Creation, Expression, Interpretation - NOT Regurgitation
As I mentioned in the last post (Cooking the Truth Produces a Stench), my expression of how history and theology come into play in all my works covers a wide span of both, using interpretations and my own "what if" creations to make a given point.
Page 14 of the April 22, 2005 filing from Random House takes dead aim at the truth once again -- and hits the target squarely, once again trying to stuff into my mouth, words I did not say.
In referring to The Gnostic Gospels By Elaine Pagels, Random House nails the truth right between the eyes when they write, "This prominent book, which won the National Book Award, contains several of the religious theories in which Perdue here proclaims a monopoly,..."
First of all, notice that Random House does NOT cite anything in my filings to indicate where I "proclaim a monopoly." That is because the statement is a total fabrication.
And second, while I acknowledge the prominence of The Gnostic Gospels, I claim no right to anything in it.
As I explain in many filings, but most recently in my affidavit of April 8, 2005 (starting on page 7), I do not regurgitate history or theology. I use them as a launch pad for creating something new -- an expression that I DO believe is protected. Indeed, on page 10 of my affidavit of April 8, 2005, I explain some of the ways that my expression on things differs from Pagels'.
Not coincidentally, my expression is what was plagiarized in Da Vinci Code.
Random House's "proclaims a monopoly" fabrication is a transparent attempt to make the reader of this filing think I have claimed something I have not.
Page 14 of the April 22, 2005 filing from Random House takes dead aim at the truth once again -- and hits the target squarely, once again trying to stuff into my mouth, words I did not say.
In referring to The Gnostic Gospels By Elaine Pagels, Random House nails the truth right between the eyes when they write, "This prominent book, which won the National Book Award, contains several of the religious theories in which Perdue here proclaims a monopoly,..."
First of all, notice that Random House does NOT cite anything in my filings to indicate where I "proclaim a monopoly." That is because the statement is a total fabrication.
And second, while I acknowledge the prominence of The Gnostic Gospels, I claim no right to anything in it.
As I explain in many filings, but most recently in my affidavit of April 8, 2005 (starting on page 7), I do not regurgitate history or theology. I use them as a launch pad for creating something new -- an expression that I DO believe is protected. Indeed, on page 10 of my affidavit of April 8, 2005, I explain some of the ways that my expression on things differs from Pagels'.
Not coincidentally, my expression is what was plagiarized in Da Vinci Code.
Random House's "proclaims a monopoly" fabrication is a transparent attempt to make the reader of this filing think I have claimed something I have not.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 12:38 PM
5 Comments:
So if I understand you correctly it's the symbolism in 41. 42 that is yours exclusively? This idea of the Sophia goddess and the equal roles of men and women in Gnosticism? And by asserting these same things with different players Jesus, Sophie and Magdalene, original expression was copied? That's your interpretation that made it into Code and is found nowhere else?
Actually, it's far more complicated than that.
I can't explain it any more briefly than I did in the affidavit.
But the KEY of the whole thing is not that I am trying to argue the merits of the case here ... I want to do that in COURT ...
The point is that Random House is so desperate and bereft of ethics that they are distorting things, putting lies in my mouth, making it seem that I have said something that I have not.
That's beyond the bounds of being a good advocate. It's dishonest and reprehensible.
If they really had a good case, they would not have to engage in this sort of dishonesty.
They've been paid to discredit you. That's what they're trying to do. And failing from what I can see.
Hopefully, we can get to trial.
Their filings seem written more for the PR value of discrediting me than a legal filing.
I would think/hope/pray a judge would be offended by their tactics.
Post a Comment
<< Home