Why is da Vinci’s name on the cover?

[anwidmer]

Annakathleen you took my feeling on the subject and put them into words better then i ever could. I agree fully

[bookowlie]

I can't really say the author was being deceitful with the title. The missing painting was painted by the famous artist and one of the female characters, Fioretta, was friends with him. You could say that Angela also "knew" him because she was Fioretta in a past life.

[Aubrey Lewis]

It might seem like a marketing strategy, but for me, the title is really poetic in a way. This is because it caught my attention at first sight. In my opinion, I don't think it's unethical to use da Vinci's name, only that it might set the bar for standards regarding this book quite high because of it.

[greenstripedgiraffe]

I don't know that it was unethical, per se, but I personally picked up the book thinking it was going to be a good historical mystery. I was sad to find out it was really a romance. But - da Vinci WAS a character throughout, so... it was a true enough title.

[anwidmer]

I don't know that it was unethical, per se, but I personally picked up the book thinking it was going to be a good historical mystery. I was sad to find out it was really a romance. But - da Vinci WAS a character throughout, so... it was a true enough title.

I agree i definitly dont see what all the fuss about his name on the cover is.

[bookowlie]

It might seem like a marketing strategy, but for me, the title is really poetic in a way. This is because it caught my attention at first sight. In my opinion, I don't think it's unethical to use da Vinci's name, only that it might set the bar for standards regarding this book quite high because of it.

I guess it's a good idea for an author to come up with an attention-grabbing title to make their book stand out. You made a good point about setting the bar too high because of the use of da Vinci's name. Actually, I was pleasantly surprised that the book didn't turn out to be a clone of Dan Brown's book although both books included a search for a painting.

[greenstripedgiraffe]

I don't like that the painter's name was used in the title. Although the missing painting was done by him, he is an extemely minor character in the story. I also feel the title is misleading. It makes the reader assume the book is about a girl who knew da Vinci. Technically, Fioretta knew him, but that part of the plot is minor. I think the author used da Vinci's name in the title to benefit from the success of Dan Brown's book. It's the same thing with the central plot of searching for a missing piece of art. Although the rest of the story is original, I don't like it when an author capitalizes on another author's success.

I hadn't even thought of Dan Brown's book, so that part didn't bother me. But, I did assume that the book was going to be much more centered on daVinci, art history, historical fiction, etc., I kinda felt that I was blindsided into reading a romance novel.

[bookowlie]

I don't like that the painter's name was used in the title. Although the missing painting was done by him, he is an extemely minor character in the story. I also feel the title is misleading. It makes the reader assume the book is about a girl who knew da Vinci. Technically, Fioretta knew him, but that part of the plot is minor. I think the author used da Vinci's name in the title to benefit from the success of Dan Brown's book. It's the same thing with the central plot of searching for a missing piece of art. Although the rest of the story is original, I don't like it when an author capitalizes on another author's success.

I hadn't even thought of Dan Brown's book, so that part didn't bother me. But, I did assume that the book was going to be much more centered on daVinci, art history, historical fiction, etc., I kinda felt that I was blindsided into reading a romance novel.

I agree that the heavy romance plotline was pretty unexpected. Mysteries often have a simmering attraction between the main characters, but I didn't like the overly erotic romance in this book. It dragged the plot off on tangents and stopped things from moving forward.

[greenstripedgiraffe]

I don't like that the painter's name was used in the title. Although the missing painting was done by him, he is an extemely minor character in the story. I also feel the title is misleading. It makes the reader assume the book is about a girl who knew da Vinci. Technically, Fioretta knew him, but that part of the plot is minor. I think the author used da Vinci's name in the title to benefit from the success of Dan Brown's book. It's the same thing with the central plot of searching for a missing piece of art. Although the rest of the story is original, I don't like it when an author capitalizes on another author's success.

I hadn't even thought of Dan Brown's book, so that part didn't bother me. But, I did assume that the book was going to be much more centered on daVinci, art history, historical fiction, etc., I kinda felt that I was blindsided into reading a romance novel.

I agree that the heavy romance plotline was pretty unexpected. Mysteries often have a simmering attraction between the main characters, but I didn't like the overly erotic romance in this book. It dragged the plot off on tangents and stopped things from moving forward.

So glad to know I wasn't the only one taken off guard by the heavy romance. I kept thinking that I had missed something in the book description But, couldn't get back to that again. I am not against attractions or romances found within other genres. But, I did think it detracted in this case. Or, maybe it's more that the history had a potential to detract from the romance, depending on how you look at it

[bookowlie]

Greenstripedgiraffe - It's true that it depends on the way you look at it. However, the historical scenes were an integral part of the plot whereas the Alex-Angela romance, for me, was a sideshow. I think It was just something to throw in to grab readers who like erotic romances. It's like having a buffet of food to satisfy every guest's tastes.

[scratchcat318]

I don't really understand why people believe it to be unethical. I think the use of da Vinci's name in the title is fine. Considering da Vinci's painting is what ties all the stories together, it makes sense as to why his name is featured in the title. Plus, it makes for a catchy-sounding title that people will easily remember. It might be a touch misleading, as da Vinci himself doesn't appear as often as other characters, but I don't find it to be unethical.

[kfwilson6]

I don't really understand why people believe it to be unethical. I think the use of da Vinci's name in the title is fine. Considering da Vinci's painting is what ties all the stories together, it makes sense as to why his name is featured in the title. Plus, it makes for a catchy-sounding title that people will easily remember. It might be a touch misleading, as da Vinci himself doesn't appear as often as other characters, but I don't find it to be unethical.

Very good point. The painting, done by da Vinci wasn't just the focal point of the art detecting, it was a connection from the fifteenth century to today. Art has amazing longevity, especially when attributed to a famous artist. There is so much value which is great because the value and reputation that art has will keep people seeking to enjoy it. It makes sense why Gerhard would find a painting worth saving.

[bookowlie]

I think anything an author can do to sell more books is a good thing. At least, da Vinci was a character in the book and the artist who did the missing painting. He also was friends with Fioretta who was technically Angela in a past life. Even if the story only contained one of these plot points, it's not unethical for the author to use the artist's name in the title. It's tough to market a book and any edge she can use to appeal to a wider audience is fair game. I am sure she will include other artists' names in the next titles in the series, depending on which artist's work is being sought.

[Libs_Books]

I think anything an author can do to sell more books is a good thing ... it's not unethical for the author to use the artist's name in the title. It's tough to market a book and any edge she can use to appeal to a wider audience is fair game. I am sure she will include other artists' names in the next titles in the series, depending on which artist's work is being sought.

I think that makes a fair point, and it will be interesting to see if the pattern continues. Of course, there's also the use of "The girl who..." - perhaps a reference to a different kind of mystery story, but one also revolving around a heroine with extraordinary gifts.

[bookowlie]

I think anything an author can do to sell more books is a good thing ... it's not unethical for the author to use the artist's name in the title. It's tough to market a book and any edge she can use to appeal to a wider audience is fair game. I am sure she will include other artists' names in the next titles in the series, depending on which artist's work is being sought.

I think that makes a fair point, and it will be interesting to see if the pattern continues. Of course, there's also the use of "The girl who..." - perhaps a reference to a different kind of mystery story, but one also revolving around a heroine with extraordinary gifts.

When I first saw the title, I initially didn't think the story would be about a protoganist with psychic gifts. I just thought the mystery would include flashbacks to an earlier era and a woman who knew da Vinci at the time. Books often have parallel stories from the present and past where there are no paranormal elements involved.