Talk:Da Vinci Code publisher Random House in court

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dan Brown's next book; The Solomon Key, is Toast[edit]

This event could be the prelude to an upcoming war to stop Brown's next book; The Solomon Key. Now that Brown is planning to expose the Kerry/Bush cult in his upcoming book The Solomon Key; we will see more and more bad press about Brown. This is just the beginning of his downfall and I doubt "the Solomon Key" will ever reach the major bookstores, even if it is published. Can you just imagine having the money, power and methodology of both the Bush and Kerry/Heinz dynasties dedicated to shutting you up? Neutralizer 14:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Unnessesary Line[edit]

"The dust jacket of The Da Vinci Code apparently includes longitude and latitude coordinates which lead to the CIA headquarters in Virginia." Does this line really contribute to the article at all? --Yono

I was wondering that- I don't think its nessesary. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It's much like the reference to the upcoming movie; not directly connected to the lawsuit and not necessary but is an interesting aspect. Plus the dust jacket/CIA item is mentioned in one of the sources and the dust jacket is an actual part of the book in question. Also the CIA thing shows that Brown's book is not exclusively tied to the HBHG theme...thus adds some NPOV to the article(since the comparisons with HBHG are already mentioned; its good to mention a difference between the books). The other question is, why try to hide that element? Neutralizer 13:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code or The Vinci Code[edit]

Why the gratituious use of new-age urban jive?

It is, of course, a reference to Leonardo da Vinci and has nothing to do with "jive." Also the word you seemed to be looking for is "gratuitous." JimD 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-fiction vs. Fiction[edit]

So one of these is a non-fiction book which explores a theory and outlines historical support for that theory. The other is a fictional story which just happens to use that theory as the premise for its plot line.

Were I a tad more cynical I'd explore the theory that this is a publicity stunt. Certainly the litigants are far more likely to see book sales as a result of this lawsuit thany they could have hoped for if Dan Brown hadn't written a bestseller. Random House is likely to seen increased sales in both books and the media will be pumping up further interest in the movie.

In fact the line about this lawsuit possibly delaying release of the movie seems gratuitious.

Had I the time, I would love to do some research into the precedents of fictional works based on historical or other non-fictional theories. It's hard to imagine a legitimate basis for the case unless there was some fairly significant copying or mechanical and superficial paraphrasing of substantial passages. If it's not an all-out publicity stunt, then I'd have to characterize it as another case of "intellectual property" land grabbing run amok. Yet another nut job trying to propound the theory that any idea once published becomes the sole property of some author and that all "derivatives" that look anything like it are ripe for litigous plucking.

These are questions we should be asking even while we maintain NPOV in our articles. JimD 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Worth mentioning[edit]

I think worth mentioning that the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail is mentioned in Brown's novel, as some other books on the same topic.

The reason behind the action is obscure: if it was a non-fiction(and it was presented like that) than how could they claim they have some rights to storyline(the base of storyline, let us say it)?


This notice is a friendly reminder that talk pages are to be used for discussion of the development of the article, and are not areas to express your own personal opinion on matters. Thank you. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Italicise[edit]

{{editprotected}} Italicise names of novels.
•–• 04:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Done --SVTCobra 18:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)