Blythe Brown: The woman behind the Coded Craziness

That's not conjecture, but Dan Brown's admission in court, according to this Telegraph article:

He spoke of his wife Blythe, his researcher, highlighting "exciting ideas, urging me to read the material myself and find ways to work the ideas" into The Da Vinci Code, which has sold 29 million copies.

"In particular she became passionate about the Church's suppression of women, and she lobbied hard to make it a primary theme of the novel."

Mr Brown added: "Somewhere during the research, and well before I started writing anything, I learned that Mary Magdalene was not in fact a prostitute, as I had been taught in Sunday school. This stunned me."

He said: "I am not sure I had ever seen Blythe as passionate about anything as she became for the historical figure of Mary Magdalene."

Of course, we should all keep in mind that this is "just a novel." After all, it's clear that Mr. and Mrs. Brown researched/wrote the novel in a spirit of fun and frivolity, right? Meanwhile, Brown also argued that he couldn't have relied too heavily upon Holy Blood, Holy Grail because it was over his head:

It also explained that it is his wife, Blythe, who came up with many of the ideas of the Da Vinci Code and passed them on to him as he carried out his research.

But when it came to the key issue of the case, the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, he was keen to say that although it had been important for publicising ideas that appeared in his book, he himself hadn't got the ideas from it.

Indeed he said he hadn't even finished the book which he said was "hard to read".

But I thought his wife did most of the research? Was HBHG hard for her to read? One of them must have read it since ideas and phrases from that book appear numerous times in the novel.

Finally, in related news, I spoke yesterday for twenty minutes with an editor from the LA Times. And in an editorial in todays edition, the editors mention the work that Sandra Miesel and I have done showing Brown's reliance upon HBHG:

There certainly are similarities between passages of the two books. On his website, Carl Olson, coauthor of a book debunking the theories popularized by "The Da Vinci Code," cites more than a dozen instances in which Brown's words resemble or summarize parts of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."

It might seem unfair for Brown to make a fortune from ideas generated by others' research. (He does give a nod to "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" in his book but says he didn't read it until after he'd written most of "The Da Vinci Code.") But writers have practiced such borrowing for centuries. Held to this standard, William Shakespeare, who took the plots for most of his plays from popular histories or even other fiction writers, would be condemned as a plagiarist.

As I told the editor I spoke with yesterday, my interest is not in Dan Brown being found guilty of plagiarism (although I'm certainly very interested in the case), but in readers appreciating that his ideas are not new, not unique to him, and are drawn from extremely dubious and shaky sources, that is, works of pseudo-history no real historian takes seriously. But, of course, we must all keep in mind that it's "just fiction," as Dan Brown explained in court in London...

Comments

[clive]

Hello Carl, Sandra. More coded craziness from Court today. The Judge, Mr. Justice Smith is clearly getting very irritated by Mr. Brown. Called him a liar this afternoon.

Mr. Brown was asked to produce his own copy of HBHG to the court. It was noted that, of all the forty books that he used for his 'research', this book alone was the most used - more battered, highlightings all over the place, underlinings, etc.

The question was put to him; when did he say he used this book? Back came the reply: only near the end, when most of the novel was already written.

So why then all this marking and noting? Dan Brown claims that it was useful for after the book was published, when he had to give talks and interviews to sell the TDVC.

At this point the Judge said: Mr. Brown, I think that this book was your essential source.
Brown denied it, at which point Judge Smith said that Brown was lying to the court.

My feeling on this trial is that Brown/Random House are going to lose big time.

What is the media spin over there? Here it has to be said that almost all the news outlets (except BBC, who seem even-handed) are treating Brown like some kind of literature giant and conquering hero who only wrote the truth (right, fictional truth of course; its only a novel; right?)

[Ed Peters]

clive rocks.

carl: has DB written ANYthing before? is this sensation about a first time novelist?

[Carl Olson]

Clive indeed rocks! This is very helpful info, Clive; thank you! I'm going to post your comments and will respond to your question.

Ed: THE DA VINCI CODE is Brown's fourth novel. His first two novels were "techno thrillers." The third, ANGELS AND DEMONS, was set in Rome and was also quite anti-Catholic and featured the same protagonist, Robert Langdon. All three have now sold well, of course, because of the fourth novel. But they initially sold very modestly, around 10,000 copies each.

[Ed Peters]

figurz. thx.

[Mikki]

Ed, believe me when I tell you, ANGELS AND DEMONS makes TDVC look like a kids novel. It was one gorey murder after another. Ofcourse, they were all Cardinals electing a new Pope. I gave up before the second murder and I understand it got worse from there. It is obvious to me this guy has a serious ax to grind.Got any clues as to what that ax may be?

[Adrian]

It seems as though most of the commentators are biased. I wonder why?

[Mark A. York]

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."

Robert M. Pirsig

[MLC]

"When people are fanaticallly dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."

Perhaps that is why Dan Brown and fans of DVC are "fanatically" maintaining that the preposterous bilge contained in this apology for a novel is based on historical fact.