HOWZAT

One cannot help but agree with the following: "The main issue here is that you cannot copyright an idea and the authors of HGHG are showing jealousy from the mass of money that Brown is set to make, not only from book sales but also from the movie." And, thank you Mr Damian Griffiths, of Swansea (below), for expressing my own opinion very nicely. Theresa Hanham, Moscow

On his own website, Dan Brown provides a partial bibliography for the inquisitive reader, listing, among other works, the book by Baigent and Leigh. Then he names a major character Leigh Teabing (anagram for Baigent). Brown makes no attempt to conceal or deceive. Rather he opened to a new generation of readers to books and ideas largely forgotten. If anything he should be asking for a portion of the royalties on HBHG that his own novel has generated. Thomas Beyer, Middlebury, Vermont

Yes, of course The Da Vinci Code was plagiarism - but of a pretty frivolous sort. Granted the church stifled the concept of the divine feminine but DVC not a very good book nor a particularly revelatory explanation. If Mr Brown has to pick such a controversial topic, he must have expected the uproar he's generated. Aside from any mystical considerations, it is not a very good plot. One has two choices of villain and one of them is the investigating policeman! It's a rehash of the Knights Templar again; the research is not too thorough. I just think it is a shame that a novelist had introduced even more confusion to a topic that is of serious concern. Michele Forman, Oakland, California

Many of the conspiracy theories in both books can also be found in the works of Robert Anton Wilson, in particular The Illuminatus! Trilogy, so perhaps he should be suing the other three authors. Morris Mixmaster, London

They can't have their cake and eat it. The HBHG authors claim they were writing fact (which is openly credited in the DVC) but they now say Dan Brown stole their ideas. What ideas? I thought it was fact. Case closed m'lord. Also, they should thank Brown as I'm sure they have sold thousands of copies off the back of the DVC. After all, he mentions both the authors and the title. Do they want him to add the ISBN number too? Richard Johnson, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

If HBHG were not claimed to be a work of historical fact, its authors might well win a plagiarism suit. The nub of both books is the legend that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that their descendants inhabited southern France, becoming the progenitors of the Merovingian kings of that country. HBHG, however, presents all that as fact, producing all sorts of 'evidence' in support. The third author of HBHG, Henry Lincoln, produced one or more TV programmes in the style of archaeological documentaries, purporting to be based solidly on fact. My conclusion is that the legends were believed by the Templar knights in the time of the crusades, and later by various Masonic orders who claimed they possessed Templar documents; but that there is no reason to give them any credence at all. Believers in the Gospels are armoured against all this nonsense anyway. John Small, Harrow, Middlesex

I personally feel that the authors of HBHG are much aware that they can't sue Mr Brown for plagiarism. However, bringing up a case is definitely a form of free publicity for the HBHG, as I myself, am beckoned to buy the book and read it. Sheryl Wong, Coventry

Would Dan Brown's book exist if Baigent and Leigh had not written HBHG? John Leonard, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

I am in support of Dan Brown. I read the DVC first and because of Brown's references, I boughtHBHG - I cannot believe this lawsuit - I am disappointed in the authors of HBHG. Lisa Besozzi, Steubenville, Ohio

C. Tan (below) asks if Baigent and Leigh really care about "copying theory or rather the profits that Mr Brown made out of selling his books". Of course it's about the profits - but isn't the fundamental basis for copyright laws to ensure that original authors share in any profits based on their creative material? Dominic Graham de Montrose, London

Dan Brown used ideas that were included in a book written several years ago. These ideas were themselves based on some clever work by a group of French con men, so I assume we can expect to see them making their claims too! Had Mr Brown done any proper research he may have wanted to acknowledge these contributors too. Mind you, if he'd done any proper research then perhaps he wouldn't have included so much rubbish about locations, the ability of characters to go without sleep, the attitude of British police to armed Frenchmen landing unannounced in the UK, the surprising security clearances provided to anyone with a knighthood and much more. He didn't write a novel, he wrote a screenplay for a Hollywood blockbuster, has made millions and good luck to him. Elizabeth Miller, Poole

As a historical novelist, dependent to a large extent on past research conducted both by others and by myself, I feel that the DVC/HBHG conflict runs the risk of setting very dangerous precedents. Precedents which could seriously thwart literary output, diversity and evolution. In my novel, I unashamedly incorporated, with very little re-styling, whole paragraphs of material which I wrote in the 1990s for an English language appendix to a jointly authored work in Spanish on mining history in the Bierzo region of northwest Spain. What should I do now? Prosecute myself for plagiarism? Mike Bent, Oviedo, Spain