h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4754308.stm

But surely you can't 'copyright' 'historical research'?

If Baigent and Leigh want to claim that Brown ripped off their ideas, surely they're admitting that The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is a load of bovine effluent, and just as fictional as Brown's crappy book. Whereas previously, they had claimed that their book was proper historical research, full of actual genuine plausable theories. Is the smell of some dollar enough to make them stand up and say 'Yep, sorry, you're right, the stuff about Mary Magdelane is about as true as Von Daiken's shite'?

For the amount of money they stand to make if the court finds in their favour, I'd *eat* my own book made of effluent.

Some wag in the Telegraph this morning suggested that if they win, the publishers might some them, on the grounds that they falsely sold the book as factual.

Still, if it wipes some of that smile of BRown's face, I'm in favour.

Did you see The Flipside of Dominick Hide on BBC4 last night? I was well impressed when I saw it was being repeated

No I didn't. Oh well. Isn't it available on dvd now?

We were having a post 'jesus that was a knackering day of moving stuff' meal and beer last night.

Yeah, I think it has been recently released. Its repear was probably a shallow ploy to get people to buy it, since Another Flip for Dominick is not being shown, and they're both on the disc.

Ahh, moving. It gets better, honest.

Hmm, I know it does. Just at the moment we're still in that cardboard box hell. Wouldn't be so bad if the new place didn't need a ton of work, but there you are. That's life.

Well, in his acknowledgements Dan Brown thanked his wife - an art historian - for all her help. My take was that anything sounding even remotely plausible in this book probably came from her.

He's been roundly criticised about the supposed research done in his other books.

As for him 'stealing' the whole 'jigsaw' from these other historians . . . wouldn't surprise me in the least. The man can barely write so I'd be surprised at him coming up with any original ideas of his own.

Oh, have I mentioned that I found The Da Vinci Code one of the worst-written pieces of pap I've ever had the misfortune to read? Derivative, appalling dialogue, totally stereotypical two-dimensional characters, etc. Seemingly written with a future 'movie deal' in mind, catering to the lowest common denominator.

And although I have no patience for Opus Dei I found myself feeling sorry for them - to be so stupidly represented in a 'best seller'.


az

I've successsfully avoided reading the 'Code'. There are interesting books on the subject (ie religious conspiracies) about, butthey are few and far between.

By far and away the most interesting I have read is 'Flicker' by Theodore Roszak, which is a jolly little romp through the Templar history of cinema.

Best one I ever read was Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.


az

Heh. That'll be the one that sat on my bookshelf unread for five years until the last time I had a book clear out and got rid of it. Don't think i even have a copy of The Name of the Rose these days.

I've read too many of Dan Brown's books. The otehr half actually likes him, and his kids keep buying his books for Christmas/birthday presents. I have this horrible weakness that prevents me from allowing there to be a book in the house that I haven't read, even if I know it'll be shite. The Code- not as bad as Angels and Demons, which has the worst ending I've ever read in a professionally published novel.

Well, silly old you. Foucault's Pendulum is wonderful! Okay, it drags a bit here and there, but with a bit of perserverence it ends up being a very satisfying and intelligent read. I also quite enjoyed The Name of the Rose - the film was also quite good as I recall.

az

Oops, simulpost, Kerr.

I read The Da Vinci Code because a 15-year-old student of mine was reading it at the time and told me it was great. So I read it so we would have some more stuff to talk about. Then I ended up ranting about how the book was just sooooooooo badly written and all that - poor Agustín. Happily he is used to me ranting about stuff. So these days we mostly talk about how Bétis is doing in the UEFA cup finals.


az

It's a very devisive book- people either love it or hate it. At the risk of sounding snobbish, I'm inclined to say that you're more likely to enjoy it if you haven't previously read around the subject, and your bullshit radar is less likely to be pinged.

Disagree, Kerr. It's just really badly written (imho). In so many ways.

az

Well, I'll grant you my statistical sample for that conclusion was on the tiny side . And I agree that the man Brown is not a very good writer.

Yeah, but don't you think it's really cool that Jesus might have married Mary Magdalene and that his descendants might be walking around? I read the book from cover to cover and couldn't put it down. I can't wait for the movie. I wish I could have been a Knight Templar - all that jousting a wenching and stuff.

I'll get me coat.

There was something about this on the Culture Show a couple of weeks ago. The similarities between the sources seemed to be very strong in places. I'm not at all interested in the subject matter, so I'm afraid I didn't pay that much attention to the detail other than to note that Dan Brown could be heading into some hot water.

>So these days we mostly talk about how Bétis is doing in the UEFA cup finals.<

Regrettably not such a long conversation these days either . Though i see they are pulling out of the relegation zone.

Look out! BH has been replaced by a pod person! What have you done with the real Gosho, you fiend?

GD- yes, having read both, they are very similar on the ideas front. But can you 'copyright' theories?