Ship of Fools: So, basically, what you're saying, Beigant and Leigh

Thread: So, basically, what you're saying, Beigant and Leigh Board: The Da Vinci Code / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=66;t=000003

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

is that "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" is actually a work of fiction whose properties can be protected by copyright, rather than a proper historical theory that is, once published, subject to manipulation, interpretation and recreaation by anyone else? Is that right?

Next week, Martin Bormann sues Colin Forbes for libel over "The Leader and the Damned".

Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :

Oh know that is amusing. I guess the character of Leigh Teabing hit a little to close to home. [Killing me]

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

Err, yes. You know, of course that Teabing is an anagram of Bagient. And that his limp is a reference to the third author of HBHG, who has a similar condition.

I saw the thing about them sueing months ago (and posted it on here!) Why have the papers suddenly started shouting about it again?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

[Big Grin]

They refer to it now as 'historical conjecture' which, presumably is sufficiently creative to be subject to copyright. I am waiting for Mr. Brown to produce the 'many sources' which he says he used.

Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
I saw the thing about them sueing months ago (and posted it on here!) Why have the papers suddenly started shouting about it again?

Because it all went to the High Court today.

Deborah

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
They refer to it now as 'historical conjecture' which, presumably is sufficiently creative to be subject to copyright. I am waiting for Mr. Brown to produce the 'many sources' which he says he used.

Very creative. I recently had the misfortune of being asked to take a look at one of their other books. They had referred to a selection of relevant history books which, had they been read by any ordinary person, would have clearly shown their claims to be ludicrous. What appeared to be going on was that they would use enough of the real historical research done by other people to mention names, places, events and dates and then they would go off on a complete fantasy, ignoring things which, if they'd read what they claimed to, they could not possibly be unaware of (that the knights templar were suppressed in Scotland in 1309 and were never very important here anyway, that Rosslyn chapel is a collegiate church which contains familar pre-reformation Christian imagery, that the West Highland tombstones they looked at at Kilmartin are not Templar, but belong to a very well-known genre of medieval sculpture common in the Gaedhealtachd etc. etc.).

I'm torn between hoping they lose and have to pay costs and hoping they win and have to admit that what they've written is for the most part as fictional as Harry Potter.

L.

Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Err, yes. You know, of course that Teabing is an anagram of Bagient. And that his limp is a reference to the third author of HBHG, who has a similar condition.

That was my point. It was very cheeky of Dan Brown to put that character in (and makes you think the whole thing was originally satire until it got popular and he needed to keep up appearances). Im betting that if the copyright claim fails they will sue for libel.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

INdeed. I sort of hoped DVC was satire, until I read the blurbs of some of his other books (I couldn't get further than that.) Well, he's boosted their sales, anyway.

Thanks, rosamundi.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

I haven’t so much wanted both sides to lose since that battle of the moral heavy-weights, Hamilton v Al Fayed, back in 2000.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
They refer to it now as 'historical conjecture' which, presumably is sufficiently creative to be subject to copyright. I am waiting for Mr. Brown to produce the 'many sources' which he says he used.

This "partial bibliography" has been on his site for a long time-- years, I think. He acknowledges HBHG both there and in DVC.

Personally, I don't think DB is guilty of plagiarism...and I think the HBHG authors should pipe down and accept the publicity and sales that DVC has given *their* book.

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

Am I the only person who is tired of teenagers running up to them and saying, "You MUST read the DVC - it will show you that everything you've evre believed is false!"? I hope this case will help to demonstrate what a pile of old nonsense DVC is. For the record, I read HBHG 20 years ago, but could only get 50 pages into DVC. HBHG is better written (not that that's hard).

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Am I the only person who is tired of teenagers running up to them and saying, "You MUST read the DVC - it will show you that everything you've evre believed is false!"?

I can't say this has exactly happened to me much, but it's a worrying development if people are taking it as true. To me it reads like the work of someone who went into the bargain basement of a New Age bookshop, bought a whole load of half-price books out of the bargain bin, and stuffed everything he could think of into his novel. The Leigh Teabing thing is a dead giveaway.

I must read HBHG again. I wasn't at all convinced when I first read it, but I agree it was better written. The Grail mythos seems to have acquired a proliferation of strange theories in recent years - Grailology has become something you could write a fat book about and the odder theories seem to be becoming established as some kind of "given".

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I'm as puzzled as Dyfrig is. HBHG purports to be a work of history.

History is fair game for the novelist. I can't imagine Michael Grant suing Allan Massie, Christopher Hill going after Dame Barbara Cartland or the editors of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Medieval History instructing Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne to screw Jean Plaidy for every penny. Perhaps shite made-up history is entitled to legal protections that the proper stuff isn't. One day we may be treated to David Irving pursuing some despicable Iranian hack novelist through the courts over some novel in which the heroes expose the Zionist plot to extort guilt money out of the West.

"Celebrated Mullah, Ahmed Fatwah-Smythe, hurled a hardback copy of Hitler's War through the window of the Finsbury Park Mosque, triggering the burglar alarm. Unfazed, Jonathan Grinvir the albino Mossad operative levelled his automatic pistol at the heroic Mullah's head. "It will take the police twenty minutes to get here. I can kill you very painfully in fifteen. So tell me, where is the dossier..."

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Am I the only person who is tired of teenagers running up to them and saying, "You MUST read the DVC - it will show you that everything you've evre believed is false!"?

I don't have much contact with teenagers, but coincidentally Mr Rat's mother pressed the DVC on me this weekend with the fervour of a convert. Quite worrying.

I'd hope the court case might debunk the scholarship of the HBHG, but have a horrible feeling that a lot of people won't pay attention to the details and will just see the publicity as validating the whole thing.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
They refer to it now as 'historical conjecture' which, presumably is sufficiently creative to be subject to copyright. I am waiting for Mr. Brown to produce the 'many sources' which he says he used.
This "partial bibliography" has been on his site for a long time-- years, I think. He acknowledges HBHG both there and in DVC.

Personally, I don't think DB is guilty of plagiarism...and I think the HBHG authors should pipe down and accept the publicity and sales that DVC has given *their* book.

Does that mean that you think HBHG is
nonfiction ? [Eek!]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

It doesn't make any difference to the issue of copyright whether HBHG is fiction or non-fiction. In either case, ideas and theories cannot be copyrighted, particular expressions of them can be. If you rip off the expression of an idea in a historical work (that is, you copy the words, arrangement of incidents, interpretation or whatever sufficiently closely that your work is effectively a copy of a substantial part of the original) then it's a breach of copyright, whether the copy is used as fiction or as history.

I believe there's a precedent for this - James Herbert's "The Spear" was found to infringe copyright in a non-fiction work (though I'm too lazy to look up the details).

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :

I think the HBHG writers are getting pissy because Brown dealt quite cleverly with one of the chief objections to their stupid story, which is this: If Jesus was just a zero-century preacher who had a lucky escape, bogged off with Mary M, got hitched, had sprogs etc, etc. wtf would anyone bother who his/her great-great-great-great (etc.)-grandchildren were?

Of course, Brown deals with this by linking Mary M with The Goddess. Which is still nonsense, of course, but more interesting nonsense, and with better internal logic.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
They refer to it now as 'historical conjecture' which, presumably is sufficiently creative to be subject to copyright. I am waiting for Mr. Brown to produce the 'many sources' which he says he used.
This "partial bibliography" has been on his site for a long time-- years, I think. He acknowledges HBHG both there and in DVC.

Personally, I don't think DB is guilty of plagiarism...and I think the HBHG authors should pipe down and accept the publicity and sales that DVC has given *their* book.
Does that mean that you think HBHG is
nonfiction ?

???

No, you asked about Brown's sources, and I pointed you to them.

I haven't read HBHG, other than skimming a few pages 25 yrs ago or so. I loved DVC, for reasons I've posted many times. I wouldn't have a problem with the primary point of DVC, but I don't claim that any of it is true.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

It still mystifies me why people seem to think DVC gives them any fact about the RC etc. It's fiction, for crying out loud! They don't believe in hobbits, do they? After all, Brown's a Christian, and I read him saying that "...I am well aware of Christ's cruciffixion and ultimate resurrection as the very core of the Christian faith. The resurrection is perhaps the sole controversial Christian topic about which I would not desire to write" in the paper yesterday.

Posted by Shiny_Halo (# 10085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
After all, Brown's a Christian, and I read him saying that "...I am well aware of Christ's cruciffixion and ultimate resurrection as the very core of the Christian faith. The resurrection is perhaps the sole controversial Christian topic about which I would not desire to write" in the paper yesterday.

Really?? Have you got a link to that please? [Smile]

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
They don't believe in hobbits, do they?

You know, every time you say that, somewhere a little hobbit dies. [Waterworks]

Posted by Huntress (# 2595) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
After all, Brown's a Christian, and I read him saying that "...I am well aware of Christ's cruciffixion and ultimate resurrection as the very core of the Christian faith. The resurrection is perhaps the sole controversial Christian topic about which I would not desire to write" in the paper yesterday.

Possibly a good thing as there's a book called 'The Tomb of God' which would be ripe for 'source material' otherwise, it also incorporates art historical clues and focuses on the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau - whose curate was one Berenger Sauniere. A good read which purports to be 'fact' but is entertaining as fiction.

Posted by Huntress (# 2595) on :

Sorry to double post, TTOG trounces many of the theories and processes that Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln employ in HBHG, only to take the conspiracy idea a few steps further.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
After all, Brown's a Christian, and I read him saying that "...I am well aware of Christ's cruciffixion and ultimate resurrection as the very core of the Christian faith. The resurrection is perhaps the sole controversial Christian topic about which I would not desire to write" in the paper yesterday.

You what??? [Help]

Then can anyone explain to me how I've seen footage of him insisting that every word of the ridiculous conspiracy theory he stole to make his turgid drivel seem at all interesting is true?

Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
After all, Brown's a Christian, and I read him saying that "...I am well aware of Christ's cruciffixion and ultimate resurrection as the very core of the Christian faith. The resurrection is perhaps the sole controversial Christian topic about which I would not desire to write" in the paper yesterday.
You what???

Then can anyone explain to me how I've seen footage of him insisting that every word of the ridiculous conspiracy theory he stole to make his turgid drivel seem at all interesting is true?

Lucre. More suckers buy it if they think they are getting special insights. If he was making no money off it I might take his claims that he believes it to be true seriously. But how can you turn the authors on which your books theory is based into a villian, if you really believed what they wrote?

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Lucre. More suckers buy it if they think they are getting special insights. If he was making no money off it I might take his claims that he believes it to be true seriously. But how can you turn the authors on which your books theory is based into a villian, if you really believed what they wrote?

Possibly. I can believe that it would do wonders for sales. Even documentaries showing what a load of hooey it is seem to boost sales! I suppose I just can't imagine doing anything like that myself, especially with a story as ludicrous as this, just because I wouldn't be able to keep the act up for more than about, ooh, 5 seconds.

So how "Christian" is it to steal someone else's ridiculous (and very easily discredited) conspiracy theory, turn it into a badly-written novel, and go around saying it's all true, just to make a bit of money? And that's leaving aside the actual nature of the conspiracy theory.

Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
So how "Christian" is it to steal someone else's ridiculous (and very easily discredited) conspiracy theory, turn it into a badly-written novel, and go around saying it's all true, just to make a bit of money? And that's leaving aside the actual nature of the conspiracy theory.

If you had to always act morally to be a Christian none of us would be here. And maybe he believes in a prosperity gospel [Razz]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re Dan Brown's beliefs:

If you go to his site, you can pull up his bio, interviews, etc.

I don't have time to look up the pages now, but I know he says on his site that he's a Christian.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Judging by what his website says on the subject of being a Christian, I rather get the feeling that an awful lot of (maybe most) people wouldn't describe him in the same way:

quote:
ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may.

On the basis of that, and his later comment about being a student of many religions, I'd guess that his beliefs are along the lines of "Jesus was a really good teacher. If everyone followed his teaching, the world would be a better place". Without wanting to get all Purgatorial, I think a lot of people would have a problem with calling him a Christian on that basis.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

I don’t know if Dan Brown is a Christian or not for the simple reason that I’ve never met him or had any kind of meaningful dialogue with him. I agree that the novel is poorly written with some incredibly bad prose and some awful characterisation. Especially Leigh Teabing (crap name and just because it’s an anagram that’s no excuse) who for an academic seems woefully ignorant about history by anyone’s standards. I do however think that the great gumby’s comment

“So how "Christian" is it to steal someone else's ridiculous (and very easily discredited) conspiracy theory, turn it into a badly-written novel, and go around saying it's all true, just to make a bit of money? And that's leaving aside the actual nature of the conspiracy theory”.

Is a bit of an unfair value judgement on the mans character. Sure, it’s possible that it’s true but we don’t know that.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Gextvedde, I was responding to particular comments in this thread, about him being a Christian, and asking how this is consistent with his actions. I possibly employed a little hyperbole to make my point, but that's it. I don't think I said anything that hasn't been said elsewhere in the thread. I know we're all sinners, and all that stuff, but wouldn't you ask questions if someone calling themselves a Christian made a living torturing babies or strangling kittens? That's just an example, of course. No one really makes a living like that - do they? [Paranoid]

It's all rather academic, though, because having visited his site, ISTM he's only a Christian in the broadest possible sense. Ironically, discovering that I hardly share any of his beliefs (or maybe that he doesn't share mine?) has increased my respect for him. At least his life isn't inconsistent with what he says he believes, as I suspected it might be.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
wouldn't you ask questions if someone calling themselves a Christian made a living ... strangling kittens?

I think there's a group in the Appallachians who do.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

Fair point Gumby, though I prefer to roast kittens and eat them, otherwise it’s a bit a waste.

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

Praise the Lord! The Second Coming is here. Jesus has returned, and quite cleverly too, in an interesting stereo effect as 2 posters on the Ship of Fools, Gextvedde and The Great Gumby; who have been gifted with the knowledge of whose name is in the Book of Life.

Cool! Is my name in there guys?

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

I don't see that anywhere. Could you enlighten us, Coot?

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

What I want to know is why Dan Brown has Kevin Kline appearing in his photo opportunities for him?

No-one's ever waved a copy of DVC at me and said "see, it's all lies" but I was on a (very small) plane once with a French pilot and I thought it was rather unwise of one of the passengers (guess which continent he came from?*) to say "ooh, you're French, I've just been reading a book set in France, so you must have read it, it's called 'The Davinci Code', it's SO good."

Luckily we didn't crash.

*I'm sure there's more than one continent whose inhabitants think anyone living in another one know all people/books/places in that other continent.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by The Coot:

quote:
Praise the Lord! The Second Coming is here. Jesus has returned, and quite cleverly too, in an interesting stereo effect as 2 posters on the Ship of Fools, Gextvedde and The Great Gumby; who have been gifted with the knowledge of whose name is in the Book of Life.

The state of Mr Brown's soul is a matter that I leave to the Almighty. However it is not usual for Christians to allege that the Bible was cooked up by the Emperor Constantine. It suggests either a rather lamentable failure of catechesis or a rather more lamentable failure of honesty.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

I agree, although I don't remember either myself or the great gumby actualy commenting on the state of Dan Browns soul.

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

Oh, cool. I didn't realise you were Universalists.
[Roll Eyes]

It's still very impressive being able to determine if someone is a Xtian by either talking to them or reading their website. Ok, so you don't have access to the Book of Life... but we've exchanged a few posts and here's my website, check my profile too if you need to. There must be at least as much info there as with Mr Brown.

How bout it? How's my Xtianity? So much easier to ask you guys than God.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

Well, the Ship's Mystery Worshipper Guidelines define it for me...

Finally, the church you decide to visit must be within trinitarian Christianity, which is the faith position of Ship of Fools. We do not cover mosques, synagogues, Mormon temples, etc, since they represent faiths which belong to others and not to us.

That is what Christianity is 100%. [Angel]

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
...(guess which continent he came from?*)...

It's not nice to generalise about other people's continence.

And in any case, New Zealand isn't a continent. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Coot, before continuing this misguided vendetta, you might actually want to read the thread. Neither Gextvedde nor I have ever passed any comment on the state or destination of Mr Brown's soul, and quite frankly, the thought never even crossed my mind.

My only interest has been whether his actions are consistent with his stated beliefs, having been informed that he is a Christian. Having read his own description of his beliefs, I concluded that they are consistent, which satisfied me.

I can understand if you read 1 or 2 posts in isolation and misunderstood what was being said. I can even understand if you read the whole thread but read some comments in a way that wasn't intended. What I can't understand is that you decided to make a sarcastic and wholly inaccurate comment on that basis, without bothering to check if you might have misunderstood.

It's quite ironic that your complaint about passing judgement on others on the basis of sparse information is itself an attempt to pass judgement on others on the basis of sparse information.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

Thanks Gumby, I was going to say something simlilar myself. I'm sorry Coot, I'm just not sure what you're getting at as it doesn't seem to be based on anything that's been posted.

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :

[Tricorne Hat on]

Ahem.

Messers Coot, Great Gumby and Gextvedde,

Please take your argument elsewhere. Purgatory might be a good place to discuss whether one can determine someone is a Christian, and by what means.

On the other hand, Hell might be better if it were to get personal.

Thanks muchly!

[Tricorne Hat off]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Apologies Stoo.

I've been doing my best to avoid getting Purgatorial (see my comment about the nature of Dan Brown's beliefs, specifically trying to keep it Heavenly), and certainly to avoid any personal attack. If there's anything in particular that you think I shouldn't have posted, could you please PM me, so that I know for future reference?

Thanks

TGG

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

Dito with the apology Stoo,

Hey, that's my first bit of ship discipline. [Waterworks]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I heard on the news today that one of the HBHG authors (Beigant?) admitted in court that he'd exaggerated some of his claims.

[Smile]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
is that "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" is actually a work of fiction whose properties can be protected by copyright, rather than a proper historical theory that is, once published, subject to manipulation, interpretation and recreaation by anyone else? Is that right?

Next week, Martin Bormann sues Colin Forbes for libel over "The Leader and the Damned".

It's a beautiful thing.

[ 08. March 2006, 11:48: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
What appeared to be going on was that they would use enough of the real historical research done by other people to mention names, places, events and dates and then they would go off on a complete fantasy, ignoring things which, if they'd read what they claimed to, they could not possibly be unaware of (that the knights templar were ...

This is presumably where one could use the word "factional", which the NYTimes used to apply to Sebastian Junger's very entertaining but occasionally fanciful Perfect Storm, where he was filling in holes and also mixing facts around a bit for effect.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

The case has been dismissed - Mr Brown wins. Judgment, if you can be bothered to read it (I can't).

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The case has been dismissed - Mr Brown wins. Judgment, if you can be bothered to read it (I can't).

Well, it looks like both sides have been heavily criticised for lies and distortions. In particular, Baigent gets criticised for not having a clue what he was talking about, Dan Brown for persistent shifty evasions under cross-examination, and Blythe Brown for not even showing up to answer questions. Apparently, she does most of the research for his books.

In the end, Brown wins because Baigent and Leigh were unable to demonstrate that a significant portion of the book had been lifted directly from HBHG and nothing else, and no one comes out of it very well. [Big Grin]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Jean Plaidy can breathe again as the editors of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Medieval History regretfully call off Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne.

I did like this from the judge:

quote:
It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way DVC has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The case has been dismissed - Mr Brown wins. Judgment, if you can be bothered to read it (I can't).

I thought the judgement was well-worth reading. It's extremely illuminating as to how Brown did his so-called 'research'. He basically drew on anything his wife plonked pre-digested in front of him and she worked from a tiny range of almost completely dubious sources.

She drew heavily on 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' but at a factual and abstract level which led to no breach of copyright. On the other hand as the cross-examination of Baigent showed, relying on him for matters of historical fact would be like relying on Arfur Daley for a MOT on a second-hand motor. The judge was tripping Baigent up, simply from reading one of the standard histories of the Crusades and even his own side had to admit he was a completely unreliable witness.

It may not have been a trial of the historical veracity of either book, but it certainly gave the game away quite a bit.

cheers,
Louise

Posted by Keren-Happuch (# 9818) on :

The Grauniad's report on the judgement is quite amusing:

quote:
Renowned author Dan Brown awoke slowly. A telephone was ringing in the darkness. Slowly the fog began to lift. He picked up the receiver. "Hello?"

"Mr Brown?" a man's voice said. "I hope I have not awoken you? You have won your case in London's renowned Royal Court of Justice."

I hope that's short enough not to cause any copyright issues!

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

The Judge in the case, according to yesterday's paper, commented on cynical people saying that the whole court case itself was a conspiracy, seeing that sales of TDVC have increased, and that HBHG sales have increased 100 fold. The Judge said that he thought that that cynicism may not be unfounded.

Beigant's new book "The Jesus papers" is due to be published 9 days away from the release of TDVC in the cinema.

Anyone smell a gravy train?

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

HBHG was crap history.

The reminders of it have put me off even considering reading the Da Vinci Code.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0