• Random House sued ME; not the other way around.
  • Random House filed suit to silence the facts I was posting on the web.
  • There has been NO trial on the facts, only the Random House effort to prevent a trial.
  • The only sworn statements made under penalty of perjury are affidavits from me and my experts, nothing from RH.
  • The judge refused to consider any expert analysis.
  • Despite suing me first, Random House & Sony UNsuccessfully demanded that I pay the $310,000 in legal fees they spent to sue me.
  • Contrary to the Random House spin, I am not alleging plagiarism of general issues, but of several hundred very specific ones.
  • This is not about money. Anything I win goes to charity.

Legal filings and the expert witness reports are HERE

I have a second blog, Writopia
which focuses on Dan Brown's pattern of falsehoods
and embellishment of his personal achievements.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Appropriating Theme Points

I'm getting bits and pieces of what is going on over in London, but the following from the NY Daily News is of interest:

'Lawyer Jonathan James, arguing for Baigent and Leigh, charged that Brown "appropriated the architecture" of "Holy Blood" and used as many as 15 of its theme points.'

And that compares with close to 100 theme points that Code appropriated from my works and several hundred more significant, specific similarities as comprehensively presented in John Olsson's analysis.


Blogger Mark said...

""Suggesting a married Jesus is one thing, but questioning the resurrection undermines the very heart of Christian belief," he told reporters."

I don't understand this quote. Which one does this? Don't they both? How can you not do both? If you wind up in France with descendants you didn't die. Of course the fact we're talking about human who could do this is fairly bizarre on its face.

Tue Feb 28, 02:11:00 PM PST  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

It's fairly easy to see from that why Brown's Random House PR handlers keep him away from the press.

Of course that statement is nonsense and would have been seen as nonsense by dan Brown if he had the faintest notion about the basic foundations of Christianity.

I think it's clear that he had to take his material from other people because he amply demonstrates a lack of knowledge about things which he supposedly researched and wrote.

Tue Feb 28, 02:33:00 PM PST  
Blogger Mark said...

I'll be damned, I didn't that Brown said that. It is nonsensical. You're right.

Tue Feb 28, 04:29:00 PM PST  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Yes, it's a reiteration of a quote from this article in the Eagle-Tribune.

The whole quote says: "[H]e defended the premise of "The Da Vinci Code," mentioning the extensive research on which he based his fiction and saying he left out the most controversial part. Brown said he considered including material in his book that alleges Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion.

"For me, that was just three or four steps too far," he said.

Tue Feb 28, 04:46:00 PM PST  
Blogger Mark said...

HBHG does that.

Tue Feb 28, 07:55:00 PM PST  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

And so, it seems, does Brown.

Wed Mar 01, 08:17:00 AM PST  

Post a Comment

<< Home