I was an art history minor in college and had it pounded into my head repeatedly that Leonardo da Vinci was, under punishable circumstances, absolutely NEVER to be referred to as "da Vinci." Some professors would even knock off points from your grade, so I've developed an unhealthy peeve about it.

Place names are one of the many origins of surnames.

I couldn't possibly comment...

I think I will start calling you "van Nederland" from now on, Mark.

Aha, you've fallen into a common trap. We Anglo-Saxons Hollands came from the West Bank of the North Sea.

Dan Brown may well be ignorant of the accepted forms in art history circles, which would be a valid criticism of his book, considering that it's supposed to be so well researched. But that means that "da Vinci" is wrong because it breaks tradition and etiquette, not because it's logically stupid.

You should read it; I found it an interesting experience. The writing is mind-bogglingly bad on every level, from characterisation to description, and the "puzzles" are banal; I thought everyone knew Leonardo used mirror writing, yet it's a major plot point.

So why was it an interesting experience? Well, as bad as it is, I found it impossible to put down. Brown's genius lies in creating compelling cliffhangers and in keeping you engaged in the story; he does this at least as well as Michael Crichton. I was only going to read a few pages, to see just how bad the writing was; a few hours later, I was completely sucked in. It's a kind of soap-opera narrative effect, I suppose.

Sounds a lot like Michael Crichton. Second-rate writing, unsympathetic unrealistic characters, bad stilted dialogue, but, annoyingly, you just have to know what happens next.

Squander - you have a point about the tradition, but it's not unfair for some people who've studied that era of history heavily to get a little pedantic about it. In the end, the whole argument is kind of stupid, really.

Stephen - that's pretty much the same review that everyone I know has consistently given the book.

No, it's not unfair for them to get pedantic about it, but, speaking as a pedant myself, one must always be aware of the risk, when being pedantic, of being outpedantified by an even more pedantic pedant than yourself. If you make even one single typo in a post criticising someone else's spelling, expect ridicule.

OK, so it's rubbish, but is it any worse than the thing it's having a go at?

I don't know, not having read it. I can only point out the ill-thought-out bollocks I know about.