Sources

Now that Dan Brown has been vindicated, writers of historical fiction can breathe easy. Fiction does not have to be completely made up, and so it has been, and so it will continue to be.

I have used plenty of information that was culled from non-fiction works, for how else can one build a framework for the novel? Many's the idea that's popped up while reading, asking 'What if?' and going from there.

The lawsuit was ridiculous from the start, anyway. It's a case of someone writing a book that did not make a ton of money trying to suck some profit out of another's version of the same topic. Historical fact does not belong to the person who wrote it down. The only thing they own are the sentences and paragraphs. Since Dan Brown did not lift pages wholesale, he could hardly be accused of plagiarism.

If anything, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh have gotten some much needed publicity for their The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail , although it hasn't come for free and the extra books that they sell may not garner enough royalties to pay their attorneys' fees. What they have earned is this month's Grand Gesture award, a lovely expression of futility in the face of insurmountable odds. Well done, lads. Now is the time to put out another book, strike while the publicity iron is hot. I hear there's some new information on Judas Iscariot out there that's begging to be told.