going to be seriously contended that extensive research is gone into before The Da Vinci Code is written.

What is extraordinary about Mr Brown's evidence is that he appears to have acquired all of the books that cover this area apart from the one that is described as essential reading. ...

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

It is quite clear that Mr Brown has not been able to provide all the answers as to the material which Blythe prepared for him.

Second I do not regard the reasons put forward in the third witness statement for her absence as satisfactory.

How DVC was researched and created is vital to the issues in this case.

Blythe Brown's role in that exercise is crucial and I do not accept that there are reasons of a credible nature put forward as to why she has not appeared to give evidence.

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

It ought to have been obvious to Mr Brown that if he had carefully prepared his  witness statement that his case on HBHG as he put it would simply fall apart on an examination of the US HBHG, the copying similarities and the other documents to which I have referred.  I do not believe he consciously lied.  His failure to address these points in my view shows once again that the reality of his research is that it is  superficial.  This in my view is the explanation for his evidence.  He has presented  himself as being a deep and thorough researcher for all of the books he produced. 

The evidence in this case demonstrates that as regards DVC that is simply not correct with respect to historical lectures.  The Synopsis was prepared using a minimal amount of material from the books TR, WAJ and GG primarily.  The major part of the writings of the lectures at a later stage have substantially come from HBHG.

The references immediately above are to The Templar Revelation by Picknett and Prince, Woman With the Alabaster Jar and Goddess in the Gospels, the latter two written by Margaret Starbird, apparently a favorite source for Blythe Brown's research. All, of course, are mentioned in TDVC. Those three books, in addition to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, constitute about 95-99% (I estimate) of Brown's research. And he admitted that he didn't even read HBHG in its entirety. As Lewis Purdue wrote not long before Friday's judgment:

Regardless of how the trial comes out in London, Dan and Blythe are now known as shameless rippers-off of other people's work -- a far cry from their previous statements about their so-called extensive research.

As a university faculty member, I frequently gave an "F" to unoriginal and desperate college students who diligently to altered what they copied in hopes that the copying would not be discovered.

The Verdict Is In: Brown is "vindicated"

From Reuters (UK):

Best-selling author Dan Brown was vindicated on Friday in a court battle with two historians who accused him of plagiarising their book in order to write "The Da Vinci Code".

A judge at the High Court in London said that while Brown may have copied bits of the 1982 book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", that did not amount to a breach of copyright.

"Even if the central themes were copied, they are too general or of too low a level of abstraction to be capable of protection by copyright law," judge Peter Smith told the court.

And:

Random House, owned by German media conglomerate Bertelsmann AG, also welcomed the judgement, as did Sony Pictures, which is due to release a Hollywood film based on "The Da Vinci Code".

"We are pleased that justice and common sense have prevailed," Random House's chairman and chief executive Gail Rebuck said in a statement.

Baigent and Leigh were denied leave to appeal and face a legal bill of over 1 million pounds, although an increase in sales of their own book as a result of the publicity surrounding the case may ease the pain.

Da D-Day for Duh Code is At Hand

Bloomberg.com (and many others) reports that Friday, April 7th, will be the day that judgment will be rendered in the Doubleday vs. HBHG Authors case, which began in late February:

A judge in London is due to decide tomorrow whether Dan Brown plagiarized the plot of his best- selling "The Da Vinci Code" from two other writers. Judging by book sales, readers may not care.         

More than 500,000 copies of Brown's thriller were sold in the first week after its paperback release on March 28, Random House Inc.'s Anchor Books said yesterday. Promotion of the film version, due in May, and reports of the U.K. lawsuit have boosted interest in the novel, said Russell Perreault, director of publicity at Anchor and Vintage books.         

"It's really been a perfect storm of events,'' Perreault said in an interview. ``There are still a lot of people out there who have been waiting for the paperback to come out.''         

Historians Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing Random House, Brown's publisher, for copyright infringement. They claim the author lifted the theory that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and fathered a child from their non-fiction ``The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,'' published more than 20 years earlier.          

The case, which opened at London's High Court on Feb. 27, drew packed courtrooms for three weeks. It has also sparked a sales revival for Baigent and Leigh's book. Sales of ``The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'', which graced the New York Times bestseller list in the 1980s, surged 26-fold in Britain and sixfold in the U.S. during the trial, according to figures provided by Nielsen BookScan and Bookseller magazine, a trade publication.

What are the stakes? Mercury News reports:

A victory by Baigent and Leigh would stun the world of copyright law, challenging the concept that copyright protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself.

"A victory for Leigh and Baigent would make it very difficult for novelists, particularly historical novelists," said Fiona Crawley, a copyright expert with law firm Bryan Cave LLP.

"They go to source books to research the history to incorporate into their novel. It would call into question how they can research a historical novel without being accused of copyright infringement by the historian who has written the key work on that incident in history."

A win by the plaintiffs also could hold up the scheduled May 19 film release of "The Da Vinci Code" movie, starring Tom Hanks. Sony Pictures says it plans to release the film as scheduled. If Leigh and Baigent lose, they could have to pay costs that legal experts estimate will top $1.75 million.

Hmmmm....I don't think I'd want to be in the shoes of Leigh and Baigent at this point. Sure, it's obvious that Brown relied heavily on their book for key passages in his novel, but my highly subjective and non-expert opinion is that the judge will lean toward Doubleday on this one. Regardless, those who have paid close attention and have actually read Brown's witness statement know that the novelist's claims to deep and serious research have been thoroughly discredited. But does it matter? Probably not much. The paperback version of the novel sold 500,000 copies this past week, setting yet more publishing records.

Professor of religious studies: "Thank you, Dan Brown..."

Thomas Ryan, chairman of the religious studies department at St. Thomas University in Miami, views the Coded Craziness "as a much-needed vaccine against ignorance." Catholic.org reports:

"It is a novel that holds a mirror up to us – to silly academics and people who misuse facts," Ryan told a group of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish leaders gathered March 22 for the monthly clergy dialogue sponsored by the National Conference for Community and Justice.

He said talking about the popular book – and upcoming movie – should "strengthen our congregations to be able to deal with what's out there" in terms of religious ignorance and misconceptions.

"This is a vaccine," said Ryan, whose area of specialization is medieval church history. "This articulates the silliness that's out there. We could use it as a way of inoculating ourselves."

Ryan, who only recently read the novel, said his personal reaction to it was: "Thank you, Dan Brown.... I am grateful to (the novel) for driving me to learn more about my faith. It raises questions that I need to go and see. I'm a smarter person as a result of it."

I understand his point, but think he gives Brown far too much credit in this remark:

"I think the author puts in all those mistakes to alert us" to the fact that it is a work of fiction, Ryan said. "It's a story of people who use false evidence to support their claims. And don't we meet those people every day? I think it's a story of humanity. I think Dan Brown is kind of laughing at us. It mocks our gullibility."

Does it? Or does the novel simply take advantage of readers' gullibility, to the tune of 40+ million copies sold, by being touted as well-researched and factual? Having read Brown's witness statement from the London trial a couple of times now, I think Sandra Miesel is correct in this assessment: "Brown is trying to present himself as a serious Artist, a man of many talents just bursting with nuggets of arcane lore." (Read all of her comments here.)

Or, in the words of James Parker, writing for The Boston Globe, "The Da Vinci Code,  bulging with shadowy Templars, is a classic con, of the sort regularly perpetrated by the hustler-sorcerer Cagliostro." He continues:

The mechanism is simple: take an article of no value whatsoever-say, the prose of Dan Brown-and then wreath it in purple clouds of necromantic waffle. Speak in low tones of Horus, the Grail, the Philosopher's Stone. Mention Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, the Priory of Sion, and the assassination of Dagobert II. Deploy lashings of what Carlyle, in his 1833 essay on Cagliostro, called ''Tower-of-Babel jargon," and a miracle will ensue: You will find yourself, in Carlyle's words, ''working the mighty chaos into a creation-of ready-money." Like, for example, 36 million copies of your novel in print, translation into 44 languages, and an upcoming movie version starring Tom Hanks.

Cagliostro's genius was to make himself a magnet for the displaced religiosity of the Enlightenment: Ancient longings and unmoored belief systems all adhered with a sudden, happy crackle to his nonsense. Is Dan Brown a genius? Possibly not. ''Langdon and Sophie seemed unable to tear their stunned gazes from the revolver aimed at them." The steady drone of dullness emitted by prose like this cannot be entirely camouflaged by Cagliostrian sound effects-by the boom of chanting monks and the scratching of phoenixes inside Hermetic eggs. But they certainly do help.

Brown is a child of his age who has produced what other children of this age want: anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories dressed in pseudo-intellectual nonsense and spun with pompous spiritual cliches that are as absurd as they are enticing (see this May 26, 2006, USA Today piece about DVC clones that are climbing the best-seller charts). Hustler-sorcerer, indeed, armed with a keyboard, a jar of jargon, a mysterious spouse/researcher, and a willingness to apparently say anything to keep selling the con.

Is there a precedent for the DVC case and trial?

Possibly:

Ravenscroft v Herbert [1980] RPC 193

The plaintiff in this case claimed infringement by the plaintiff in his non-fiction work "The Spear of Destiny". The plaintiff had written a history of the spear which was allegedly used to pierce the side of Christ on the Cross. He detailed the history of the spear from Israel to Hofburg Museum in Vienna. The plaintiff identified it as the spear used by many legendary historical people and claimed that the spear had become a symbolic source of inspiration in Nazi Germany. The plaintiffs book was meticulously researched using a combination of empirical techniques and use of a psychic medium.

The defendant, James Herbert was fascinated by the plaintiffs book and used it as the basis of a fictional account of the post-war fate of the spear entitled "The Spear". The novel concerned a neo-Nazi group, secret agents and terrorists. The book was divided into sections. At the beginning of each section was a prologue. The prologues told the story of the spear from the Crucifixion to the end of the second world war. The plaintiff sued for copyright infringement.

The defendant admitted using the plaintiffs book as a source of inspiration for his novel.

The court upheld the plaintiff's claim of copyright infringement and in finding for the plaintiff decided as follows -

1. The defendant had infringed the plaintiff's copyright by writing the prologues using the same characters, incidents and interpretation of the significance of events

2. In assessing the quantum of damages the court had to assess the value of the infringing part of the defendant's work in relation to the whole of the original work. Although the infringing part represented only 4% of the defendants work, the value of the 4% was 15% of value of the whole derivative book. there were in all, fifty alleged instances of language copying in the defendants work.

In an article at LegalWeek.com, Barrister Amanda Michaels explains some of the issues at stake:

The difficulty is that there is no copyright simply in ideas, but only in the expression of the ideas; copyright protects the skill and labour of the author in creating his work. Naturally, it all depends on what is meant by ‘ideas’. As copying may be substantial in terms of quality rather than quantity, the ‘substantial part’ can be ‘a feature or combination of features abstracted from the claimant’s work, and need not form a discrete part of it’.

That being so, Lord Hoffman in Designers Guild considered that "the original elements in the plot of a play or novel may be a substantial part, so that copyright may be infringed by a work which does not reproduce a single sentence of the original". Here, the defendant challenges the very existence of the central theme upon which the claimants rely, but adds that in any event the theme is of too high a level of abstraction to be protected as a copyright work.

In Ravenscroft v Herbert [1980], features of a non-fictional work tracing the history of the Spear of Destiny — a museum piece which supposedly was the very spear that had pierced Christ’s side on the cross — were used in a thriller based around the spear. Copying of text and of non-textual features, such as characters, incidents and interpretation of events, was found to infringe. The DVC case, of course, relies solely upon copying of the central theme — will this be enough?

There is a spectrum stretching from ‘pure’ ideas through elements of plot, features or themes, to specifics of text. This case raises the issue of where the boundary lies along that spectrum, between ideas which are in the public domain and protectable copyright; this may be impossible to define, but the judge will have to find on which side of it any copying in DVC may fall. His judgment may well affect the approach to be taken by writers of all kinds to copyright source material.

Our interview with "Catholic Answers Live" is now available online

Last Friday, March 17th, Sandra Miesel and I were guests for an hour on "Catholic Answers Live," the radio show aired by the Catholic Answers apostolate. That show can be listened to in mp3 and RealPlayer formats. Our thanks to CALive and Jerry Usher!

Reactions, reactions, and more reactions...

... to the Coded Craziness.

• From the legal world:

Lawyers believe the verdict will have a major impact on other potential claims. One partner close to the case told Legal Week: "This is a landmark case, whichever way it goes, it will probably set the scene for some time to come." 

Reynolds Porter Chamberlain publishing specialist David Hooper said: "Lawyers always said in the pop music world, 'where there's a hit, there's a writ', and it could be that books are heading that way."

• From Opus Dei:

The impression of Opus Dei conveyed in Dan Brown's novel, "The Da Vinci Code," is "the complete opposite of what Opus Dei is about," said Brian Finnerty, U.S. spokesman for the international Catholic organization.

• From the producer of the Cinematic Code:

The producer of "The Da Vinci Code" movie says a flap with some Catholics over the upcoming film has been a blessing.

Brian Grazer says that's because it's sparking debate about religion, faith and belief. He talked about the movie on N-B-C's "Today" show.Some Catholic groups consider the movie insulting to their faith and want a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie stating it's a work of fiction. The film is to be released in May.

Grazer calls the movie "informed fiction" with "symbols that lead to certain clues that in some cases can be proved to be fact." But he says it's not a historic tale.

[Question: If "sparking debate about religion, faith, and belief" is so great, does Grazer support, say, cartoons that mock certain religions? Or is he only for making movies that misrepresent Christianity?]

• From Catholics near and in Boston:

No surprise that the Vatican has denounced the novel. [Actually, that is a surprise since it didn't happen. Yes, Cardinal Bertone has strongly criticized the novel. No, Cardinal Bertone is not "the Vatican." Newsflash to MSM: Just because a Cardinal in Rome says something, it doesn't mean "the Vatican" is behind it.]

Or that members of the Catholic clergy find it offensive.

“I’m not going to read something that’s a bunch of crap,” said the Rev. Bob Carr, of St. Benedict Parish in Somerville. “People are reading it and I don’t encourage it. It reflects an ignorance of everything that people have known about who Jesus is for the past 2,000 years.”

But what do parishioners think? In an unscientific sampling, most Boston-area Catholics looked at “The Da Vinci Code” as nothing more than a work of the imagination, and nothing to get upset about. [Well, yeah. But I bet a lot of Catholics in Boston (and here in Oregon, for that matter) feel the same way about Catholic doctrine: nothing more than a work of the imagination. But they do tend to get upset about it.]

• From Evangelical Protestants:

The impending release of a movie version of the blockbuster novel The Da Vinci Code is stirring debate in Christian circles. To many, the release represents an attack on the Christian faith. Many others also see in it a door opener for sharing the gospel. The resulting impact will depend on how prepared Christians are to respond effectively. [I see it as both: an attack and an opportunity. After all, when attacked, a good defense does more than defend -- it reveals the weaknesses of the enemy and opens up avenues for invading his territory (keeping with the warfare theme). Why portray it as one or the other? It's both.]

• From angry albinos. Really. No kidding:

The National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentationare is launching a campaign against the Tom Hanks film of "The Da Vinci Code."

NOAH had unsuccessfully asked film director Ron Howard to change author Dan Brown's "hulking albino" character Silas, The New York Post reported Sunday.

A California teacher who is albino wrote to Brown in 2003 voicing her concern over the "hateful" stereotypes assigned to albinos in literature and film, the newspaper said.

• From art historians.

• From angry Catholic women.

• And, of course, from us. Right here. On the Da Vinci Hoax blog.

Has Dan Brown "become the ultimate scapegoat for the cultural snobs"?

He has, according to a March 19, 2006, opinion piece in The Guardian:

Brown stands accused of having taken the main idea for The Da Vinci Code (namely, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children together) from an earlier non-fiction book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. But the sneering literary set would really like to try him for something completely different. To them, he is guilty of the heinous crime of writing something that a lot of people wanted to read and tell their friends about.

The problem is, that's not actually against the law. So they are satisfying their blood lust over the plagiarism case instead. 'We told you so. Serves you all right for reading trashy airport novels, you losers. Here - take this copy of Ulysses and please try to restrict yourselves to proper, critically-acclaimed literature in future.'

Brown has become the ultimate scapegoat for the cultural snobs who cannot bear for anything that might be classed as 'popular' to take the hallowed form of 'A Book'. Since the trial, even hardened Da Vinci Code fans are turning against it. A friend who initially recommended the novel now wails: 'I knew it was too good to be true.' The memory of a book she had been unable to put down has been ruined for her by all the negative coverage. She feels stupid and duped. The would-be intelligentsia has won.

I think that the author of the piece, Viv Groskop, misunderstands the change of heart. The court battle didn't change the mediocre writing in TDVC, but exposed how empty is the notion that the novel is a well-researched and intellectually rich work. Readers who might otherwise be "snobs" were willing to put up with Brown's lousy prose because, as Dan Burstein, editor of Secrets of the Code: An Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code (New York: CDS Books, 2004) admitted, the poor writing was at the service of something Big and Important and Life-Changing. From my March 2005 article, "The 'It's Just Fiction!' Doctrine", Burstein's explanation:

"I was as intellectually challenged as I had been by any book I had read in a long time." He recounts making his way through "scores of books that had been mentioned or alluded to in The Da Vinci Code: Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Templar Revelation, Gnostic Gospels, The Woman With the Alabaster Jar, The Nag Hammadi Library, and more." ...

Burstein admits that the Code is not well-written, but explains that literary quality is beside the point: "Say what you will about some of the ham-fisted dialogue and improbably plot elements, Dan Brown has wrapped large complex ideas, as well as minute details and fragments of intriguing thoughts into his action-adventure-murder mystery."

Ah, yes, the "large complex ideas" and "fragments of intriguing thoughts" that were mostly culled from works of "speculative history" (aka, pseudo-history based on fancy, not fact). And mostly by Brown's wife, not Brown himself. The court case helped to further reveal that the Emperor/Author has No Clothes/Credibility. Embarrassment follows. Snobbery follows, a defensive reaction to having been taken in by the Coded Con. Groskop concludes:

Win or lose this case, Dan Brown has drawn back into bookshops and libraries many people who had completely given up on finding anything they wanted to read ever again. The success of a page-turner thriller, whether semi-plagiarised or not, does not threaten Western society. But putting up with the book snobs is an ongoing trial for us all.

Which only goes to prove the point. Are we really to believe that all of those poor souls who finally discovered or re-discovered reading because of TDVC did so based on the novel's unique literary merits (which are dubious, even for popular fiction)? Or because of an appeal that directly flowed from its many large ideas, outrageous claims, and relentless slander of Christianity?

DaVinciCrock blog summarizes the court case

Lewis Perdue, novelist and blogger, has been following the Coded Craziness from the beginning and has written a lot of helpful material about many aspects of the success of The Da Vinci Code. Last year he lost a lawsuit against Dan Brown; Perdue claimed that Brown plagiarised elements of two of his novels, Daughter of God, published in 2000 and The Da Vinci Legacy (1983). Since I am not a lawyer and am still trying to make sense of what constitutes plagiarism in the 21st century, I cannot say much about that case (I did glance through Perdue's novels. There are certainly similarities, as he has outlined in detail.) However, Perdue's blog DaVinciCrock has much to offer, including this fine summary of the court battle in London:

Other than Dan Brown confirming that I was correct about the James-Frey-like biographical fabrications over on Writopia, (and that the legions of books debunking DVC's historical, factual and religious errors were also correct) the testimony confirmed that:

• Dan did rely heavily on HBHG,
• He was well-coached for cross-examination and conveniently can't remember details or historical fact,
• There are contradictions between his statement and the Random House briefs in my case,
• Blythe and not he conducted what research there exists,
• Most of the well-hyped research consisted of pages of material copied from other authors and,
• Blythe is the real force,

Baigent & Leigh don't seem to have proven any specific infringements in the expression.

While I am pulling for B&L for purely psychological reasons, and while I do think that there are probably real infringements there, I do not think that B&L have proven their case.

I have to agree. That Brown relied heavily on HBHG is a no-brainer. But I doubt the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated enfringement of copyright (but, again, such things are so hazy and apparently  — nearly impossible? — hard to quantify...). Regardless, the trial has shown clearly that Brown is not a well-informed and diligent researcher as he has been so often touted by his publisher (who described TDVC as "... intricately layered with remarkable research and detail.") and many in the MSM. And his sources are, to put it kindly, dubious at best — unless you're the sort of person who entertains flat earth theories and would rather spend a vacation at Area 51 than Disneyland.