This Is The Baywatch One

Tomorrow we celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. Today we celebrate crazies. Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, is being sued by the authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail. This you all know because it has been on the news fairly regularly these past few days. Also if you have ever attended a lecture by Zoomtard on this he would have told you it was going to happen a long time ago.

There is a great irony in Baigent, Leigh and the other authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail unveiling the shocking hidden truth behind Christianity in their 1982 bestseller and then suing Dan Brown when he popularises their alleged historical discoveries to a phenomenonally unforseen audience. Let us leave aside the preposterous nature of the claims both books make. What matters is that Holy Blood Holy Grail explictly claims to be a historical work. The Da Vinci Code is less explicit but it does claim to represent “fact” in everything that takes place inside the fictional plot of the novel. Whether or not “HBHG” is the startling hidden truth behind Christianity, it must legally be considered fact because of how it’s content is presented. For the purposes of copyright, claims to historical truth can’t be owned.

It would be stupid (although amusing) if Stigmund published a book claiming that St. Patrick invented chicken fillets. If OG then wrote a novel about St. Patrick’s cleavage, Stigmund couldn’t sue her for plagiarism. True ideas can’t be owned. Truth is in the public domain. That is after all, the end purpose historians have in mind when they seek to uncover the shocking hidden nature of the past. The veracity of Stigmund’s claims wouldn’t matter if he made them in the key of fact.

Jesus certainly wasn’t married. Whether he was the Messiah is a question open to discussion. Whether he was a bachelor is not. Interestingly though, if he did have kids, then I am his descendant. So are you. Check it out. The numbers add up.

I am printing this Onion.com front-page article out and sticking it above my desk. It is biting satire at its very best. I fear sometimes that I am prone to having the parasite of evangelical Christian sub-culture grab a hold and start sucking the relevance from my soul without me noticing. This kind of sharp point should serve as a vaccination against that susceptability.

Your Correspondent, Lives a life of indiscreet discretion

3 Responses to “This Is The Baywatch One”

  1. James Hackett says:

    I wonder if I would have noticed it was satire if you had told us about it in church rather than given us a link to the onion. Might be worth trying it out on fellow victims of the sub-culture to see how they react to the news. The bible doesn’t explicitly say whether or not Jesus was married does it? I know it is unlikely given the circumstances, but how do you rule it out altogether?

  2. Lucas says:

    Although it may be not be as legally significant as the plagerism of fiction, I would think that the uncited use of another’s ideas is still plagerism. It is the first and perhaps only mortal sin in academia. As to whether such a crime be compensated for with lots and lots of money might be another question.

  3. Zoomtard says:

    Jimlad, I will take up your comment and turn it into a whole blog entry.

    Lucas, I think the fact that the Da Vinci Code’s fictional characters cite Holy Blood Holy Grail as a historical text should be enough to show no plagiarism is at work. But we can look forward to a verdict just before the movie is released. Conspiracy? No!