Monday, February 27, 2006

Because they are the only ones who can come up with a theory

Holy Blood, Goly Grail authors sue Dan Brown.

Sure the theory is essentially the same, but one book is fiction the other is not. Other then the basis of the ideas behind the two books they have little in common. Seems like more of a "Dan Brown has made a lot of money, let's try and get some" to me.

Edit: One book claims to be nonfiction, while the other is fiction based on an actual theory espoused by the first. There's significant holes in the theory, and parts of Holy Blood are lacking in evidence, or have notable evidence against, but the authors argue that it is a valid theory.

Why I don't think that they have a case is the simple fact that Dan Brown's book is in the end entertainment, and while he may have been influenced by Holy Blood, it's not plagerism to receive influence from another sourse, whom he even references in the narrative.