posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:46 PM
I've read the Da Vinci Code but not the Purdue book. From what I hear about the Purdue book, I'm not so sure I buy the plagiarism claims. The
theories about the Holy Grail and Mary Magdalene have been popular forever, and all kinds of questions about Da Vinci's works and their "hidden
meanings" have floated around for decades.
My guess is that Purdue and Brown used the same sources to research their books (I've checked out some of the "sources" Brown lists in the Thank
You notes of the Da Vinci Code - they're kind of questionable, at best, though some are quite interesting). Brown might have even used Purdue's book
as inspiration. Inspiration, however, doesn't equal plagiarism. The theories in Brown's book (and the ones that I've heard about from Purdue's
book) are way too widespread for any single author to lay claim to them.
Now, I hate Dan Brown, it pains me to defend him, and plagiarism is something I take very seriously but I honestly don't think he plagiarized. I
think this Lewis Purdue character is just mad that the world is gaga over the Da Vinci Code and no one remembers his book.