Dan Brown~ Discussions

[sister maria]

---

we're talking about dan brown's books... as formulaic... not about other people or your concept of what's good and what's great...

if da vinci code was well-researched, wait til you read HBHG, where brown lifted most of his ideas. he's not a bad writer either, he just lacks lushness in places where they are needed, and sometimes have characters that are overly preachy, like a listening to a class lecture... apart from langdon, others are underdeveloped... he could write thriller tho... make it quite believable? for chrissakes, you bought the book in the "fiction" section.

[IceInHeLL]

I have read HBHG ages ago and the sequel, The Messianic Legacy. Its not considered fiction. Its more of a documentary. Try Gnostic Gospels, The Jesus Dynasty, The Secrets of Judas.

[MR_Kennels]

Dan Brown is guilty of plagiarism... He mostly copied most of his ideas from books published in the 1970s and 1980s and considered them his own without citing the sources... He is a minion of Satan by telling the general puiblic that Jesus is married... He is an ANTICHRIST in my opinion! Willing to destroy the image of Jesus the son of God for his own PRIDE and LUST for wealth in this SINFUL world...

[evs]

hmmm...i'm not so anxious to read this book. the reason i read his books is out of curiosity due to the attention it got except for digital fortress, i read it before all of the bruhaha about him.

[IceInHeLL]

MR_Kennels:
Dan Brown is guilty of plagiarism... He mostly copied most of his ideas from books published in the 1970s and 1980s and considered them his own without citing the sources... He is a minion of Satan by telling the general puiblic that Jesus is married... He is an ANTICHRIST in my opinion! Willing to destroy the image of Jesus the son of God for his own PRIDE and LUST for wealth in this SINFUL world...

Plagiarism? Really? According to who? According to you or according to the court of law? Because if it is the latter, then you are wrong. Dan Brown was never found guilty of plagiarism even if most of his ideas used in the book is found in the non-fiction Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail could never own the idea of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene because that theory has been in existence ages before they even published thier own book.

High Court judge Peter Smith rejected a copyright-infringement claim by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” who claimed that Brown’s blockbuster “appropriated the architecture” of their 1982 book. The principal author of "Holy Bood, Holy Grail" Henry Lincoln did not took part in the suit.

Have you even read the book? Or you are just plainly saying something without validating? Because Dan Brown did mention the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail and it's authors as those who brought the idea to mainstream attention.

Please do not make up stories. It is quite lame saying something that has been founded to never happen.

In your opinion that he is the anti-Christ, I would respect that but I'm pretty sure that a lot of intellectuals, scholars, people in the arts and literature, and ordinary people around the world do not share your opinion.

Its funny how you say "Ignorantia Legis, Neminem Excusat" - "ignorance of the law excuses nobody" if my latin does not fail me. I just based it on my knowledge of "Ignorantia juris non excusat" which means "ignorance of the law excuses none". Perhaps you should guide yourself with it's essence before saying something.