Running With Quills: Holy... Davinci ... Is Stella confused?

Welcome to Running With Quills, your online newsletter designed to keep you up to date with what your favorite authors (that would be us) are doing throughout the year. Here you will find the release dates of our new books and get information about our backlists. We'll preview our cover art here long before the books hit the stores and we'll keep you informed about works-in-progress and special projects. You'll also receive advance notice of signings and appearances. From time to time we'll give you a peek at our worlds, tell you what we're reading, and introduce you to some new authors.

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Holy... Davinci ... Is Stella confused?

A love, hate relationship with revision isn't unusual. Right now I'm having a little hate and "poor me" party. This means I'm looking for ways to turn 3:15 in the morning into something more exciting.

Letting my mind wander was a big mistake. It wandered straight into Davinci Code v. Holy Blood, Holy Grail territory.

Now here's the thing, the circular question: If the whole Grail question is fictional in one book, what separates it from fiction in the other?

Stella, going back to her revisions at once.

36 Comments:

Anonymous said...: Holy Blood, Holy Grail was marketed as a nonfiction book, and the information in the book is presented as fact. I think that changes how a book and its research can be used.

http://www.slate.com/id/2137797/; 3:53 AM
AgTigress said...: Stella, you make a point that has been puzzling me, too. As the poster above mentions, Holy Blood, Holy Grail was presented as historical research, which is exactly what should make it impossible to plagiarise. If you use, in a novel, the story that King Edward VIII of England abdicated in 1936 in order to marry his lover, who was regarded as an unacceptable person to be the royal consort, nobody can accuse you of stealing anyone else's creation or invention, because that is a documented historical fact. This places it in the public domain. There can be no copyright, and no plagiarism.
If the authors of HBHG claim that their book revealed a verifiable historical fact (which they do), then I don't see very easily how they can sue for breach of copyright: anyone can use those 'facts', with appropriate acknowledgement. The fact that they are suing appears to me to be tantamount to admitting that their 1982 book is the veriest fiction, which, of course, is the case. Not even original fiction, at that. True, it probably required a lot of research to put it together, but I don't need to tell anyone here that fiction often does require a lot of research.
You can, of course, plagiarise a work of non-fiction by using its exact words or the precise detail of its argument without acknowledgement (whether you are yourself writing fiction or non-fiction), because you are then breaching the copyright inherent in the author's own intellectual property. I presume that this must be the basis of the action - what the authors' lawyer has referred to as the 'architecture' of their book.
Copyright law is very difficult and complex, and I suspect that the plaintiffs will be sorry that they embarked on the action.; 9:39 AM
DFender said...: Holy Mary Magdalene! I'm actually reading the Illustrated Version of the DaVinci Code (Dan Brown) right now. I started it yesterday and I'm 3/4 through. I read Angels & Demons the two days before. *scratches head* I dunno why I haven't read them before now. Odd. Anyway, I dunno what's fiction and what isn't in regard to the Holy Grail. I was planning on doing some of my own research as soon as I finished this book. Weird, weirder and weirdest.

Deb; 1:33 PM
AgTigress said...: Just to save you some trouble, Deb, the whole Grail myth is Medieval, and can be totally discounted in relation to the first century AD. When Tal logs on here, she will give you more information and references, but trust me, the whole thing - both in Brown and in the Blood/Grail book, is fiction.
I read the first page of the Dan Brown book. Regardless of fact/fiction/plagiarism issues, it is very, very badly written, in my view.
:-); 2:05 PM
talpianna said...: I believe the basis of the claim is that passages from HBHG have been lifted word for word in DVC. I have been following the London Times's coverage.

Brown claims that he had written most of his book before reading HBHG, but that claim won't stand up.

HBHG, which I reviewed when it first came out, purports to be a work of nonfiction, and includes voluminous research and innumerable sources--and absolutely no critical judgment whatsoever. It gives equal weight to the writings of distinguished scholars, the smeary mimeographed diatribes of crackpots, and such hoary hoaxes as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, long known to be an anti-Semitic forgery.

I'll send a link to this blog to a friend of mine who is the co-author of The Da Vinci Hoax; perhaps she'll have something to add.

As for the Grail legend, the form in which we have it--the cup used at the Last Supper, and later to catch the blood shed from Jesus' side at the Crucifixion, brought by Joseph of Arimathea to Glastonbury, and capable of working miracles--was established in the Middle Ages, though it incorporates elements of early Celtic myth. Much of the form of the legend was set in the (French) Vulgate prose romances, many of which were inspired by the Cistercians. The emphasis on the Grail was partly to support their position on transubstantiation, which I won't go into, especially since I'm not even sure I spelled it right. In some versions of the legend, the Grail isn't even a cup; it's a platter or a mysterious stone.

Our received version of the legend is based on Malory, whose version is based on a (somewhat mistranslated) version of the Vulgate Queste del Saint Graal.

The main thrust of the HBHG/DVC argument is that Sangreal should be read sang real (royal blood) rather than San Greal (Holy Grail); trouble is, it's not spelled that way in the Grail romances!; 4:03 PM
AgTigress said...: I am much more interested in the copyright issues than I am in the substance of the books in question, but there is one thing that perhaps someone here might be able to explain to me: why would it matter, one way or another, if there were genetic descendants of Jesus Christ in existence? What practical differences, if any, would it make to the religious beliefs of Christians?
I could say a lot more about the nature of evidence for events in the 1st century AD, and the perils of muddling contemporary or near-contemporary written documentation, which in that period does not follow the rules we expect of 'history' (namely, that what is reported actually happened, as far as the author knows), and which has, in any case, been subject to numerous subsequent redactions, much later myth (and earlier myth), and archaeology, but I shall refrain.
;-); 4:36 PM
talpianna said...: Well, one of the claims of the book is that Jesus didn't die on the Cross--THAT would make a difference!!! According to HBHG, he was rescued and survived to die in the siege of Masada.; 5:17 PM
Sandra Miesel said...: Hi! I'm the co-author of THE DA VINCI HOAX, the only debunking book that covers the historical aspects of the controversy. Why you could use our 555 learned footnotes to jumpstart your own research!

Brown borrows a great deal from HBHG, including paragraphs with common phrasing. Whether this will doom Dan Brown under English law, I know not. But it's amusing that when HBHG happens to throw up a correct piece of data, Brown inverts it into a falsehood. The man doesn't know the back end of a church from the front! Quite apart from the controversial aspects, very nearly everything in Brown is wrong, wrong, wrong: sizes, locations, laws,details of everyday life, descriptions of art and architecture--all the easily verifiable details that most writers work hard to get right.

Talpiana's description of HBHG is dead on. Brown's other principal source is THE TEMPLAR REVELATION by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, an equally bad book whence came all his false information about Leonardo.

The Holy Grail is a medieval literary invention and primarily Christian in character. A lot of the originals (Malory, QUEST OF THE HOLY GRAIL, PARZIVAL) are available in good translation from Penguin. Two lit crit books to start with are Roger Sherman Loomis, THE GRAIL and Richard Barber, THE HOLY GRAIL.

My co-author Carl Olson has been following the trial at our publisher's website http://insightscoop.typepad.com Our book website is www.davincihoax.com; 5:56 PM
Ranurgis said...: I'd like to answer Stella's question, as I see it, first. What separates fact from fiction? I think it lies in the intent of the author(s).

For me, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" purports to be a work of history, fact, something true.

Fiction uses or can use facts around which to build to build a story.

That said, I think Brown makes the mistake of declaring firmly that the facts in his fiction are true. Is this then a work of fact or fiction?

I'm glad we have Ms. Miesel here to give us more of the background. After reading TDVC, which I believed did not contain many facts other than what is patently true about the Louvre Museum, I did quite a bit of reading in the books that commented on Brown's book. There were one or two that supported his views but I found many more like Ms. Miesel and Mr. Olson's that were totally against these "known" facts. The scholars ranged from learned theologists of early Christianity to historians of Medieval times. Canadian History Television also aired a program that interviewed Brown as well as many other "suspects" in the search for truth and found these "facts" wanting.

Why would something like these facts be hidden for 2000 years? If there had been a grain of truth in them, it would have gained the light of day long before this. In fact, I don't know if there *ever* was a Holy Grail. The Bible speaks of a cup at the Last Supper. Would it have been preserved for all time and was it made of gold with jewels? Certainly not the latter. Christ's life was too unpretentious and a cup that elaborate far too hard to come by in those early days of the 1st Century. (BTW, all the relics I alone have seen in churches of Christ's cross would be enough to make several huge trees if not a whole forest if they were all put together.)

As for Brown, where did he get his so-called facts? If he believed them to be facts and got them in any way from the HB,HG that made them fair game for anybody to use since the latter book is presented as a valid theory, if not outright fact.

What really makes me wonder is why these guys did not come forward long ago if they truly thought that they had been plagiarized. I didn't know about the HB,HG's facts being quoted verbatim. I have the book somewhere in the basement, but haven't been able to read it yet. These authors, separately and with other authors, have made mountains out of molehills before. Why Brown latched onto them as writing facts remains a mystery to me. I have my theories but they remain theories and I wouldn't care to put them on paper.; 8:49 PM
talpianna said...: The two books have the same publisher, Random House. Apparently, according to a RH staffer's testimony at the trial, the authors of HBHG thought of suing when Brown's book hit big, but the publishers told then they didn't have a case and they dropped it.

I guess they decided to give it a shot because of the big bucks the film is expected to draw.; 9:03 PM
talpianna said...: I'd like to pose a question in response to the Tigress's first comment, where she referred to the abdication of Edward VIII as a historical fact.

It is also historical fact that the Duke of Windsor, as he became, was very sympathetic to the Nazis, and that when he and the Duchess were in Spain and Portugal after his flight from the fall of France (deserting his military post in time of war, incidentally), German agents approached him with von Ribbentrop's proposal to restore him to the throne after the Germans conquered Britain, with British Fascist leader Oswald Moseley as Prime Minister.

But did he accept? I believe that at least one biographer (at one point I read all the biographies of the Windsors I could get my hands on, so I can't be more specific) suggested they did. Jack Higgins wrote (under another name) a novel, TO CATCH A KING, later filmed, that suggested the Nazis tried to kidnap them.

OK, let's take this one step farther. We know about the Nazis' approach to them, because of captured documents. Other documents, found by Americans at a German castle belonging to a relative of the Windsors, a high Nazi official, which may have confirmed the Windsors' agreement, were handed over to a representative of the Royal Family and--surprise!--have vanished. So, suppose I wrote a novel involving their willingness to become the British Quislings--since there is no data outside the biography, would whoever wrote it be able to sue me?

(I did have an idea for a novel set in Occupied Britain during the reign of the restored Edward VIII, with my heroine an American girl from the West, brought up with Apaches as her best friends, married to a Scottish duke and doing the Zorro thing, including rescuing Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

But I don't want to do that much research in modern history.)

Any typos due to the presence of a fluffy cat between me and the monitor.; 12:15 AM
AgTigress said...: "Well, one of the claims of the book is that Jesus didn't die on the Cross--THAT would make a difference!!! "
Not necessarily. It would make a difference to many details of liturgy, of course, but if a person believes in a god, and believes that Jesus Christ was the son of that god, the mode of his dying does not affect his divinity, as far as I can see, any more than the presence or absence of biological offspring would.
A case for the resurrection could still be argued even if he died in the siege of Masada - and even if not, does it make any difference to this individual being regarded as a deity? I don't see that it does, really. If one believes that the person was a god, and he tells one that humans will enter into another 'life' after death (a widespread theme that is repeated in many other religions, perhaps most) does he have to demonstrate it in order for it to be believed? Surely not.; 4:25 AM
AgTigress said...: Tal, I hesitated whether to use the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 or the Abdication Crisis as a passing example of an historical fact. I now wish I had used the former - I had forgotten your interest in the latter. Edward VIII is a total red herring in this argument.
;-); 4:27 AM
AgTigress said...: To Sandra Miesel: it is very helpful to have your comments here. Although I am totally detached from any of the religious considerations in this argument, I am incensed by sloppy scholarship in any context, and the original HBHG publication is such an obvious example of incompetent scholarship that it should never have been published. I am doubly incensed by the fact that a very badly written novel (quite aside from its content) should be printed and read in vast quantities, thus insulting the many excellent writers - like the ladies who host this website - who take the trouble to carry out accurate, scholarly research, and to incorporate it elegantly into vivid novels that are well written.
I found several things to infuriate me on the very first page of Brown's book. It is an outrage that someone of his mediocrity should enjoy the public acclaim that has come his way.; 4:40 AM
DFender said...: Whatta debate! Nice to read. I may be entirely too shallow to comment in this blog further, however, I enjoyed Angels & Demons and I'm enjoying the novel The DaVinci Code. I'm reading it as a work of FICTION. Entertainment. A make believe story. If Brown plagerized that would be a bad thing but wouldn't take from my enjoyment of the book as I didn't know of that prior to purchasing it.

I'm catholic. I believe in God and Jesus Christ, the Holy Mother and Mary Magdeline. Whether or not Jesus had sex and produced offspring with Mary Magedeline wouldn't matter to me. I hope he did have sex and fathered children. I'd feel that he missed less in his short life if that were true. He'd remain Jesus. He'd remain a prophet. He'd still be blessed. *shrugs*

Anyway, when I stated that I was going to research further what I meant was that I was going to research the actual "history" of the grail due to the fact that the book that I'm reading (TDC) is fiction. It just roused my curiosity to the point that I'd like to research what information is out there in the non-fiction realm. I apologize for not making myself clearer.

Geez, Stella. See what you've started during your mid-night wanderings? lmao; 10:26 AM
DFender said...: By the way, in case I hadn't made myself clear in the case of the book The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown I thought I'd try to do so again.

I understand that authors may view other authors in a different light as you all probably have vast insight into the world of writing.

But...as I'm only a lowly reader and not familiar with things behind the scenes in the literary world...

My opinion:
I like the books he's written. I find them entertaining. That's why I read fiction. For the entertainment value. Not for the historical value. Not for the facts incorporated or interspersed into the story. I read for fun. If the book holds my interest, if the characters are fun and believable, if the author can make me care about the story and it's participants... I'm entertained and happy.

Jiminy, I really must be ShallowDeb.; 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: I have to agree with Dfender. I read DVC and found it to be one of the most and best entertaining books in years. Way I understand it, Dan Brown said that the book was FICTION, and am sure most of his readers thought the same. Most people do read books for fun IMHO.; 11:38 AM
Suzanne Simmons said...: Okay, I'm going to chime in here with my two cents' worth. I've read both the DVC and the illustrated DVC, which means I've read the book twice. :-) Enjoyed it as a work of popular fiction, read for fun and entertainment.

The DVC isn't Tolkien's LOTR, my all-time favorite piece of fiction -- but as a popular fiction writer, I sure wanted to read this popular fiction best-seller. As an exciting and fast-paced story, it worked for me.; 1:02 PM
talpianna said...: Suzanne, I think that the more we know about something, the more offended we are when people get it wrong. I have a friend in the Lunatic Cafe who lives in Philadelphia and is always incensed when writers set stories there and get the geography wrong.

I haven't read the book (I was put off it by the Tigress's complete demolition of it based on the first two words!) other than the excerpts quoted in Sandra's book and some of the articles about the trial; but it seems to me very clunkily written--not good prose at all.

I think that how careful a writer should be with facts depends on the role they play in the book. If you have two people arranging to meet under the big clock in Grand Central Station, and then leaving and not going there again, you don't need to know the details of its layout and decor, what railroads stop there, etc. But if you are making Grand Central the site of your book's climactic chase scene, you'd better get it right!; 4:36 PM
Stella said...: Great discussion. Passionate discussion, in fact! I appreciate all the carefully presented opinions, facts, reactions. But I still haven't quite read what I'm looking for. Books aside, does it make any sense that information comes into the marketplace as fiction in one instance and non-fiction in another? How does the publishing industry deal with the obvious: one or the other is wrong? One or the other is a hoax foisted on readers.

I have read The Davinci Code and found it entertaining enough. Take a look at Digital Fortress by Dan Brown and see how you react to that.

Dan Brown has prospered enormously from TDVC and that's fine with me. The phenomenon is all that interests me.; 11:04 PM
talpianna said...: Stella, the publishing industry doesn't give a damn, as long as it will sell--otherwise, they would never have published Velikovsky.; 11:33 PM
DFender said...: Talpianna... why don't you read The DaVinci Code and come up with your opinion afterward? I'm really curious about what you'd think if you read the book.

Stella, I don't know what the criteria are that publishers use to determine whether a work is fiction or non-fiction. Do they take the word of the author? Are there certain facts that must be presented with backing documentation? Is there a check list? *shrugs*

I dunno! lol
Deb; 3:32 AM
Cbell said...: I'd love to help out on the controversy of these two books... but my only exposure to the Holy Grail came from Monty Python... and I have a feeling it may not be as accurate as some.

But it was a great piece of fiction!; 6:00 AM
AgTigress said...: You make a very fair point, Deb; suggesting that we (for example, Tal and myself) should actually read the whole book before expressing an opinion on it. For myself, however, I know from experience that if I loathe the style when I do the standard scan of a couple of pages at the beginning, in the middle, and sometimes the end, I am unlikely to change my opinion after more extensive reading. Tal has often persuaded me to read through whole long books that I disliked at the start, and I'm afraid that, in every case, I still disliked them (usually even more) at the end. About 35 years ago I read through The Lord of the Rings to half-way through the last book before I stopped: it bored me silly on page one, and I hated it even more by the time I had read hundreds and hundreds of pages of it... ;-)
The first two words, literally, of The Da Vinci Code did, as Tal says, annoy me intensely, because they reveal a monumental lack of knowledge about the Museum/Gallery world. My husband had read the book, and he was very unimpressed by both plot and style - he also said to me, knowing my taste, 'you won't like it!'
There are other details even on the first page: NO honourable museum curator would intentionally damage an object in his care even to save his own life; I do not know the Louvre's security system, but I cannot believe that it is so primitive that one actually has to wrench a painting off the wall to trigger an alarm; why was a man in his 70s still employed in the Museum anyway - I am sure that the French Civil Service has a retirement age of 65; why is a sinister figure first described as a 'silhouette' and we are then told the colour of his skin and eyes: the whole point about silhouettes is that one can only make out the outline of the figure. That last is due to very poor handling of point of view - the reader thinks he is seeing the ?villain through the victim's eyes, but then has to adjust without warning to the 3rd-person omniscient authorial position.
I won't bore you by explaining why the first two words, 'renowned curator' are such a giveaway of ignorance! ;-)
None of this, as you can see, has to do with plot, only with writing style and basic knowledge.
But if you enjoyed it, great. Enjoyment is what fiction is for, after all, and we all have different tastes.
:-); 6:04 AM
DFender said...: Thanks for your honest response, AGT. I appreciate understanding other points of view! By the bye, I didn't like any of the LOTR books either. Typically a very unpopular opinion...lol
Deb; 7:01 AM
AgTigress said...: "By the bye, I didn't like any of the LOTR books either. Typically a very unpopular opinion...lol"

I know! I wondered whether it was safe even to mention it!
:-D; 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Don't feel bad, I couldn't get past the first few pages of LOTR's books. My DH and oldest have read the books and loved them. I also couldn't get past the first two chapters of Gone With The Wind. If I can't stand the main character, then I can't stand the book. I haven't even tried reading The Da Vinci Code - just not my cup of tea!

Evie; 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Stella,

I have a thought about your question. Maybe a case can be made of pure fiction - where the author bases a story on a single fact vs. a researched theory where the author uses "facts" to support a pet theory. It probably isn't the first time this has happened, just look at all the books and "facts" about the Templars. They form the core of some very interesting conspiracy theories and just as many works of fiction. There are also a certain number of verifiable facts that can be objectively stated or used to support which ever story you most subscribe to. (Sorry about the grammar, I tend to write as I speak.) Does this make any sense to you?
Marva; 10:20 AM
talpianna said...: I'm writing a book about someone who goes around assassinating people who don't like Tolkien. I'll let you know whether it will be fact or fiction when I've finished the, er, research...

Deb and Evie, where is it you live exactly? I need an, er, consultation. I already know the Tigress's home address.; 3:13 PM
AgTigress said...: Hey!; 3:18 PM
DFender said...: ROFL @ "consultation"... my... er... right eyeball!

Yo Tal, there's this new fangled invention... you may not be familiar with it... it's called the INTERNET... consulting via online might just be the ticket... lol lol

Deb; 4:58 PM
talpianna said...: I might consult with the Tigress--after all, she's a renowned curator (retired)!; 5:47 PM
Cynthia E. Bagley said...: The implications are tremendous. Can you sue someone who writes fiction? Especially if it builds on life? Don't we all do that?

I was talking to a friend of mine who has a history degree. She thinks that all fiction is plagarism.

Are we looking at a time when it will be illegal to write fiction? Darn, I hope not.; 8:14 AM
Cynthia E. Bagley said...: Oh and BTW.. I felt that the Da Vinci Code was not well-written. When I want to read some medival literature mixed up with contemporary writing, I read Umberto Eco.; 8:27 AM
BUGG said...: Stella,
I have often wondered myself how the publishers decide if a book is really non-fiction.
My guess is they just take the authors word for it.
From what I have read and seen of the lawsuit I have formed my own opinion and I think it all has to do with $. I find it funny that these two authors, whos books became more known because of Brown's book would sue.
I didn't enjoy the book too much, it just isn't my cup of tea. But it was well written.; 1:33 PM
Stella said...: Hi Bugg:

Publishing houses have entire departments that check facts. Unfortunately there is nothing that guarantees the house will not use the same sources as the author. In the case of fiction, the publishers should be able to assume the author's material is original but historical data, scientific material and other material presented as fact that is supposed to consider truth must be checked. And most authors are careful.

We must always remember that an idea cannot be copyrighted. Where people get into trouble is when they copy text word-for-word. That's against the law.

But again, my question wasn't on legalities but on logic:)

Stella; 4:45 PM

Previous Posts

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Holy... Davinci ... Is Stella confused?

36 Comments: