“Symbology” is (I think) a Dan Brown coinage. Given the fact that his understanding of Italian Renaissance art is completely off the rails, I think it’s safe to say that his research leaves a lot to be desired. (I feel for all the art history profs who’ve had to contend with his wacky ideas about Leonardo!)

Well certainly there is no denying that and that’s what I was getting at in my comment on the previous post about the nonsense of symbology and what ‘real’ options were out there for Dan Brown to choose from and to make the study of symbols meaningful. Also, art history as a useful discipline…why thank you Mr. Schneider!

I want to merge replies to the previous exchange onto this post:
1. Haha on the “just entertainment” point…you’re right but its also a shame that we sometimes dig deeply in things which may be more magical in their non-verification…like how we [mostly] don’t spend much time on how special effects in movies are created, choosing to enjoy them as they are in the moment.

2. I read Douthat and I’m not sure I understand his article. Brown is certainly proceeding on a didactic path but I’m not sure I would describe it as Douthat does. I also don’t agree with him when he says: “But if you want to sell a 100 million [books], you need to preach as well as entertain — to present a fiction that can be read as fact, and that promises to unlock the secrets of history, the universe and God along the way.” Really?

P.S. going to be in New York next week & would love to hang out…