Da Vinci Hoax Blog

Judge will make a ruling before April 13

A summary news report from the AP:

Judge Peter Smith said he would give his verdict in the case before the current court term ends April 13.

In a written statement handed to the court yesterday, Rayner James said Brown had copied from ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail," but acknowledged he may have done so ''unwittingly because of the research materials supplied by Blythe Brown."

''His evidence should be approached with deep suspicion," the lawyer said of Brown's testimony during three days on the stand last week. ''He had almost no recollection of matters that related to timing. He would struggle to recall a year, was rarely able to recall a month. His general attitude in cross-examination was uncooperative."

Rayner James said evidence from Blythe Brown would have been of ''fundamental importance to this case." He claimed she would have been able to confirm the extent to which ''The Da Vinci Code" relied on Baigent's and Leigh's work.

Dan Brown knew ''little about what she did," Rayner James said.

"It remains the position that only she knows the extent of her involvement in the research and creation" of ''The Da Vinci Code," he said.

Meanwhile, the NYTimes reports that the judge expressed irritation with the lawyer of the plaintiffs:

The judge, Peter Jones, will not issue a decision for several weeks, and it is impossible to know how he will rule. But his tough questions appeared to reflect skepticism, even exasperation, toward some of the arguments put forward by the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, two of the three authors of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail." (The book's other author, Henry Lincoln, is not taking part in the lawsuit.) They claim that Mr. Brown lifted the central "architecture" for his megaselling "Da Vinci Code" from their nonfiction book, published in 1982.

For instance, when the lawyer, Jonathan Rayner James, argued that Mr. Brown had "been hiding the truth" about when he and his wife, Blythe Brown, who does much of his research, had first consulted "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," Justice Jones stopped him short. If that were true, the judge asked, why had Mr. Brown left out "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" from the bibliography he submitted to the publisher, along with a synopsis of "The Da Vinci Code" in January 2001 — only to include a pointed reference to the book in the finished novel a year later?

"If he's trying to hide the fact that he's using 'H.B.H.G.' in the synopsis," the judge asked, referring to "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" by its initials, "what's the point of shouting it out from the rooftops in the book?"

On a more humorous note, I found this story about Dr. Ben Witherington III, biblical scholar and author of The Gospel Code, and his reference to TDVC as a work of "hysterical fiction," not historical fiction. Quite funny.

Yet another reason that TDVC is not "just a novel"

From a reader, who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons:

My son attends a Catholic high school.  Last year, when he was a freshman, his history teacher offered extra credit to a student to to read this book.  I found that appalling, and let him know it.  Even though the book is "fiction", I have several coworkers who believe that much of the historical information in this book is true.  Apparently, the author gives that impression.  Catholics, and nonCatholics, are so ignorant of Church history that they just fall for anything.

Quite true. After all, the Chicago Tribune said Dan Brown's fourth novel is "brain candy" that "trans[mits] several doctorates' worth of fascinating history and learned speculation." The Library Journal opines that TDVC is "a compelling blend of history and page-turning suspense." And BookReporter.com states:

A stunning new thriller that will provoke much debate. Dan Brown's extensive research on secret societies and symbology adds intellectual depth to this page-turning thriller. His surprising revelations on Da Vinci's penchant for hiding codes in his paintings will lead the reader to search out renowned artistic icons as The Mona Lisa, The Madonna of the Rocks and The Last Supper. The Last Supper holds the most astonishing coded secrets of all and, after reading The Da Vinci Code, you will never see this famous painting in quite the same way again.

Well, we know a lot more about that "extensive research" now, thanks to the trial in London. Brown's reliance on Holy Blood, Holy Grail is obvious (regardless of whether or not it is plagiarism), as is his admitted reliance on The Templar Revelation for nearly everything in the novel about Leonardo da Vinci's life and artwork:

The Templar Revelation discussed secret Templar history and the possible involvement of Leonardo da Vinci. This Da Vinci connection fit well into my desire to write in Langdon's domain, the world of art. I became excited about using Leonardo da Vinci as an historical touchstone and plot device for my new novel. Bernini had been central to Angels & Demons and I had enjoyed writing that book. Moreover, I knew Blythe was an enormous fan of Leonardo da Vinci and would be eager to help me research. It was probably at about this time that I came up with the title The Da Vinci Code. ... Da Vinci is also the connection between art and the secret society that I chose to include in The Da Vinci Code - the Priory of Sion. Like Da Vinci's paintings, the Priory of Sion and Da Vinci's involvement with it is discussed in Templar Revelation. (Witness Statement, pars. 97, 102)

But if there are still those who think the novel is "just a novel," please take the time to read my article, "The 'It's Just Fiction!' Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into The Da Vinci Code" (March, 2005. IgnatiusInsight.com), which explain why that argument/cliche simply doesn't work.

Dan Brown's statement to the court tells us how little he knows

Sandra Miesel will soon be posting but is currently addressing some small technical glitches. But she sent me some comments about Dan Brown's witness statement to post:

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

I've now read Dan Brown's entire personal statement to the court and would like to offer a few reactions, not in any particular order but things that leap out of my notes.

Brown is trying to present himself as a serious Artist, a man of many talents just bursting with nuggets of arcane lore. If the judge is well-educated, this could backfire because Brown's performance merely reveals him as surprisingly ignorant. The way he tries to claim status from the accomplishments of family and friends does raise the suspicion that Brown is the slow child in a bright household.

The mentions of albums recorded during his brief and unsuccessful musical career carefully avoid mentioning that these were never released by a professional label. Brown speaks of Amherst but never what his major was; of his wife's art historical knowledge without identifying her education. And yet despite these supposedly fine backgrounds, Brown admits not having heard of this, that, and the other that should be available in a well-furnished liberal arts mind. (e.g. the existence of the witch-hunters' manual, the MALLEUS MALIFICARUM) And there's a certain dissonance in complaining of poverty in his early career while referring to vacations in Tahiti and Mexico during the same period.

With one exception, the books Brown does admit to using heavily are worthless esoteric histories, conspiracy books, or New Age titles. The one genuine volume of academic history, THE MURDERED MAGICIANS: THE TEMPLARS AND THEIR MYTH by Peter Partner, has gone missing. But inasmuch as it's a thorough debunking book, there's nothing in TDVC to suggest that Brown used it. (If you want to read about the Templars, Partner's book is the place to start.) That he tries to pass off ludicrous sources such as THE TEMPLAR REVELATION, Margaret Starbird, Jim Marrs, THE TOMB OF CHRIST, THE HIRAM KEY, or Barbara Walker as legitimate scholarly authorities is laughable. And that's putting it kindly.

This scheme will fail if the judge examines Charles Addison's HISTORY OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR in the particular edition Brown provides. (The crackpottery of the advertisements in the back would be enough to discredit the work eve before it's read.)  This decorously Victorian text is not a bad book, just an old one--published in 1842, two years before a printed edition of the Templar trial became available. But here it's accompanied by a bizarre and ridiculous introduction penned by David Hatcher Childress that's heavily dependent on HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL with the Knights presented as sworn enemies of the Church, privy to wisdom passed down from Atlantis. I wondered while writing my part of THE DA VINCI HOAX how Brown had forgotten that the Pope who suppressed the Templars was ruling from Avignon, not Rome. Well, here's the answer--Childress forgot it first. He also, as Brown does, makes the Pope, not the king of France give the order to arrest the Templars.

Brown implicitly admits what I had suspected: he read no Gnostic texts himself. He depended on quotes from Elaine Pagels' THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS. Neither had he read any actual Grail romances although several of these are readily available in good editions from Penguin Books. He lists some books about Leonardo da Vinci but no academic titles on Renaissance art, Gothic architecture, or the witch-hunt. He used the popular Fodor travel guides for European places instead of the far more informative (and authoritative) Michelin ones. This is a man who grabs whatever scraps of information his wife happens to provide, regardless of quality. She seems as poor a judge of sources as he is.

In both TDVC and the court statement, Brown thanks an academic librarian for help but identifies his institution as the non-existent "University of Ohio" instead of the regional branch of Ohio State University at Chillicothe where the man actually works.

Browns attempts to show off his rich fund of lore simply demonstrate his ignorance. For example, he claims great admiration for Bernini and familiarity with his paintings. But Bernini's great achievements are in sculpture and architecture. Only a few paintings are attributed to him and these uncertainly.

Brown follows Margaret Starbird in deriving the dynastic name Merovingian from the French "mer" for sea and "vigne" for vine. He seems blissfully unaware that these rulers of France in the Dark Ages didn't speak French but rather Frankish, a Germanic language akin to Dutch and weren't called "Merovingians" in their own era. The designation in fact comes from the name of their ancestor Merovech, Latinized as Meroveus.

And then there is Brown's disquisition on the etymology of the word "sincere" which he derives from a Renaissance Spanish expression meaning "without wax" for well-wrought marble statues that required no wax to repair mistakes. My college dictionary says that "sincere" comes from French and ultimately from the Latin "sincerus" meaning pure or honest. But hey, what does Webster know? Or the OXFORD LATIN DICTIONARY?

Dan Brown's statement to the court certainly tells us what little he knows.

Sandra Miesel, co-author of The Da Vinci Hoax

Five Easy Steps to a Best-seller. And lawsuits.

The European edition of TIME has a short piece titled "Five Easy Steps to a Best Seller" that takes up "tips" about writing a hit novel from Dan Brown's written testimony for the special "The Code Goes to Court" case in London. The tips, along with my thoughts:

1. Be disciplined. "My routine begins at around 4 a.m. every morning, when there are no distractions," says Brown, who also breaks every hour for "push-ups, sit-ups and some quick stretches. I find this helps keep the blood (and ideas) flowing."

In other words, be flexible — especially in how you use your sources. And in how much credit you give to them. And consider using some flexibility in how you describe your research. And don't be afraid to flex the truth, so that you can use the word "FACT" to apply to things that aren't actually factual (such as the Priory of Sion being a "real organization" that was founded "in 1099"). Push over some facts. Sit on some history. Stretch the truth.

2. Pick a "big idea" with a gray area. "The first step is to select a theme that [you] find particularly intriguing � The ideal topic has no clear right and wrong, no definite good and evil, and makes for great debate." In this case, the provocative "Jesus was married" conspiracy theory might have created too much debate.

No, no, no. Not a "big idea," but a big target, namely the Catholic Church. Don't let the complex reality of Christianity  (Eastern Orthodox? Who are they? Protestants? I think I've heard of them. Don't even ask about the Ancient Oriental Churches) get in the way of mentioning the dreaded Vatican every two or three sentences. And be sure to that there are definite goods (goddess worship and Harvard symbologists) and evils (the Vatican, the Catholic Church, Opus Dei). Be clear how right your protagonist is and how wrong the dreaded Vatican is. Hammer on it. Don't relent. Pound away. And, if you're lucky, many readers won't notice that you haven't a clue about any of these "big ideas" or big targets.

3. Location, location, location. Brown initially wanted to stage a Masonic romp in Nova Scotia, but it lacked sufficient drama. Instead, a 1998 personal tour of a concealed passageway beneath the Vatican — "used by early Popes to escape in event of enemy attack" — inspired Brown to opt for Old Europe.

Pick big locations and then describe them incorrectly. Pretend to know a thing or three about Paris and London, but take comfort in the knowledge that some readers don't know the Louvre from a chapel from a Swiss bank — nor do they care. They are into the "big idea" of bashing Christianity — and anxiously awaiting the moment when Langdon and Sophie gaze into each other eyes and whisper sweet nothings about nothing at all.

4. Keep chapters snappy. "I have a short attention span," Brown told a packed courtroom, "and I write short chapters for that reason." (Chapter 27 is only 1½ pages long.)

A nice technique for conveying a sense of movement and action when nothing is happening — which is exactly what happens (or doesn't happen) for much of the novel. Also, find relief in the knowledge that readers also have short attention spans. For instance, have your characters breathlessly explain how incredible it is that Jesus has descendants, but don't explain why this has any meaning since you've already explained that Jesus is a mortal prophet. Period. End of story (so why care about him any further?) I guess that's what happens when you don't read the entire Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

5. Marry well. Not only did Blythe Brown secure her husband's first book deal, she also did much of the work behind The Da Vinci Code. "She was reading entire books, highlighting exciting ideas and urging me to read the material myself," admits Brown, who sometimes found the extent of her research "frustrating."

Marry well. Have your wife do the real work. Then point the finger at her when asked tough questions. Sure, it undermines your credentials as a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, but it beats answering tough questions. Such as: "When did you read Holy Blood, Holy Grail?"

The CODE goes to court: A running commentary

Readers who haven't visited IgnatiusInsight.com or the Insight Scoop blog might be interested in these posts about the lawsuit and trail in London involving two authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Dan Brown, and Brown's publisher, Doubleday. More posts about the trial coming soon...

   
• He copied. He didn't copy. He borrowed. He didn't borrow.
• Did Dan Brown do any of his own research? Any at all?
• The hero of The Da Vinci Code was inspired by...
• "I'm not much of a detail person. I like 'the big idea'."
• Brown acknowledges "reworking" passages, using ideas from HBHG
• Reader: Be like Jesus and stop fighting the Code
• Dan Brown: Resurrection, Maybe. Incarnation, No.
• Report: Judge tells Brown he is a "liar"
• The woman behind The Da Vinci Code
• Leonard da Vinci: Conflicted Christian or Passionate Pagan?
• Brown is "astounded" by plagiarism suit
• Tolerant Fan of the Code: "Throw eggs at those boycotting the movie.
• "Author Dan Brown got a date wrong in 'The Da Vinci Code'."

Welcome to the Da Vinci Hoax blog!

Over the next several weeks and months, Sandra Miesel and Carl Olson will be posting regular comments about what they call the "Coded Craziness" — everything related to the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code, the soon-to-released movie based on that novel, and the incredible interest in the numerous ideas and claims found in both. For those who do not know, Sandra (bio) and Carl (bio) are co-authors of The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code (Ignatius Press, 2004), described by Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, as "the definitive debunking" of The Da Vinci Code's historical, theological, and artistic claims. This blog is a companion site to the DaVinciHoax.com site, which contains numerous articles, interviews, and free downloads, as well as extended excerpts from The Da Vinci Hoax.

More coming very soon!