|
View Poll Results: Which book is worse? | |||
Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
7 | 43.75% |
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
9 | 56.25% |
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
bad moon rising
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The boy's cock is sore, Naevoluse
Posts: 139
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I'm going to have to say the Da Vinci code guys. I don't think you can slip much lower.
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#2 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
That Da Vinci code is incredibly compelling. Doesn't stop it being shite, however. Car crash literature.
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#3 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Birkenhead
Posts: 9,397
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Well, The Da Vinci Code is poorly scribed hackwork, but is at least based on some interesting theories. Rainbow SIx is just s***.
__________________
Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. http://www.flickr.com/photos/outsidethecamp/ |
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#4 |
the end of the ugly
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,173
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I thought The Da Vinci Code was alright.
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#5 |
bad moon rising
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The boy's cock is sore, Naevoluse
Posts: 139
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
What pisses me off about the Da Vinci code was the way it was appalingly researched. His theories were complete crap to begin with. The theory that St. John (I believe that is the disciple in question) was really Mary Magdeline because Leonardo painted him to look anandrodgenous is ridiculous. It was common practice in the Renaissance to paint St John in an effeminate nature. Dan Brown probably had this pointed out to him, but wanted to sell his book.
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#6 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Birkenhead
Posts: 9,397
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I find the Da Vinci court case interesting, for this reason: The plaintiffs are asserting that their ideas were stolen, ie their intellectual property and copyrighted work. But their book (upon which TDVC is based) is supposedly an attempt at historical fact. So the question posed is thus: should it be possible for a historian to 'copyright history'. On the basis of their assertion that their book is an attempt at fact, the court case should surely fail, as otherwise the consequences for historical fiction would be devastating. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.
__________________
Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. http://www.flickr.com/photos/outsidethecamp/ |
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#7 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I think it's not a case of 'copywriting history' so much as a question of academic referencing; Brown presents the historical 'facts' (which are not facts but assertions and speculations; nonetheless, they function as putative facts) in tdvc as his own, or rather, does not credit their source. Because there is an adendum to tdvc to say which parts are Brown's own fiction and which are 'facts' (used in this putative sense) of his own discovery or investigation, it seems perfectly reasonable that if it can be shown that Brown sourced these 'facts' from the holy blood and the holy grail, he should be made culpable for copywrite infringment.
To explain: If I write a work of fiction based on Kant's Third Critique, which uses the same ideas without giving credit, then I am stealing from him. Of course, a lot of these ideas could be arrived at without my reading it; however, the case with historical documents is that they rely upon a large amount of specialised investigation in a specific field; that is, it is unlikely I would discover the same things as are common to tdvc and the holy blood and the holy grail on my own; and as one precedes the other, it seems incredibly unlikely that Brown sourced his assertions from anywhere other than the holy blood.... So I believe it's a question of academic referencing more than it is copyrighting history. Isn't it?
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#8 | ||
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Birkenhead
Posts: 9,397
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Fair enough, but surely not culpaple of any seious wrondoing - if found guilty (which would be laughable) then at worst he has failed to give credit, and punishment should be to give mention in future issues. And place an errata slip in already-printed copies. Quote:
I agree. But surely the whole thing about this is, is The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail a work of fiction with plot, or, as the authors claim, a work of fact based on a decade of solid research? If it's the latter, that Brown is taking the facts and using them for a plot, then this trial is about copyrighting history. To pick an example, one of Anthony Burgess' novels, A Dead MAn in Deptford, is based on the spying career etc that the playwrite Christopher Marlowe seems to have has. But that historcal fact was not always known, it was researched and discovered, so should the relevant historian have been able to sue Burgess? If it turns out that there is documentary proof that the artist Sir Walter Richard Sickert was Jack the Ripper, as some assert, then should it only be the historian who discovers the documents that can freely dramatise history? Also, I believe the trial will end in Random House/Brown's favour for another reason ie they went ahead with the book being already sure of their ground. Dan Brown acknowledges the importance of (amongst other very big clues) The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail in The Da Vinci Code, saying directly that it is the foremost work on the royal bloodline of Jesus. This is not how plagiarists generally work. This very direct mention, however, contained within millions of books sold worldwide, isn't sufficient publicity for the authors. I would also point out that all readers of TDVC will read that plug, whereas if it were removed and replaced with a bibliographical mention at the back, not many would pay attention. If the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail are claiming the theft of their ideas, then they are saying that their work is fiction, in my opinion. To saay that you have discovered historical fact, present it as fact, then attempt to make money out of a work that uses those facts to create a work of fiction, is not on. Any referenced work should absolutely be credited, of course. But once you leave 'facts' out in the open, they are not really your property anymore, so you should expect little more than the decency of a mention. What I want to know is, what's going to happen to the guy who's writing the book of the trial?
__________________
Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. http://www.flickr.com/photos/outsidethecamp/ |
||
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#9 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,807
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Haven't read them, but I really dislike Tom Clancy.
__________________
Inhuman no longer dwells on here. http://about.me/robinbastien |
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#10 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Birkenhead
Posts: 9,397
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Me too. But he's found a market and exploted it skillfully, no question.
__________________
Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. http://www.flickr.com/photos/outsidethecamp/ |
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#11 |
expwy. to yr skull
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,855
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The Da Vinci Code
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#12 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,807
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
For sure. He made tonnes of cash off his games too; they weren't too bad either |
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#13 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,488
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
i wouldnt bother with either shitbrick
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#14 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New England.
Posts: 4,027
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I haven't read either one but I played the rainbow six game and its cool.
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#15 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,807
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Yeah, it's pretty good. Do you know if the games were based off the books of vice versa? |
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#16 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New England.
Posts: 4,027
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The games based on the books.
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
![]() |
#17 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North America
Posts: 2,672
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Never read either of them. Voted Da Vinci Code though. Just for the hell of it.
|
![]() |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |