My first introduction to Dan Brown was through his incredible thriller, 'The Da Vinci Code' and figured that I had missed out on his previous works, so I picked up 'Angels & Demons' the day after I finished TDVC. This is in every way it's equal. Every bit as compelling. Every bit as entertaining. Every bit as FUN. If you enjoy solving puzzles -- especially REAL ones, than Dan Brown is an author you NEED to get to know and F-A-S-T.
One of the things which made this book so instantly enjoyable was one of the main characters I already knew, Robert Langdon, world famous Symbologist from 'The Da Vinci Code'. Set aside some time to completely absorb this amazing tale, because once you start it, you will instantly be captured up in this highly addictive story. Robert is suddenly awakened early in the morning by the Director of the worlds leading science center, CERN located in Switzerland asking for advice. Robert is less than interested and hangs up when his fax machine spits out a picture which makes his blood run cold. Within a few hours, he is on a quick trip to Europe (heavy emphasis on the word 'Quick'). A murder has been committed. The victim, one of the most gifted scientist in the world has been brutally killed and the mysterious brand of the secret brotherhood of the Illuminati is left on his chest. NOT just ANY brand either, an Ambigram, a word which can be read the same right-side-up as well as upside-down. But Robert is convinced that the Illuminati have been disbanded for the better part of a century. Even so, his curiosity leads him on a quest which will take up the rest of the day and open up secrets long forgotten and better left buried.
Somehow Dan Brown has introduced the element of Antimatter into the story in such a way as to be totally believable. The substance in actuality has been manufactured in microscopic quantities. It's a power source if harnessed could benefit mankind in untold ways -- however with most things the opposite is also true. In this case Antimatter can also be a weapon of catastrophic proportions. Just a tiny half-a-gram of Antimatter if it came in contact with literally ANYTHING, even air, would create an annhialation equal to a 5 kiloton nuclear explosion. When some of this material is stolen from a lab in Geneva and turns up hidden somewhere inside the walls of the Vatican, the chase is on to find it before it decimates the headquaters of the worlds largest Christian Religion. Oh, and to throw a little curve ball to the plot, the Pope has recently died and the worlds senior Cardinals have gathered for Conclave, to decide who will be elected Pontiff. Along the way, we find out the Illuminati's ultimate goal of destroying the Catholic Church, and suddenly it all seems possible -- frighteningly possible. When 4 of the Senior Cardinals are kidnapped and threatened to be murdered one-by-one until the Antimatter goes critical, the stakes suddenly are as serious as the Church has ever faced.
Let me tell you this: NOTHING is as it seems, and NOBDY is safe from suspicion. I was absolutely convinced that one character was involved in the conspiracy and BOY was I WRONG. The surprises are fast and many, and the trip was one well worth taking. Catholics take note: You MAY be a little unsettled at how the Church is portrayed in 'Angels & Demons' but ultimately I believe the basic idea the author conveys is one of hope, and the Church provides that in many ways. I will be recommending this book (as well as 'The Da Vinci Code') to ALL my friends. HIGHLY recommended, and absolutely INCREDIBLY fun.
Showing posts with label dan brown books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dan brown books. Show all posts
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Deception Point
"Deception Point" opens in Washington, DC, during a tight Presidential campaign. The incumbent, a man of strong principles, is a major NASA supporter. His opponent, who is basing his campaign on turning NASA into a private, non-governmental agency, thus saving the US taxpayer billions of dollars annually, is way up in the polls. He is also accepting enormous illegal campaign contributions from private aerospace companies who have billions to gain from the privatization of NASA. After many failures & much spending, NASA is badly in need of a success.
Then a NASA satellite detects a large, high-density rock buried 200 feet below the Milne Ice Shelf on Ellesmere Island, high in the Arctic Circle. NASA scientists determine the rock to be a meteor containing fossils proving that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
To verify the authenticity of the find, the White House sends a team of independent experts to the NASA habisphere, built over the meteor in the Arctic Circle. One of these experts is the intelligence analyst Rachel Sexton, the daughter of Senator Sedgewick Sexton. Senator Sexton is the man running for election against the President of the United States. The plot thickens.
Rachel, while in the Arctic, uncovers what could be scientific trickery - an incredible deception that could cause political and scientific upheaval and cost the President his bid for re-election. When she & her colleagues attempt to investigate further, they are plunged into life threatening danger. To escape assassination they flee for their lives. Their only hope for survival is to discover who is behind this extraordinary plot and expose the truth.
Dan Brown has proven to be one of the top writers in the suspense-thriller genre. The originality of his plots, his amazingly accurate research, and his ability to catch the reader's interest from the get-go and hold it until the last word in the last sentence of the last page, make him an exceptional author. Plus, after completing each of Dan Brown's books, the reader usually comes away from the experience having learned much more than a storyline. I loved "Deception Point" - couldn't put it down. I also highly recommend "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels and Demons."
Then a NASA satellite detects a large, high-density rock buried 200 feet below the Milne Ice Shelf on Ellesmere Island, high in the Arctic Circle. NASA scientists determine the rock to be a meteor containing fossils proving that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
To verify the authenticity of the find, the White House sends a team of independent experts to the NASA habisphere, built over the meteor in the Arctic Circle. One of these experts is the intelligence analyst Rachel Sexton, the daughter of Senator Sedgewick Sexton. Senator Sexton is the man running for election against the President of the United States. The plot thickens.
Rachel, while in the Arctic, uncovers what could be scientific trickery - an incredible deception that could cause political and scientific upheaval and cost the President his bid for re-election. When she & her colleagues attempt to investigate further, they are plunged into life threatening danger. To escape assassination they flee for their lives. Their only hope for survival is to discover who is behind this extraordinary plot and expose the truth.
Dan Brown has proven to be one of the top writers in the suspense-thriller genre. The originality of his plots, his amazingly accurate research, and his ability to catch the reader's interest from the get-go and hold it until the last word in the last sentence of the last page, make him an exceptional author. Plus, after completing each of Dan Brown's books, the reader usually comes away from the experience having learned much more than a storyline. I loved "Deception Point" - couldn't put it down. I also highly recommend "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels and Demons."
The Lost Symbol
I've read all of Dan Brown's books, and while I'm not a huge fan, I do enjoy his stories and the fantastical idea that there could be some huge conspiracy or esoterica out there that only a few people know about. Dan Brown's writing could use some work, and he's not crafting great literature here, but the content of his stories usually makes up for that, and his latest novel, The Lost Symbol, is no exception. This is the third book to follow Robert Langdon, a Harvard Symbologist who previously showed up in Angels & Demons: A Novel (Robert Langdon), and The Da Vinci Code.
The Lost Symbol is very similar to his previous books, in that it has the same formulaic plot, structure, and theme, only this time it takes place in Washington, D.C. and involves the Freemasons instead of the Knights Templar. Just like in the Da Vinci Code, Langdon is called to Washington at a friend's request, only to find him missing, and spends the rest of the book chasing clues throughout the city and trying to outwit a new villain who is seemingly as smart as he is.
As mentioned above, the formula in The Lost Symbol is almost exactly the same. After only a few chapters into the book, I started drawing immediate comparisons to National Treasure (Widescreen Edition), and I could see some readers making that claim if it weren't for a few exceptions: Langdon is more likable than Ben Gates, the mysteries are much more involved and well-researched, and there is noticeably more action and suspense. This time, rather than trying to ignore some rather large plot holes, as contained in the Da Vinci Code, you will have to suspend your disbelief that a Harvard professor is physically capable of so many close calls. It almost reads more like an Ian Fleming novel than a book about a mid-50s professor trying to solve a centuries-old scavenger hunt. That works out well because a lot of books of this genre can get weighed down by the scientific or historical aspects and bore you to death.
That's not to say that The Lost Symbol doesn't have its faults. The first is most notably the writing. While it has certainly improved since The Da Vinci Code, it still seems rather sophomoric, and not on par with someone who is one of the biggest-selling authors in the last twenty years. Even though it's fiction, some of the characters' actions really made me wonder if Brown has had much human contact while writing the book. There are other annoyances that he repeats in the book, but I won't bring them up for fear that mentioning them may cause future readers to have their attention constantly drawn to them. Overall though, the writing is not terrible and the plot is suspenseful enough that I can overlook it. Another theme that Brown plays around with is the concept of "mind over matter." He provides a great deal of research on the subject (too much in some chapters), but I still found it a little too out there, and wish he had chosen a different angle.
I think this book will appeal not only to Dan Brown fans, but to fans of Douglas Preston and Lee Child (Langdon is almost a clone of the Agent Pendergast character), James Rollins, Michael Crichton (there are certainly a lot of influences here as far as research into a book goes), and with this book, Clive Cussler (the action is on par with anything Dirk Pitt would see).
If I had to rank it, I would put The Lost Symbol below Angels and Demons, and above Da Vinci Code. While I don't think it's worth of 5 stars, it was certainly an enjoyable read and enough to satiate me until the next book comes out (provided he doesn't wait as long as he did for this one).
The Lost Symbol is very similar to his previous books, in that it has the same formulaic plot, structure, and theme, only this time it takes place in Washington, D.C. and involves the Freemasons instead of the Knights Templar. Just like in the Da Vinci Code, Langdon is called to Washington at a friend's request, only to find him missing, and spends the rest of the book chasing clues throughout the city and trying to outwit a new villain who is seemingly as smart as he is.
As mentioned above, the formula in The Lost Symbol is almost exactly the same. After only a few chapters into the book, I started drawing immediate comparisons to National Treasure (Widescreen Edition), and I could see some readers making that claim if it weren't for a few exceptions: Langdon is more likable than Ben Gates, the mysteries are much more involved and well-researched, and there is noticeably more action and suspense. This time, rather than trying to ignore some rather large plot holes, as contained in the Da Vinci Code, you will have to suspend your disbelief that a Harvard professor is physically capable of so many close calls. It almost reads more like an Ian Fleming novel than a book about a mid-50s professor trying to solve a centuries-old scavenger hunt. That works out well because a lot of books of this genre can get weighed down by the scientific or historical aspects and bore you to death.
That's not to say that The Lost Symbol doesn't have its faults. The first is most notably the writing. While it has certainly improved since The Da Vinci Code, it still seems rather sophomoric, and not on par with someone who is one of the biggest-selling authors in the last twenty years. Even though it's fiction, some of the characters' actions really made me wonder if Brown has had much human contact while writing the book. There are other annoyances that he repeats in the book, but I won't bring them up for fear that mentioning them may cause future readers to have their attention constantly drawn to them. Overall though, the writing is not terrible and the plot is suspenseful enough that I can overlook it. Another theme that Brown plays around with is the concept of "mind over matter." He provides a great deal of research on the subject (too much in some chapters), but I still found it a little too out there, and wish he had chosen a different angle.
I think this book will appeal not only to Dan Brown fans, but to fans of Douglas Preston and Lee Child (Langdon is almost a clone of the Agent Pendergast character), James Rollins, Michael Crichton (there are certainly a lot of influences here as far as research into a book goes), and with this book, Clive Cussler (the action is on par with anything Dirk Pitt would see).
If I had to rank it, I would put The Lost Symbol below Angels and Demons, and above Da Vinci Code. While I don't think it's worth of 5 stars, it was certainly an enjoyable read and enough to satiate me until the next book comes out (provided he doesn't wait as long as he did for this one).
The Lost Symbol (Kindle Edition)
A quick note on the ranking: I hold 5-star ratings in reserve for the best of the best. The previous Robert Langdon books I would rate at about 4 stars for being fun reads but nothing that would resemble a literary masterpiece. I enjoyed this book significantly less than the other two, hence the two stars.
'The Lost Symbol' is not a bad book. While it would certainly rank it 3rd amongst the three Robert Langdon novels it is still an amusing read. I forgive Brown for his weak writing style and I accept that he writes characters that are fairly two-dimensional with little personality outside of that which pertains explicitly to the story. I accept that this novel was going to have the exact same story structure and characters as the previous two. I accept that the relationships between people will be odd. I accept that most chapters will end with a variation on his cheap cliffhanger "And then Robert couldn't believe what he saw!" I accept all that. And yet, even with all those concessions, this one just left me flat.
When it comes to the writing style I'm not entirely sure if I should be blaming Brown or his editor (or, potentially, his lack thereof-which I guess would be blaming him). The style, while simple, could easily be smoothed out with an editor who was given some room to work. What hurts his prose is repetition of words and phrases over and over and over and over-often on the same page.
Sure, the story structure is an identical match to the first two with all the same types of characters and twists. But here's the issue, this time is just doesn't work like it did before. Here's why:
1. Robert Langdon is officially a moron: He spends more time being lectured to and making wrong guesses than he does solving anything. His inner monologue serves to deliver some interesting asides, but nothing that helps forward the plot. I'm fairly certain he figured out absolutely nothing critical in the last third of the book. He was completely marginalized.
2. The science of Noetics, as used in this book, is a complete throwaway with no bearing on the plot: In A&D the science of matter and anti-matter played a significant role in the overall plot. It's relation to the Big Bang and religion as well as its overall implementation throughout the story was essential. Here, the Noetics pops up just enough to be annoying once you realize it serves no primary purpose. Also, Noetics is barely a science. Reading this book would make one think it's far more legitimate than it is. I was fascinated several years ago when I first heard it mentioned. Upon further research one finds that it is more wishful thinking than science and that it has very little actual research and support. Closer looks at studies (the water that has been "loved" is a favorite) show gaping holes, inconsistencies, and a complete lack of scientific method. While it may sound nice it just serves no purpose.
3. The payoff just doesn't work: Maybe we're out of major historical secrets to reveal to the world because this one just fizzles out. The build-up of this story often felt like it was stretching. In the previous Robert Langdon novels he finds himself moving between a great many locations surrounded by symbols and puzzles. Here, he spends his time in a handful of buildings, several of which play no role in solving anything but are simply places for him to rest or think. I often found myself turning pages, not to see what happened next, but to see if ANYTHING happened next. The reveals in the first two were very cool. This one gets such hype and then comes the "Really? That's it. I just read 500 pages to find THAT out? There's a few hours I'll never have back." moment.
I can say, unequivocally, that when the special edition with all the pictures is released I will absolutely not be purchasing it. I just don't care to ever read this novel again. I learned a few things about history and there were some interesting parts. But overall it was just mediocre, and sometimes that's worse than being bad.
'The Lost Symbol' is not a bad book. While it would certainly rank it 3rd amongst the three Robert Langdon novels it is still an amusing read. I forgive Brown for his weak writing style and I accept that he writes characters that are fairly two-dimensional with little personality outside of that which pertains explicitly to the story. I accept that this novel was going to have the exact same story structure and characters as the previous two. I accept that the relationships between people will be odd. I accept that most chapters will end with a variation on his cheap cliffhanger "And then Robert couldn't believe what he saw!" I accept all that. And yet, even with all those concessions, this one just left me flat.
When it comes to the writing style I'm not entirely sure if I should be blaming Brown or his editor (or, potentially, his lack thereof-which I guess would be blaming him). The style, while simple, could easily be smoothed out with an editor who was given some room to work. What hurts his prose is repetition of words and phrases over and over and over and over-often on the same page.
Sure, the story structure is an identical match to the first two with all the same types of characters and twists. But here's the issue, this time is just doesn't work like it did before. Here's why:
1. Robert Langdon is officially a moron: He spends more time being lectured to and making wrong guesses than he does solving anything. His inner monologue serves to deliver some interesting asides, but nothing that helps forward the plot. I'm fairly certain he figured out absolutely nothing critical in the last third of the book. He was completely marginalized.
2. The science of Noetics, as used in this book, is a complete throwaway with no bearing on the plot: In A&D the science of matter and anti-matter played a significant role in the overall plot. It's relation to the Big Bang and religion as well as its overall implementation throughout the story was essential. Here, the Noetics pops up just enough to be annoying once you realize it serves no primary purpose. Also, Noetics is barely a science. Reading this book would make one think it's far more legitimate than it is. I was fascinated several years ago when I first heard it mentioned. Upon further research one finds that it is more wishful thinking than science and that it has very little actual research and support. Closer looks at studies (the water that has been "loved" is a favorite) show gaping holes, inconsistencies, and a complete lack of scientific method. While it may sound nice it just serves no purpose.
3. The payoff just doesn't work: Maybe we're out of major historical secrets to reveal to the world because this one just fizzles out. The build-up of this story often felt like it was stretching. In the previous Robert Langdon novels he finds himself moving between a great many locations surrounded by symbols and puzzles. Here, he spends his time in a handful of buildings, several of which play no role in solving anything but are simply places for him to rest or think. I often found myself turning pages, not to see what happened next, but to see if ANYTHING happened next. The reveals in the first two were very cool. This one gets such hype and then comes the "Really? That's it. I just read 500 pages to find THAT out? There's a few hours I'll never have back." moment.
I can say, unequivocally, that when the special edition with all the pictures is released I will absolutely not be purchasing it. I just don't care to ever read this novel again. I learned a few things about history and there were some interesting parts. But overall it was just mediocre, and sometimes that's worse than being bad.
The Lost Symbol (Robert Langdon, No. 3)
I want to be fair to Dan Brown.
Elitist literary critics say that Brown is not a good writer, and that his stories are bland. I personally think that if you manage to genuinely entertain and awe your audiences, then you have accomplished something worthy of reading. I also think that "The Da Vinci Code" was nearly an impossible act to follow. People will have all sorts of crazy expectations for your next book that you won't be able to fulfill. As such, I write this review as fair as I can, trying to assess it on its own merits, but comparisons are inevitable.
The Lost Symbol isn't a bad book, but it is a letdown. I didn't like this one for the same reason I didn't like Angels and Demons as much. Also, Brown doesn't advance the story at a good pace. A good two-thirds of the book (I'm not exaggerating, I counted the pages) was filled with variations on such a scene:
Character A: Have you heard of X?
Character B (usually Langdon): Yes, but I thought that was just a myth.
Character A shows or tells B something.
Character B reacts with shock.
Then, insert scenes of people walking from one place to another, being chased.
Then, insert the sentence "Suddenly everything made sense." At least for the next ten pages.
Repeat.
After reading this, I had to wonder whether Brown is a writer on Lost, where people can't seem to give straight answers, and where scenes never resolve any questions.
Here's my advice to Dan Brown:
1. Fire your editor. There were some whole passages, even chapters, that served no purpose other than to inflate your book to an unnecessary size. I don't mind reading big books, but I do mind reading through unnecessary words. Ch. 69, for example, is unnecessary. If your editor didn't ask you to take it out, then he should be fired. Sorry.
2. We don't need to know exactly how every character moves from one location to the next, which turn they took, what street they walked across. If it serves the plot, if the geography is important (as it was in Angels and Demons), then fine. Geography was crucial at certain moments in this book, but many times, the passages when you describe how someone moves from one part of a house to another part, what door they opened and closed, all that is boring and tedious.
3. Don't write your novel like a screenplay. Whether you've done it consciously or not, your short chapters read as if you had in mind exactly what camera shots you expect out of an inevitable movie adaptation. Leave that to the screenwriter. If they can adapt a book like "Naked Lunch," they can surely adapt your book as well. Write your novel as a novel.
4. Be careful of hubris. You're in a unique and rare position that, I'm sure, many authors dream of: your books will sell millions by default and you will get a multi-million dollar movie deal without question. Good for you! Some authors handle that well (e.g. J.K. Rowling), some don't (e.g. Stephen King, Michael Crichton). It's not that the latter are bad writers, but that they are capable of writing some really bad stuff. Having said that, I'm not saying that The Lost Symbol is bad, just that it needs to lose about 100-pages of unnecessary, repetitive scenes. Speaking of Crichton, the reason I stopped reading him is that he became too formulaic. All his books are about a bunch of mismatched experts going to some remote location and something goes wrong. Formula isn't bad per se. Rowling is formulaic too. Most of her books revolve around the Hogwarts school year, but she puts enough story in there to make it work. You should do more of that.
5. Know what you're good at. You know your technology, which makes your book authentic. You also know that your readers are likely to go Google a painting or artist you mentioned and be awed by what you described. That's great! I bet that also saves you the pain of having to request reprint permissions of artwork and such. Also, since most people don't know their history, let alone the etymology of words they use everyday, you have literally an endless supply of stories. That's what you're good at. I'd say, forget the science stuff. It's interesting, but, as with Angels and Demons, it's an awkward fit. I don't recall there being any modern science in The Da Vinci Code and I was fine with that.
6. Try a recurring character. Langdon is fine, but consider having a character or two that returns in subsequent books. Make them interesting, of course, and don't make them a love interest.
So, here's the good news. Dan Brown hasn't nuked the fridge, at least not for me. Also, now that this book is out in the open, readers are likely to give his next book a much fairer assessment. So, I look forward to reading that, but, I probably won't be buying it on the first day it's out.
Elitist literary critics say that Brown is not a good writer, and that his stories are bland. I personally think that if you manage to genuinely entertain and awe your audiences, then you have accomplished something worthy of reading. I also think that "The Da Vinci Code" was nearly an impossible act to follow. People will have all sorts of crazy expectations for your next book that you won't be able to fulfill. As such, I write this review as fair as I can, trying to assess it on its own merits, but comparisons are inevitable.
The Lost Symbol isn't a bad book, but it is a letdown. I didn't like this one for the same reason I didn't like Angels and Demons as much. Also, Brown doesn't advance the story at a good pace. A good two-thirds of the book (I'm not exaggerating, I counted the pages) was filled with variations on such a scene:
Character A: Have you heard of X?
Character B (usually Langdon): Yes, but I thought that was just a myth.
Character A shows or tells B something.
Character B reacts with shock.
Then, insert scenes of people walking from one place to another, being chased.
Then, insert the sentence "Suddenly everything made sense." At least for the next ten pages.
Repeat.
After reading this, I had to wonder whether Brown is a writer on Lost, where people can't seem to give straight answers, and where scenes never resolve any questions.
Here's my advice to Dan Brown:
1. Fire your editor. There were some whole passages, even chapters, that served no purpose other than to inflate your book to an unnecessary size. I don't mind reading big books, but I do mind reading through unnecessary words. Ch. 69, for example, is unnecessary. If your editor didn't ask you to take it out, then he should be fired. Sorry.
2. We don't need to know exactly how every character moves from one location to the next, which turn they took, what street they walked across. If it serves the plot, if the geography is important (as it was in Angels and Demons), then fine. Geography was crucial at certain moments in this book, but many times, the passages when you describe how someone moves from one part of a house to another part, what door they opened and closed, all that is boring and tedious.
3. Don't write your novel like a screenplay. Whether you've done it consciously or not, your short chapters read as if you had in mind exactly what camera shots you expect out of an inevitable movie adaptation. Leave that to the screenwriter. If they can adapt a book like "Naked Lunch," they can surely adapt your book as well. Write your novel as a novel.
4. Be careful of hubris. You're in a unique and rare position that, I'm sure, many authors dream of: your books will sell millions by default and you will get a multi-million dollar movie deal without question. Good for you! Some authors handle that well (e.g. J.K. Rowling), some don't (e.g. Stephen King, Michael Crichton). It's not that the latter are bad writers, but that they are capable of writing some really bad stuff. Having said that, I'm not saying that The Lost Symbol is bad, just that it needs to lose about 100-pages of unnecessary, repetitive scenes. Speaking of Crichton, the reason I stopped reading him is that he became too formulaic. All his books are about a bunch of mismatched experts going to some remote location and something goes wrong. Formula isn't bad per se. Rowling is formulaic too. Most of her books revolve around the Hogwarts school year, but she puts enough story in there to make it work. You should do more of that.
5. Know what you're good at. You know your technology, which makes your book authentic. You also know that your readers are likely to go Google a painting or artist you mentioned and be awed by what you described. That's great! I bet that also saves you the pain of having to request reprint permissions of artwork and such. Also, since most people don't know their history, let alone the etymology of words they use everyday, you have literally an endless supply of stories. That's what you're good at. I'd say, forget the science stuff. It's interesting, but, as with Angels and Demons, it's an awkward fit. I don't recall there being any modern science in The Da Vinci Code and I was fine with that.
6. Try a recurring character. Langdon is fine, but consider having a character or two that returns in subsequent books. Make them interesting, of course, and don't make them a love interest.
So, here's the good news. Dan Brown hasn't nuked the fridge, at least not for me. Also, now that this book is out in the open, readers are likely to give his next book a much fairer assessment. So, I look forward to reading that, but, I probably won't be buying it on the first day it's out.
Digital Fortress: A Thriller
Wow, where to begin. This is the second Dan Brown book I've read and I'm guessing it'll likely be the last. To begin, if you plan on reading this book, forget suspending your disbelief, rather tie up your disbelief, take it out back and shoot it lest it resurface while you're reading the book.
Yes, this book contains an impressive amount of plot holes, factual errors, non-existent technology, etc. The NSA (which is in fact bigger than the CIA and the FBI) is portrayed as an organization with no more than perhaps 20 employees, none of whom come in on weekends. Employees with 170 IQs who act as if they had a 70 IQ. 12 gauge printer cable? The NSA has full-time employees that work as translators -- they don't hire temp college professors to read Chinese/Japanese. Programmers/mathematicians DO NOT MAKE an exorbitant amount of money working for the NSA -- they are still subject to the federal payscale. X-eleven, not 'X11'? Brute force code-breaking as the primary decryption method????? VSLI, not VLSI??? Tracer programs which don't have to be executed, but act on their own? Ugh.
I can overlook these things if they appeared in a well written, taut storyline. In his defense, Dan Brown doesn't include a preface to this book espousing the accuracy of the books' general facts as he does in the prefaces for Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code. So you have to take it as FICTION and not non-fiction. He does claim to have corresponded with former NSA employees during his research for this book. Having a bit of experience in the industry, I would say that either Dan Brown had no such correspondences with former NSA employees, they fed him misinformation deliberately, or Dan Brown was informed the basis of his entire book was nonsensical by these former employees, so he decided to throw all their suggestions in the trash and continued to write this book anyhow.
Regardless, the ultimate downfall of this book is BAD WRITING. The characters are flat and annoying. Their actions are contradictory to their personalities -- for no other purpose than to move the 'plot' along. I think Dan Brown has a Word-a-Day calendar and he uses that new vocabulary word several times in the 10-15 pages of writing he produces that day. Words such as 'andalusian' are used several times in a 3 'chapter' span and then never again surface throughout the book.
Most frustratingly, Dan Brown apparently never learned similes are functional and get the point across, but should not be used often as they can be extremely annoying and counterproductive to getting a point across. Towards the end of the book all these sentences are seriously used in less than 2 full pages:
- "The commander rose through the trap door LIKE Lazarus back from the dead."
- "Freon was flowing downward through the smoldering TRANSLTR LIKE oxygenated blood."
- "Susan was standing before him, damp and tousled, in his blazer. She looked LIKE a freshman coed who'd been caught in the rain. He felt LIKE the senior who'd lent her his varsity sweater." [nice double simile, huh?]
- "Her gaze was LIKE ice -- the softness was gone. Susan Fletcher stood rigid LIKE an immovable statue." [another one] "The puddle of blood beneath Hale's body had spread across the carpet LIKE an oil spill."
Believe it or not, there are more in this 2 page space, but I'll stop here. Yes, the writing is THAT groan-inducingly bad. These two classics in the book make me laugh every time I think of them -- "Like in a cheap hollywood movie, the lights went out in the bathroom just as she heard the scream," and "any more interesting than last night and I'll never walk again."
Ultimately, I did finish the book -- one reason I gave it 2 stars instead of one. A small reason was because I hate leaving a book half read, but I finished it more so to see how much more ludicrous the book would become. There's a good premise in the book, but a better writer was needed to coax it out. Dan Brown is not that writer.
Yes, this book contains an impressive amount of plot holes, factual errors, non-existent technology, etc. The NSA (which is in fact bigger than the CIA and the FBI) is portrayed as an organization with no more than perhaps 20 employees, none of whom come in on weekends. Employees with 170 IQs who act as if they had a 70 IQ. 12 gauge printer cable? The NSA has full-time employees that work as translators -- they don't hire temp college professors to read Chinese/Japanese. Programmers/mathematicians DO NOT MAKE an exorbitant amount of money working for the NSA -- they are still subject to the federal payscale. X-eleven, not 'X11'? Brute force code-breaking as the primary decryption method????? VSLI, not VLSI??? Tracer programs which don't have to be executed, but act on their own? Ugh.
I can overlook these things if they appeared in a well written, taut storyline. In his defense, Dan Brown doesn't include a preface to this book espousing the accuracy of the books' general facts as he does in the prefaces for Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code. So you have to take it as FICTION and not non-fiction. He does claim to have corresponded with former NSA employees during his research for this book. Having a bit of experience in the industry, I would say that either Dan Brown had no such correspondences with former NSA employees, they fed him misinformation deliberately, or Dan Brown was informed the basis of his entire book was nonsensical by these former employees, so he decided to throw all their suggestions in the trash and continued to write this book anyhow.
Regardless, the ultimate downfall of this book is BAD WRITING. The characters are flat and annoying. Their actions are contradictory to their personalities -- for no other purpose than to move the 'plot' along. I think Dan Brown has a Word-a-Day calendar and he uses that new vocabulary word several times in the 10-15 pages of writing he produces that day. Words such as 'andalusian' are used several times in a 3 'chapter' span and then never again surface throughout the book.
Most frustratingly, Dan Brown apparently never learned similes are functional and get the point across, but should not be used often as they can be extremely annoying and counterproductive to getting a point across. Towards the end of the book all these sentences are seriously used in less than 2 full pages:
- "The commander rose through the trap door LIKE Lazarus back from the dead."
- "Freon was flowing downward through the smoldering TRANSLTR LIKE oxygenated blood."
- "Susan was standing before him, damp and tousled, in his blazer. She looked LIKE a freshman coed who'd been caught in the rain. He felt LIKE the senior who'd lent her his varsity sweater." [nice double simile, huh?]
- "Her gaze was LIKE ice -- the softness was gone. Susan Fletcher stood rigid LIKE an immovable statue." [another one] "The puddle of blood beneath Hale's body had spread across the carpet LIKE an oil spill."
Believe it or not, there are more in this 2 page space, but I'll stop here. Yes, the writing is THAT groan-inducingly bad. These two classics in the book make me laugh every time I think of them -- "Like in a cheap hollywood movie, the lights went out in the bathroom just as she heard the scream," and "any more interesting than last night and I'll never walk again."
Ultimately, I did finish the book -- one reason I gave it 2 stars instead of one. A small reason was because I hate leaving a book half read, but I finished it more so to see how much more ludicrous the book would become. There's a good premise in the book, but a better writer was needed to coax it out. Dan Brown is not that writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)