Theoretical Framework REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
19
notorious hoax, rank nonsense, and bogus. She points out how heavily the book is based on the fabrications of Pierre Plantard the Priory of Sion did not
exist until Plantard created it who in 1953 was arrested and convicted of fraud. The book opens with the claim by Dan Brown that The Priory of Sion —
a European secret society founded in 1099 — is a real organization. The Priory of Sion itself was actually a hoax created in 1956 by a Mr. Pierre Plantard. The
author also claims that all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents … and secret rituals in this novel are accurate; but this claim is disputed by almost
all academic scholars in the fields the book discusses. Numerous works have been published that explain in detail why any claim
to accuracy is difficult to substantiate, while two lawsuits have been brought alleging plagiarism in The Da Vinci Code. The first suit for copyright
infringement was filed in February 2006 in a British court by the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, a purportedly nonfiction account of Mary
Magdalenes role as the wife of Jesus of Nazareth and the mother of his child, was found in Dan Browns favor. No verdict has yet been rendered on a second suit,
filed in August of the same year, in the United States by Jack Dunn, the author of The Vatican Boys.
A third author, Lewis Perdue, alleged that Brown plagiarized from two of his novels, The Da Vinci Legacy, originally published in 1983, and Daughter of
God , originally published in the year 2000. He sought to block distribution of the
book and film. However, Judge George Daniels of the US District Court in New York ruled against Perdue in 2005, saying that A reasonable average lay observer
20
would not conclude that The Da Vinci Code is substantially similar to Daughter of God and that Any slightly similar elements are on the level of generalized or
otherwise unprotectable ideas. Perdue appealed, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original decision, saying Mr. Perdues arguments were
without merit. Dan Brown himself dilutes the suggestion of some of the more
controversial aspects being fact on his web site: The FACT page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional
characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader. However, it also says that these real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters, it is my
belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit. and the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and
significant for me to dismiss. Browns ambiguity on the matter continues to fuel debate over the factual content of the novel.
Browns earlier statements about the accuracy of the historical information in his book, however, were far more strident. In 2003, while promoting his novel,
he was asked in interviews what parts of the history in his novel actually happened. He replied Absolutely all of it. In a 2003 interview with CNNs
Martin Savidge he was again asked how much of the historical background was true. He replied, 99 is true ... the background is all true. Asked by Elizabeth
Vargas in an ABC News special if the book would have been different if he had written it as non-fiction he replied, I dont think it would have. More recently
Brown has avoided interviews and has been rather more circumspect about the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI