Lawyers acting for Dan
Brown, the world's highest-paid author, and the two men who claim he
stole their ideas, met at the High Court in London yesterday to agree
details of a trial scheduled to begin on February 27.
Two
historians, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, are suing Brown's
publishers, Random House, claiming that Brown lifted "the whole
architecture" of the research from their 1982 book, The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail, for The Da Vinci Code, Brown's global hit of a
religious thriller.
Baigent and Leigh's
non-fiction work presents the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene
married and had a child, and that their descendants have carried on
their bloodline to the present day. This theme forms the basis for the
action in Brown's novel, which has sold 29m copies worldwide, earning
its author £45m in the last year alone.
The
novel's suggestion that the Catholic church has spent the last 2,000
years working tirelessly to cover up the relationship between Jesus and
Mary Magdalene has roused the ire of the Vatican, which was driven in
March to appoint a cardinal to rebut what it calls the "shameful and
unfounded errors" contained in the book.
However,
the combination of the central conspiracy theory and the clues,
anagrams and puzzles that litter the pages are central to the appeal of
the book, which has been translated into over 40 different languages.
Commentators
have already pointed out that the name of one of the major characters,
Sir Leigh Teabing, is an anagram of the names Leigh and Baigent,
although there is no sign of Henry Lincoln, the third author of the
1982 book, who has chosen not to take part in this suit.
This
is not the first time that Dan Brown has been called to defend himself
over the provenance of his novel. In August, he won a court case
brought by another author, Lewis Perdue, who claimed that The Da Vinci
Code reproduced elements from two of his novels, Daughter of God and
The Da Vinci Legacy. Perdue had sought damages of $150m (£84.2m), and
had requested that the court block further distribution of the book and
stop work on the movie adaptation currently in production, starring Tom
Hanks and the French actor Audrey Tautou in the lead roles.
Following
yesterday's discussions between the lawyers, Random House says that a
"substantial" part of the claim by Baigent and Leigh has been dropped.
The publishing house adds that it is "delighted with this result, which
reinforces [its] long-held contention that this is a claim without
merit."
Ground Control to Fox: Valerie Plame Wilson Was Covert
For Hannity and Hatch and all the other liars, Fitzy said this: I am
the umpire and Scooter threw sand in my eyes just as I was going to
call a strike.
Last night, Sean Hannity said this:
I don’t think anybody exposed anything. I think everybody knew in town what [Valerie Wilson] did for a living. There’s no evidence that she was covert. None.
And two nights ago, Ann Coulter said:
She hadn’t been a covert agent for six years, and everyone in Washington knew she worked for the CIA.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knocked that talking point down hard today in the Libby indictment:
At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
OK. These are several really simple questions for any Republican here who does not support this investigation.
1. If Mrs. Wilson was not a covert agent, and thus no
crime was committed by revealing her name (no matter WHO did it), then
why did the CIA request the investigation to begin with? No guesses;
please cite sources backing up your answer(s).
2. If Mr.
Wilson lied about his findings, and an honest Bush Admin. surely would
have known it if he did (and thus should have hammered home the true
facts with the American people), then why did administration officials
even remotely consider discussing his wife amongst themselves and
others? Especially if her status in the CIA was not truly not covert?
What do you suppose they hoped to accomplish?
