Tuesday, February 28, 2006

credits (continued)

A perfect case in point “Two Historians Suing 'Da Vinci' Writer Over Disputed Material.” Now, the obvious reason these guys (and their lawyers) are suing is money: Dan made a bunch of money off his book, and Columbia and Dan are gonna make a lot more money off their movie. If the historians have a pseudo-legitimate claim to the ideas in Dan’s book, why not take a shot at cashing in! (Yes, I’m being intentionally cynical.)

But being less cynical, and coming back to the topic at hand, the real issue may be credit. Authors are notorious for their desire for credit for their work. I suspect that most authors would rather take credit and the prestige associated with it than money, if forced to choose; in some cases, even if it meant starving. And because their work is “their baby” there is no higher crime than stealing their baby. That is: hell hath no fury like an author whose credit has been stolen....

So, although money is the obvious reason for the suit, the real motivation may be that the suit (for the authors) is all about the credit for their work that they feel has been stolen, and is now profiting Dan Brown tremendously. Yes, monetarily, but more importantly, in the commodity that they value most highly: credit for their work.

Just a theory....

No comments: