My first opinion(ation) must come to the defense of a great book and, more importantly, a clever writer. Yes, Random House Publishing is being sued by two of its nonfiction writers in response to Dan Brown's more recent thriller, The DaVinci Code. The co-authors of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail (1982) claim that Brown's fictional book tarnishes the integrity of an otherwise serious subject. Their lawyer is on record suggesting Brown took short cuts instead of doing his own research. Then in December 2004, ANOTHER author tossed his hat into the ring of controversy with similar claims of plagiarism on his book The DaVinci Legacy (1983). What a mess.
For those of you who haven't read the book (or absorbed any of the media storm that ensued), in a nut shell, Jesus and Mary Magdelene had a baby whos sacred bloodline remains to this day, with lots of car chases and shooting and murder and excitement to get to this realization, the end. Sorry to ruin it for ya, but you've had ample time to pick it up and read. Obviously, this sort of understanding of Jesus Christ is counter to the holy figure so many faiths, not just Protestants, hold close to their hearts. The DaVinci Code has even been offically denounced by the Pope as a work of utter fiction (a fact Dan Brown whole heartedly agrees with.)
The three accusing authors claim that Dan Brown utilized much of the information in their books for the purpose of constructing his novel. And you know ... quite honestly he might have. Both Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The DaVinci Legacy are works of nonfiction which THEMSELVES are constructs of much earlier myth and legend. The two books are part of a larger pool of research that came about starting in the 1970s. They are in no way the CREATORS of this theory. The very act of compiling evidence to make historical claims, ESPECIALLY about Jesus Christ, involves reading other sources.
The notion of Jesus and Mary Magdalene as husband and wife is as old as the rest of Biblical lore. What makes it unique is that it's located in manuscripts that were ultimately seen as heretical and thus discredited. The Gnostic Gospel of Phillip, for example, extoles Mary Magdalene as a desciple who was closer to Jesus than any of the others. This gospel has a heavy theme of keeping the Sacrements, especially that of marriage. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas also suggests a deeper relationship with Mary. Further, it emphasizes a direct and unmediated experience of the divine for anyone, which includes women. I have a particular fondness for this Gospel since it was preserved by Egyptian scholars and not passed around by peasants and slaves.
As for Mary having a child through Jesus, that comes a bit later in history. Officially, Mary Magdalene is reviered by the Church as a saint who brought Christ's message to Gaul (now France). Her enormous popularity in that part of the world gave rise to at least one other official Cult of Mary Magdalene, as well as a host of legends that french bumpkins told by campfires. One such story depicts Mary Magdalene and child fleeing persecution after Christ's death to the shores of Gaul. Such tales usually devolved into who might possibly be a part of that ancient and holy lineage. Could it be YOU?
My point is, this stuff is part of legend. Nobody has the right to claim a copyright on a specific theory about Christ. Or on any other historical figure or act. Can you imagine scholars suing novelists with a passion for King Arthur? Or claiming plagiarism when the Virgin Queen's rumored suitor is turned into a trashy romance novel?
Clearly they are upset at Dan Brown's success and want a piece of the pie. If it were a lawsuit grounded on principle alone, they would have attacked Umberto Eco by now for his book Faucault's Pendulum (1989). As for the tarnishing of this serious subject, I think nothing could be further from the truth. This book made an otherwise radical idea about Jesus something you could discuss at the dinner table. It's popularity sparks an interest in materials they themselves have created. So people prefer a good STORY to nonfictional claims of truth ... get over it. And stop picking on Dan Brown! And read Angels and Demons, cuz it rocks!!
For those of you who haven't read the book (or absorbed any of the media storm that ensued), in a nut shell, Jesus and Mary Magdelene had a baby whos sacred bloodline remains to this day, with lots of car chases and shooting and murder and excitement to get to this realization, the end. Sorry to ruin it for ya, but you've had ample time to pick it up and read. Obviously, this sort of understanding of Jesus Christ is counter to the holy figure so many faiths, not just Protestants, hold close to their hearts. The DaVinci Code has even been offically denounced by the Pope as a work of utter fiction (a fact Dan Brown whole heartedly agrees with.)
The three accusing authors claim that Dan Brown utilized much of the information in their books for the purpose of constructing his novel. And you know ... quite honestly he might have. Both Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The DaVinci Legacy are works of nonfiction which THEMSELVES are constructs of much earlier myth and legend. The two books are part of a larger pool of research that came about starting in the 1970s. They are in no way the CREATORS of this theory. The very act of compiling evidence to make historical claims, ESPECIALLY about Jesus Christ, involves reading other sources.
The notion of Jesus and Mary Magdalene as husband and wife is as old as the rest of Biblical lore. What makes it unique is that it's located in manuscripts that were ultimately seen as heretical and thus discredited. The Gnostic Gospel of Phillip, for example, extoles Mary Magdalene as a desciple who was closer to Jesus than any of the others. This gospel has a heavy theme of keeping the Sacrements, especially that of marriage. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas also suggests a deeper relationship with Mary. Further, it emphasizes a direct and unmediated experience of the divine for anyone, which includes women. I have a particular fondness for this Gospel since it was preserved by Egyptian scholars and not passed around by peasants and slaves.
As for Mary having a child through Jesus, that comes a bit later in history. Officially, Mary Magdalene is reviered by the Church as a saint who brought Christ's message to Gaul (now France). Her enormous popularity in that part of the world gave rise to at least one other official Cult of Mary Magdalene, as well as a host of legends that french bumpkins told by campfires. One such story depicts Mary Magdalene and child fleeing persecution after Christ's death to the shores of Gaul. Such tales usually devolved into who might possibly be a part of that ancient and holy lineage. Could it be YOU?
My point is, this stuff is part of legend. Nobody has the right to claim a copyright on a specific theory about Christ. Or on any other historical figure or act. Can you imagine scholars suing novelists with a passion for King Arthur? Or claiming plagiarism when the Virgin Queen's rumored suitor is turned into a trashy romance novel?
Clearly they are upset at Dan Brown's success and want a piece of the pie. If it were a lawsuit grounded on principle alone, they would have attacked Umberto Eco by now for his book Faucault's Pendulum (1989). As for the tarnishing of this serious subject, I think nothing could be further from the truth. This book made an otherwise radical idea about Jesus something you could discuss at the dinner table. It's popularity sparks an interest in materials they themselves have created. So people prefer a good STORY to nonfictional claims of truth ... get over it. And stop picking on Dan Brown! And read Angels and Demons, cuz it rocks!!
7 comments:
Margaret and I were just talking about this the other day. What justification does a non-fiction author have in claiming a fiction writer stole his/her goodies? None whatsoever. No citations and no reference lists are used in fiction. I think you hit the nail on the head. Da Vinci Code has made massive amounts of mula and someone wants a part of it. :)
Who's Margaret? Did I nail her, or ..? I'm not sure what yer getting at.
I think we should find a drag queen with a love for all things Queen Elizabeth and make her write a trashy romance novel so she can be sued frivolously so we can countersue and win money cuz it was my idea. :)
Much much too late to make trashy romance novels out of Gloriana's life (that'd be Queen Elizabeth for those that don't know, hardy har har). I can't name any off the top of my head, but I know there have been novels about it.
Hell, the author who wrote the current Elizabeth story I'm reading wrote the novel under a pen name (Jean Plaidy) because the other name she writes under is primarily soppy romance novels!
LMFAO! What are the odds that an Elizabethan historian is also a romance novelist?? Wait ... now that I think of it, probably pretty good. "Oh boot black! Shine my boots!"
Glad to see you aboard above-mentioned drag queen. Let's get some chatter going on yer forum as well. :)
I really like when people are expressing their opinion and thought. So I like the way you are writing
I would appreciate more visual materials, to make your blog more attractive, but your writing style really compensates it. But there is always place for improvement
Thanks for the kind words. I'll consider the visual materials suggestion.
Post a Comment