Pen a bestseller and wait for the sneers

by **nomo** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:21 pm

<a href="http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1734380,00.html">books.guardian.co.uk/comm...80,00.html</a> Pen a bestseller and wait for the sneers The Da Vinci Code enjoyed unparallelled success but, suddenly, no one admits to having enjoyed it Viv Groskop Sunday March 19, 2006 The Observer Can one detect a rather deafening note of triumphalism in some of the chatter about The Da Vinci Code plagiarism case? The champions of highbrow are having a field day. The latest details have been snickered over and repeated endlessly. Heard for the first time in court, the voice of the reclusive author Dan Brown is, it transpires, not at all 'like chocolate' (as Brown infamously described that of his Da Vinci Code hero Robert Langdon). And guess what? Brown can't even remember which source books he read when. Finally, it emerged last week that his art historian wife does a lot of his research anyway. Another day, another humiliation. Not all of this seems to have much bearing on whether the ideas in the book were plagiarised or not - a decision which could see the novel withdrawn from sale and the forthcoming Hollywood film denied release. But who cares when the intellectual police have finally got their chance to dance on the grave of the fastest selling book in history? 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. Suddenly, it is difficult to find anyone at all who will admit to having enjoyed The Da Vinci Code. This is rather peculiar with 40 million copies purchased worldwide, presumably not all of them by Dan Brown's mum. And especially when, initially at least, it was a book that achieved its success not by virtue of a sinister marketing campaign (or by people being strapped to a chair and forced to read it), but through personal recommendations and word-of-mouth. The sniffy backlash against money-making publishing makes ordinary readers go through a cruel sort of self-revisionism and doubt their own taste. ('Oh, well, if you say it's not great literature, who am I to judge?') But since when did something like The Da Vinci Code ever pretend to be great literature? Just as there is room on our dining tables for fish fingers as well as foie gras, there is room on our bookshelves for whatever authors want to write and readers want to read. You can tell from the first page of a Dan Brown's book whether you are going to hate it. If you are going to complain that it is facile, gushy and silly (and then get all over-excited and self-righteous when the author is accused of plagiarism), just don't read it. Get back to your James Joyce compendium instead. There will always be hugely popular works of fiction which end up lambasted by the critics for not being literary enough. But why is mass success so threatening and offensive? Surely it's for the good of the publishing industry in general? After all, reading should not be an elitist pursuit. 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.

by **albion** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:58 pm

Somewhat lost amid the Dan Brown controversy, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince have a new book out on the history of the "sacred bloodlines" myth. I haven't read it, but it looks like if it's any good, it might be an interesting history of the nexus between French occultism and extreme right-wing politics in the early/mid-20th century. The new book is The Sion Revelation. Here's the Amazon Page: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743263030/103-7243416-5768660?v=glance&n=283155">www.amazon.com/gp/product...e&n=283155</a> Picknett and Prince are the authors of The Templar Revelation, which was also a source for The Da Vinci Code (although they are not suing Dan Brown). They are also the authors of The Stargate Conspiracy, which was about alternative Egyptology & The Nine.

by **Quentin Quire** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:06 pm

Albion - I've posted about this in 'The Crown' thread below. The book is well researched and written and definitely worth a read.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:14 pm

Where have I seen those initials before ? Universal Mathematics springs to mind. But of course, thats all gobbledygook <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **albion** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:31 am

Thanks QQ, I had missed that. I thought The Stargate Conspiracy was pretty speculative, but not over-the-top sensationalistic. I'll probably pick up a copy of SR eventually. Browsing at the store, I noticed that Picknett and Prince wrote in the preface that elements of their previous research had converged somewhat in their latest effort. That piqued my interest, and I'm also curious (and concerned) about "synarchy" and pan-Europeanism. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=albion@rigorousintuition>albion</A> at: 3/22/06 12:32 am

by **Sepka** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:34 am

The whole case has left me puzzled. The "Holy Blood/Holy Grail" authors are apparently accusing Brown (among other things) of relying upon their accounts of events, and not doing his own historical research. HBHG is being presented as a work of history. Isn't the purpose of a history book to summarize knowledge so that interested people don't have to dig through primary sources? Is there some ethical standard here that I'm unaware of, or does it seem to other people too that the entire case is because they're jealous that he made more money than they did? -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **professorpan** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:33 pm

I think the Observer article is as guilty of sneering as Dan Brown's critics. I didn't like the book very much -- I found it to be poorly written. Does that make me a condescending, elitist literary snob? It did touch a nerve, though. The idea of Jesus as a human being, a man who loved a woman, is a powerful meme, and it highlights the problems with monotheism's displacement of the feminine.

by **CyberChrist** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The idea of Jesus as a human being, a man who loved a woman, is a powerful meme, and it highlights the problems with monotheism's displacement of the feminine. <hr></blockquote> He WAS human, after all. The original Gospel of Mark inferred that the wedding at Canaan where Jesus turned water into wine was HIS wedding to Mary Magdalene. Of course, Constantine couldn't have a human as a god for his new religion, so during the Council of Nicea in 323 AD, the references were removed. If you read through the passage, you'll note that the groom is never mentioned. Back then it was customary for Jews to marry at that age. In fact, it was so odd not to be married that it is something that would have been explicitly mentioned by the apostles. -- CyberChrist http://www.hackerjournal.org My brain is hung like a horse.

by **professorpan** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:15 pm

Long before Dan Brown's book hit the stratosphere, I read Margaret Starbird's "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar." It's an excellent book, and presents a strong case for Jesus having married Mary Magdalene. I met Starbird, and she has an interesting history as a nun who left the church to follow a more liberal, feminine-oriented Catholicism. Another quirky sidenote: when I was in college, I met the author of "The Sexuality of Jesus," William Phipps. He was a professor at the small liberal arts school I attended. His book was published in 1973, and he caught holy (sorry) hell for his assertions.

Pen a bestseller and wait for the sneers

Pen a bestseller and wait for the sneers

Re: Pen a bestseller and wait for the sneers

Sion Revelation

The SG conspiracy ?

Re: Sion Revelation

Re: Sion Revelation

Da Vinci Code

Re: Da Vinci Code

Re: Da Vinci Code

Who is online