…nothing less than an act of literary identity theft.
Some of you may recall my recent article, here, on the plagiarism trial in London at which Brown defended himself against claims by the authors of The Holy Blood, Holy Grail (HBHG) that he stole the central theme of their book to write The Da Vinci Code. In that article, I suggested that if James Frey should have been fried for telling lies in his national bestseller, A Million Little Pieces, then Dan Brown should have been skewered for not only telling lies but also plagiarizing, religiously, in his international bestseller.
Nevertheless, I predicted that, because of the well-established British literary tradition of lauding skillful plagiarists (including William Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde), Brown would get away with what was arguably a red-handed case of felony plagiarism. And so it followed that that copyright battle to save his reputation and millions of dollars in illicit gains was won.
But, alas, it seems Dan Brown’s war has only just begun. Because he’s in for the mother of all plagiarism battles if these new allegations – detailed by Seth Mnookin in the July issue of Vanity Fair (on stands this week) – prove half as clear and convincing as those that compelled Brown to defend himself in re: Holy Blood, Holy Grail vs. Da Vinci Code.
Moreover, it does not bode well that staff writers at Editor & Publisher – who got the scoop on Mnookin’s story – report that “Brown did not respond to requests for comment from Vanity Fair.” After all, one would have expected his high-priced PR team to at least issue a perfunctory denial of the claims laid out in Mnookin’s article.
Although, perhaps Brown’s legal team decided that such a denial would only dig his legal hole deeper. Especially since, amongst other citations, Mnookin cites the findings of John Olsson, the director of Britain’s Forensic Linguistics Institute, who concluded that Brown’s “borrowing” from the book Daughter of God by Lewis Perdue is:
…the most blatant example of in-your-face plagiarism I’ve ever seen. It just goes on and on. There are literally hundreds of parallels.
…Brown copied for The DaVinci Code an exact passage from the paper “Leonardo’s Lost Robot,” written by robotics expert Mark Rosheim.
…offers evidence that he says may link Brown’s wife, Blythe, to a spate of “mysterious” e-mails that Perdue has received, coming from one “Ahamedd Saaddodeen”.
Stay tuned folks…
NOTE: Knowing a little about Seth Mnookin’s journalistic bona fides might help you appreciate how serious these new allegations against Brown are. Therefore, I invite you to click here to check out his credentials, and see why Brown has just cause to fear that he will soon be tagged with the scarlet letter “P” in the literary world.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when….
Kaavya Viswanathan, Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code plagiarism, Seth Mnookin Vanity Fair
Legacy Note: With over 5,600 posts spanning 20 years, I am easily the most prolific blogger on the most eclectic array of topics on the web. That makes The iPINIONS Journal an unparalleled archive of informed political and cultural commentary. Visit the ARCHIVES section in the sidebar or search by topic. You won’t find a more consistent, independent voice on world affairs.
Michelle says
Hi Anthony
It’s been really difficult to post comments on your site lately. I think you need to have a word with our webmaster.
I’m not surprised to learn that Dan Brown is a fraud. They should make him give all that money back. Don’t you think those other HBHG guys should now appeal based on these new allegations.
Anonymous says
you are right about the tangled web. i think the story behind this plagiarism stuff might be an even juicier conspiracy than the one brown wrote about. great blog alh.
Anonymous says
testing…more tech problems…not sure if this comment will post.
Lewis Perdue says
Thank you for your in-depth comments about Seth Mnookin’s piece regarding the Da Vinci Code plagiarism and the lawsuit that Random House filed against me.
For what it is worth, Random House is demanding that the court make me pay the $300,000+ they spent on lawyers to sue me.
ALH ipinions says
Mr Perdue
Given my support for Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, you may reasonably infer that I find your claims against Dan Brown – as documented by Mnookin – extremely credible. Although, I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for you to be the victim of such an open and notorious case of literary identity theft.
Alas, as a lawyer myself, I understand all too well the deployment of an aggressive offense to defend a client like Brown against a wholly sympathetic plaintiff like you. And attempting to ruin you financially is entirely consistent with that legal strategy.
Indeed, given the cash cow Brown has become, it would not surprise me if executives at Random House are prepared to pay lawyers $3m to extract $300,000 from you, just to intimidate you. They clearly have the resources to win many legal battles – if not on the merits, then by attrition of dispossessed and disillusioned plaintiffs.
That’s why Mnookin’s expose might prove a tipping point in vindicating your literary rights. (Of course it doesn’t hurt to have Mark Burnett on your side as well.) Because, even though you and a relatively small number of people have known about his plagiarism of your work for years, this fact will at last become manifest to millions upon millions of people from reading Mnookin’s Vanity Fair article (notwithstanding previous reports in other publications like Newsweek).
I am convinced that once the press turns on Dan Brown (as is inevitable), we’ll see the rebirth of Daughter of God at the top of bestseller lists worldwide. (After all, I was sufficiently intrigued to order a copy.)
I admire your tenacity and unwillingness to cede your intellectual property to Brown by settling for cash and being told to shut up already….
Good luck!
Lewis Perdue says
Thanks for your kind comments. With any luck we can get the justice system to work
However, justice in this case is certainly a matter of chance and gambling and not a sure thing.
This is because copyright infringement is more about any given judge’s seat-of-the-pants personal opinion on any given day and not about statutes or even any sort of well-defined precedent.