Dan Brown is the author of the staggeringly bestselling book The Da Vinci Code, and he's now dealing with at least the second lawsuit brought against him for stealing somebody else's ideas:

Author Dan Brown attended a London court on Monday for the start of a trial in which two historians are accusing him of copying their ideas in his best-selling religious thriller "The Da Vinci Code."

Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent are suing Brown's British publisher Random House for lifting "the whole architecture" of the research that went into their 1982 non-fiction book "The Holy Blood, and the Holy Grail."

Brown has previously successfully defended his work from similar legal action brought by author Lewis Perdue, who claimed Brown's Da Vinci Code copied elements of two of his novels. It's quite likely, given the circumstances surrounding the current case, that Brown will prevail again; which bodes well for the upcoming release of the Da Vinci Code film.

We just thought we'd point out to folks like Mssrs. Leigh and Baigent (the current plaintiffs) that, hey, recycling old ideas is what Brown does. And with the Grisham-deadened literary tastebuds of today's Western civilization, that and a skilled publicist are about all you need to write a "bestselling" book. Brown, and the multitude of authors like him, certainly have no particular skill with the written word; they're just in the right book at the right time, and they hit it big. And as with any broad and pallid fad, they'd better hope they make their millions pretty much instantly — because the masses to whom they're pandering will devour their books for only so long, before they move on to the next cookie-cutter novels by the next tepid writers.

Did we read The Da Vinci Code? Yeah, we read it. Did we like it? Well, there were some cool concepts in it, there were some interesting ideas. But it was pretty horribly written — the man has no talent with prose. And as all of these lawsuits indicate, it's not like any of Dan Brown's ideas hadn't been thought of before. It's also not like any of these ideas won't appear in future works, both fiction and non-fiction. In fact, look what Dan Brown's next book was about:

It takes guts to write a novel that combines an ancient secret brotherhood, the Swiss Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, a papal conclave, mysterious ambigrams, a plot against the Vatican, a mad scientist in a wheelchair, particles of antimatter, jets that can travel 15,000 miles per hour, crafty assassins, a beautiful Italian physicist, and a Harvard professor of religious iconology....

Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is shocked to find proof that the legendary secret society, the Illuminati--dedicated since the time of Galileo to promoting the interests of science and condemning the blind faith of Catholicism--is alive, well, and murderously active. Brilliant physicist Leonardo Vetra has been murdered, his eyes plucked out, and the society's ancient symbol branded upon his chest. His final discovery, antimatter, the most powerful and dangerous energy source known to man, has disappeared--only to be hidden somewhere beneath Vatican City on the eve of the election of a new pope. Langdon and Vittoria, Vetra's daughter and colleague, embark on a frantic hunt through the streets, churches, and catacombs of Rome, following a 400-year-old trail to the lair of the Illuminati, to prevent the incineration of civilization.

So we've got an ancient secret brotherhood dating back at least to the time of a renaissance or medieval scientist, check. The upper echelons of European institutions, also check. The Vatican and some exploration of conspiracies both of and against Catholicism. Check and check. Puzzles, mostly to do with symbology. References to a fabled and exotic substance. A scholarly antagonist with paraplegic traits. Assassins. A beautiful European scientist/mathematician, whose father/grandfather — somehow involved with the aforementioned ancient secret society — is murdered and then discovered with physical symbolism on his corpse. Check, check, check, check, checkity-check-check-check.

Fuck, if we were world-famous symbologist and man-of-action Robert Langdon, we'd be experiencing an acute case of déjà vu, here.

The message is clear, and should make Leigh, Baigent and Perdue take a step back and laugh: Dan Brown simply can't come up with an original idea. He's now reduced to ripping himself off just to cobble together another foray into the, er, "exciting" world of Robert Langdon.

Did Brown steal the ideas, or the overarching concepts? Well, in a way, perhaps. Of course, these particular ideas are littered throughout literary history, and weren't anything "new" when Leigh and Baigent (with their co-author Henry Lincoln) "proposed" them or Lewis Perdue "concocted" them. Despite the cynics' proposal that there's nothing new under the sun, as creative and imaginative folks, we actually believe there are new and original ideas waiting to be discovered and conceived; but the ideas in Brown's book, and the same ideas in The Holy Blood, and the Holy Grail and Perdue's work, simply aren't them.

In short: big deal. Dan Brown is another unoriginal hack who got lucky and hit it big. If he hadn't ended up with nearly 40 million copies in print and a major motion picture deal, the public (and, more to the point, the courts) never would have heard from Perdue, Leigh or Baigent. So chill, boys — Brown's work may be somewhat dull and terribly unoriginal, but you didn't invent the concepts contained therein, either. As with any work of fiction, unless you're looking at a practically word-for-word reproduction of an earlier work, it's near impossible to conclude whether or not there's evidence of direct plagiarism.

Our best bet? The new case gets thrown out just like the earlier one, and the film adaptation of The Da Vinci Code rakes in the box office, setting Dan Brown up for life. The bastard.

Holy Blood Holy Grail wasn't that great a piece either - the whole Priory de Sion secret organization it exposed was a hoax, and Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent were taken in by it.

When I first heard about the plot for Da Vinci Code it reminded me of a Ludlum novel called The Gemini Contenders (1976) in which twin brothers vie for possesion of documents which prove that Jesus didn't die on the cross. Maybe Robert Ludlum should sue Brown, Leigh and Baigent.

The Da Vinci Code was dreck. It would have been mildly entertaining dreck, without the suggestions by the author that there was some actual truth to his secret history of Christianity. I mean, if he'd taken the attitude 'this is mostly made up stuff, have fun reading it' that'd be fine. But he didn't, he plainly suggested that there was some truth to the Priory of Sion nonsense, and the whole Christ-Merovingian connection, which was just utterly stupid.

That said, I don't know how the case against him hasn't been summarily dismissed. Perhaps differences in copyright law between the US and the UK are to blame, but my understanding is that 'copyright' protects actual written words (or music, etc.), not ideas, 'architectures', or what not. The only thing that protects 'ideas', to my knowledge, is patents, and you can't patent a pseudo-historical theory.

Anyone read Wilton Barnhardt's Gospel? I read it over 10 years ago, but remembering enjoying both its subject--the search for a lost gospel--and its prose. It's got footnotes out the wazoo for all its scholarly details as well as paragraphs longer than two sentences. It also had a deep sense of humor and irony--two things I'm positive Da Vinci Code does not have.

"And with the Grisham-deadened literary tastebuds of today's Western civilization, that and a skilled publicist are about all you need to write a "bestselling" book."

That statement hits the nail on the head (or on the theses???). I don't mind a Brown or Grisham-type book once in a while, but reading them is more like watching a movie than embarking on a literary journey of merit. Unfortunately, most Americans don't know the difference.

"So chill, boys — Brown's work may be somewhat dull and terribly unoriginal, but you didn't invent the concepts contained therein, either."

Yeah, where do these guys get off thinking that historical ideas that they reported on are exempt from being used by whomever!?

Yeah, where do these guys get off thinking that historical ideas that they reported on are exempt from being used by whomever!?

The fact that Baigent and Leigh are hack historians explains a lot.

Totally agree. I read

The DaVinci Code

after my wife said it was "suspenseful", but I found it poorly written and could tell that Brown wrote it specifically towards making it a movie. The man had goals.

He blows, but he's like the semi-shitty artist that draws olives with legs who makes millions and drives a lamborghini. Popular culture sucks all the ass I have.

I think I made a serious vocational error somewhere....

Aren't we being a little hard on Brown? (sarcasm intended) Unfortunately, that's what the world is coming to. Holy dark chocolate god, are there any old, 70's TV shows left to make stupid spoof movies these days? Don't even get me started on the rap "community." To this day, Vanilla Ice swears he didn't rip off Queen with "Ice Ice Baby." 93.74% of all rap "songs" sample a catchy hook from a much better song. Three of 2005's top grossing movies were remakes: King Kong, War of the Worlds and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Originality just isn't en vogue anymore.
I have to admire Brown for being sneaky about stealing material. He could have easily made his millions by openly copying the original material.

I agree with Fan-man; as a starving writer, I find it too easy to bash successful ones, even if their writing doesn't impress me, so I have to be real careful not to let my envy show! Did Brown steal anyone's ideas? Heck, no; like JY pointed out, you can't patent/copyright/trademark a pseudo-historical theory that you didn't originate anyway, and Brown actually does everything in the book to credit Leigh, Baigent, and Lincoln as his sources except come straight out and say, "Leigh, Baigent, and Lincoln are my sources." 2% are right: he just happened to be the so-so writer jumping on the right bandwagon at the right time.

To be honest, the lack of originality in our entertainment at this time that Fan-man refers to doesn't really bother me all that much; the early silent movies were constantly being remade and ripping each other off all the way into the talkies. Renaissance England didn't really have a concept of copyright, either; writers, including Shakespeare, believed there was nothing new under the sun and lifted entire storylines from various and sundry sources without a second thought. That said, where the genius of those writers lies and our modern authors are often sadly lacking is in their treatment of that source material and the obvious pride they took in their craft. I don't begrudge Brown his sourcing of material, or even his resulting success, but I sure wish I could see some improvement in his actual writing; has the man ever even heard of character development?

Re Eve and Fan-Man's comments on lack of originality -

Wasn't it Confucius (via Mencius) who pointed out that there were only seven stories that can be told, anyway?

In which case, has everyone been ripping off everyone else for years?

has everyone been ripping off everyone else for years?

Absolutely. I said Brown was being sneaky about it, but sneaky might not be the right word. He took information/research and created a story. I thought it sucked, but that's not here nor there. It was a relatively seldom used Hollywood story line that I would classify as science fiction if I could find an ounce of science in it.

Hollywood has bigger originality fish to fry. At least in recent years Tom Cruise has branched out and changed his characters a bit. He used to play the same character in all of his movies: The young hot shot who lost his confidence and comes back to kick ass in the end.

At least in recent years Tom Cruise has branched out and changed his characters a bit. He used to play the same character in all of his movies: The young hot shot who lost his confidence and comes back to kick ass in the end.

True. His character in War of the Worlds is slightly older.

Eve, I hear what you're saying, but as another starving creative type, I don't see anything wrong with honestly critiquing another artist. Dan Brown is a really lousy writer. Sure, I'd love to have even a fraction of his success in my own artistic endeavors, and yeah, I get a pang of envy thinking about such an untalented hack getting so much in exchange for so little...but it ain't keeping me up at nights, so don't worry.

But you're absolutely right — the real tragedy lies not in being unoriginal, but in doing it in such a mediocre fashion. As you and dikkii point out, everybody's ripping off somebody — it seems to always be merely a question of how far back you have to go to find the original source material. So that's not a big deal. But when these guys create such pedestrian works, hey, I'll just point out that I think it's crap. It's that damn Two Percent Itch that forces me to be honest (and verbose!) about my opinions. Damn Itch!

Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum is so much better than any of the nonsense Brown (and Leigh and Baigent) have foisted on the public as secret history that it's a shame he doesn't get in on the lawsuit action and make a little money as well. In fact, let's throw Wilson and Shea, who are the godfathers of conspiracy as literature genre. What's more, by promoting books like Foucault's Pendulum and the Illuminatus Trilogy, maybe people will get clued into the fact that most secret globabl cabal is a heck of a lot more fun as fiction, especially if you have an active imagination. Something sorely lacking in Dan Brown's case.

Hi, guys,

Sorry it's been a while, but glad to see The Da Vinci Code generated more discussion.

Jeff, you're right, of course; in fact, if we as writers (unpublished or otherwise) don't critique each other, then we're not even plying half our craft. I realize now that I've been so - "ashamed" is a strong word, but it comes the closest - of what I write and read (yes, speculative fiction, including comic books!) that I've been pushing everything I have to say further and further back in my throat. I've been blaming it on my lack of a support structure for far too long.

Oh well, enough wallowing in self-pity! Yes, the man's a hack, albeit a successful one; in fact, his "runaway bestseller" reads as if he wrote most of it in his sleep! Angels and Demons actually has more life in it, not that it's that much better, but at least you feel a little more gusto oozing out of the pages. But his character development - or should I say lack thereof? Everyone in his novels is a cardboard cutout, and that's a kind description! All the interaction in Code is the protagonist lecturing to a sidekick who never bothers to question a single thing he tells her!

Dammit, now I've got my dander up...do you think he's at the point that he doesn't need a second job to support himself, and can make a living just writing? I mean, it's a bestselling book, but it's just one book...

Todd, I loved Foucault's Pendulum, just as I loved The Name of the Rose; maybe I'm exaggerating, but Eco reminds me of Melville in a way. Now, the Illuminatus Trilogy I haven't read; would you recommend it?