Those of you who enjoyed my Drown Ban, Not Chav deicide, or The Mongo code or Ward Bonn’s Digital Citadel may also like to read Scaryduck’s Condensed Films: The Da Vinci Code. Excerpt:
A. Tatou: Listen very carefully I will say zis only once. Les Cops r stitching u up for ze murder of my grandfather.
T. Hanks: ONOZ!
A. Tatou: Also, he has ‘ad you bugged. With a bug. FFS.
T. Hanks: ONOZ! Luckily, I have thrown teh bug out of teh window, so Les Cops think I have escaped. Now to spend several hours wondering around a murder scene surrounded by Europe’s most expensive art works, where there appears to be no security whatsoever.
More on the condensed films
Those of you who enjoyed my Drown Ban, Not Chav deicide, or The Mongo code may also like to read Digital Citadel by Ward Bonn (sent to me my sil). The opening line should give you an idea:
The shadow creeped across the cryptographer’s face as the sun rose. As the shadow reached his nose, he clicked twice on his e-mail program, which had been written by a shadowy group in another country in order to serve as a plot device.
To be fair I haven’t read Digital Fortress although it seems similar enough to The Da Dan Vinci Code that I don’t feel the need to.
Toby Inkster has created a Create Your Own Dan Brown Novel programme.
Use your browser’s ‘Reload’ button to create another novel, each one as original and well thought out as a real Dan Brown best-seller. Via Velcro City Tourist Board).
I’m a bit slow off the mark on this one, I know, but the code hidden by the judge (Mr Justice Smith) in the recent Dan Brown trial has been solved (via Rashbre Central). According to the judge as reported by the BBC the mistake in the code was intentional:
Mr Justice Smith said a typographical error had been added deliberately to ‘create further confusion’
The BBC reports that the judge of the recent Dan Brown/Holy Blood Holy Grail (HBHG) plaigarism trial apparently left his own code in the judgement on the case. There are letters in italics which seem to spell out some words. Good stuff. He has apparently agreed to confirm it if anyone cracks it.
This makes sense of why the judgement took so long to come out. Interestingly I noticed that the judgement also admits that he had read HBHG several times over the last twenty years. Oh dear.
The Da Vinci Code trial ended last Friday with the judge finding in favour of Mr Brown. I think this was the only realistic verdict. As George MacDonald Fraser said in the Telegraph at the weekend:
They’ve got to lose that case … If they win it’s going to make writing historical fiction very difficult. Anyway, as I understand it, there’s no copyright in ideas.
However, it would have been far more entertaining had the the verdict gone the other way. I don’t know quite how these things work, whether it would have come down to enormous damages or cessation of Da The Vinci Code’s sale, but it would certainly have thrown a spanner in the works of the forthcoming film (tagline
Seek the truth). As it is, the conspiracy of the Templars (the Temple in London is still linked to the law in England!), masons (everyone knows all judges are masons!), and the Priory of Sion (a secret society, which is why they weren’t overtly connected to the trial, although they surely must have been!) won after all and Baigent and Leigh are effectively ruined. Anyway, there is a trailer for the film on Google Video. I have my suspicions the film will be better than the book.
Aside from the news page linked above, the BBC offer a number of interesting pages on the trial:
- Extracts from the judge’s ruling, including the following, which contradicts the assumption that the case was won on the idea that a novel can’t be found to infringe the copyright of a ‘history’ book:
There is nothing for example in this case, which if decided in the claimants’ favour, would stultify creative endeavour, obtain a monopoly on ideas or historical information or create a precedent which extends the boundaries of copyright protection in sphere of literary works. The complete text of the ruling is available and I intend to try and at least skim through it if I get the chance.
- Reactions of the protagonists to the verdict, including the following quote from Richard Leigh:
I think by its very nature, this case entailed a conflict between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. We lost on the letter of the law, I think we won on the spirit of the law, and to that extent we feel vindicated. No, you lost, and I can’t see how the judge’s ruling in any way vindicated the plaintiffs. As I said above, I mean to give the ruling more of a read. If I can be bothered.
- Would you buy a second-hand car from one of these?. That’s not what the story says, of course, but it does give pictures, and does beg the question. If I had to purchase a second-hand Ford Escort from any of them, I have to admit I would go for Dan Brown, providing his wife didn’t do the research on the car’s history. I would have serious reservations about approaching Richard Leigh on a dark night. I’m sure they’re all lovely really.
Roll on the film this Christmas on ITV!
An alleged librarian has demostrated his thorough training and professional skills with the following review of Da The Vinci Code, as found by The Da Vinci Hoax weblog on a bookseller’s website:
Brandon Vanover (firstname.lastname@example.org), a Librarian, March 20, 2006,
Get over it
The Da Vinci code was a work of fiction, which means it WASN’T MEANT TO BE REAL. Dan Brown is an excelent writer who had an idea and wrote on it. Just like any excelent writers out there. Most of the anti Da Vinci Code fanatics are just christians with a grudge and need to realize that the bible is also a book and cant be proved to be entirely factual either. I dont understand why people have to complain about fictional books, their not real
Mr Vanover (must be an anagram) and the rest of us will have to wait, probably till Easter, to hear the result of Mr Brown’s trial. I can’t imagine the judge summarising any more concisely than that.
Earlier today I came across The Da Vinci Crock, a weblog detailing the progress of the Dan Holy Vinci case. (Be careful accessing the site, using Mozilla at least, as a highly annoying pop-up pops us trying to elicit money for the Hurricane Katrina appeal and flickers annoyingly). I wondered what beef the author had to go in it into such detail until I researched the author, Lewis Perdue, whom, I must admit, I had never heard of, and found that, as reported by the BBC:
In August , Mr Brown won a court ruling against another writer, Lewis Perdue, who claimed The Da Vinci Code copied elements of two of his novels, Daughter of God and The Da Vinci Legacy.
Mr Perdue had sought $150m (ï¿½84m) in damages and asked the court to block distribution of the book and the movie adaptation, currently in production.
I later found, in true Baigent and Leigh researching style, that the Crock was started in April 2005 with the intention
to provide as complete a resource as possible for the many well-documented books, articles and blogs that have likewise detected the bull offal essence of the Code. Prodigious quantities of this essence has been detected.
I notice that my own reference to the Crock in relation to Mr Brown’s oeuvre marginally postdates Mr Perdue’s weblog. I can honestly say that I have never read anything by Mr Perdue and only one thing by Mr Brown. I intend to keep it this way, although I will follow the Crock with interest.
For the past week British taxpayers have been paying a High Court judge just under Â£3000 to read the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code. From the BBC today:
The case resumed on Tuesday after a week-long break to give the judge time to read both books involved and related materials.
I don’t know whether to pity the man or whether he is just the tool of karma which had to find a victim for all the people who have said, “You’d have to pay me to read that!” One wonders whether the judge read all the appendices to the Holy Blood or not. I expect he’ll save them for when he needs to nod off in court.
By the way, the figure of Â£3000 comes from the salary of a High Court judge given by the Department of Constitutional Affairs wef April 2005, Â£155,404, divided by 52 (actually 2988.54 but you get the idea).
A highly entertaining court case starts today as da authors of Da Holy Blood and Da Holy Grail are suing da publishers of Da N. Brown over his novel Da Vinci code. What seems to be me da main point, and always was, is that one of da books is (purporting to be) fact while da other is fiction. It’s not as though Mr Brown copied a story as such; it might have been better if he had. The success of this case would seem to imply that any novel based on recent historical research would be banned, unless of course they admit that they made it all up down da pub one afternoon. Sounds like nonsense to me. Or a big conspiracy…
Another entertaining aspect of this is that, according to da BBC, the publishers they are suing, Random House, also published Da Holy Blood and Da Holy Grail.