egafd.com

Can anyone tell me if The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was sold as a work of history or a novel? I can't find out from any of the reports of the case and it seems to me to be relevant.

If it is supposed to be history then I can't see why you can't make a novel out of it any more than any other historical work. If it is itself supposed to be a novel then the authors would appear to be on firmer ground.

it was a novel

Its definitely sold as a work of history not a novel.

Mart

Non-Fiction

Tony,

Problem with the Da Vinci Code is lots of people believe the book to be fact not fiction with the marketing campaign deliberately placing the book in the grey area.

During the last London Open House 2005, lots of venues featured in the Da Vinci Code commented people came along expecting to find things in the book and didn't realise it was fiction.. most were American by the way

Hope this helps.

Harry

Holy Blood And The Holy Grail itself repeated some stuff already in the public domain and easily accessible----if you were French or spoke French and lived in France.

In my view, Brown is a one-trick pony. I've read all four of his novels, and the plot line follows the same course each time.

I have not read the book but have seen 2 documentarys on the 'da vinci code' and both set out to destroy its historical credabilty. And both, in my opinion, succeded. However I am sure that as a work of fiction its fine.

"In my view, Brown is a one-trick pony."

Yes, agree... I read and enjoyed the Da Vinci code - it's a reasonable thriller with interesting historical/speculative background. So I read Angels and Demons which was a complete pile of unbelievable crap.

Brown looks set to win the case though; I don't understand why the guys who wrote the history book think they have any exclusivity on this idea.

I'm surprised the action was started.
Cecil Woodham-Smith, the author of The Reason Why, lost when trying to sue the producers of the Tony Richardson movie The Charge of the Light Brigade. The judgement established that there's no copyright in historical facts.

Mart

The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail is more a theory of what might have been then actual historical fact. It's a assumption based on facts - for instance the Knights Templar left one of their places that was under siege with "something" and the authors have assumed that it was "The Holy Grail" or documents that disclose the whereabouts/true meaning of the Grail. It should fall into the same catergory with the likes of Graham Hancock, Eric Von Danekin and the like that put forward an alternative theory of our history.