This morning I finished “Angels & Demons” by Dan Brown, better known for his book “The DaVinci Code”.
Again, I cheat, and use Amazom.Com for a plot synopsis.
Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is shocked to find proof that the legendary secret society, the Illuminati - dedicated since the time of Galileo to promoting the interests of science and condemning the blind faith of Catholicism - is alive, well, and murderously active. Brilliant physicist Leonardo Vetra has been murdered, his eyes plucked out, and the society’s ancient symbol branded upon his chest. His final discovery, antimatter, the most powerful and dangerous energy source known to man, has disappeared - only to be hidden somewhere beneath Vatican City on the eve of the election of a new pope. Langdon and Vittoria, Vetra’s daughter and colleague, embark on a frantic hunt through the streets, churches, and catacombs of Rome, following a 400-year-old trail to the lair of the Illuminati, to prevent the incineration of civilization.
I know a lot has been written about what is truth and what is myth and what is fiction made up by Dan Brown in “The DaVinci Code”. The same can be said about “Angels & Demons” I am sure. I don’t know much at all about the Illuminati and the legends that follow them. There is a lot to digest, and if you are not an expert on the Vatican, the Catholic church, and Rome itself, then a lot of this may be very fascinating. I found it as such, trying not to think too much about what is really true and what isn’t. You should always try to suspend your disbelief while reading a book. Unless of course it is just that bad.
So what did I think of the book? Well, Mr. Brown’s writing style is some of the blandest I have read in the last few years. Maybe even the blandest. But then I have read some of the best wordsmiths out there recently (Guy Gavriel Kay, Michael Moorcock, China Miéville, and Robin Hobb). I hate to say it, but I agree with David’s comment while discussing this book, that his style is probably why so many people read his books. It is easy for anyone to pick up and read. No running for the dictionary to look up a word, or feeling overwhelmed by fancy prose.
As for the story itself, it was very entertaining. I have to say, it was a real page turner (allowing the use of the cliché, because I make the rules here). From early on it was zipping around. And I even admit that I didn’t see some things coming. At times it was painfully obvious what some characters were doing, or what the outcome was going to be (and I wondered why the characters wouldn’t be able to see it). But at other times, the plot ended up on the opposite side of my line of thinking. Again though, I think this was made possible because I know little of the myths/legends/truths of the Illuminati. So even with weak characterzation, the plotlines are what carried it throughout.
There was one issue though, and the only reason I know is because of the recent election of Pope Benedict XVI. In the book, the cardinals start the conclave basically after dinner and end up having three votes in the matter of three hours. If I remember correctly from watching some of the reports of the recent election, the cardinals only have at most four votes a day, and certainly not that late. It was somewhat of a big plot point, and it bothered me. Then again, I wouldn’t have known this if not for recent events. Still, kind of sloppy writing. If you research so much about the Illuminati and the path to Illumination, then why not do a little more research about the conclave.
Anyway, it was a entertaining and fast read, continuing my break from fantasy and sci-fi.
August 1st, 2005 at 8:16 am
Hey this was one that a few people thought that I should read. I personally prefer writers who write simplistically. I abhor prose-filled books, and I’m a huge believer in why use ten words if one would have done.
I’m still waiting for The Davinci Code to arrive from Amazon, along with about £30 worth of other books. I’m sure it’s been over two weeks now, damn it!
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:37 am
I can understand that simple writing can say more in less words. But sometimes great writing adds to a book. One of the best comments about Guy Gavriel Kay is that he can write about a peasant going to get a bucket of water from the well and have you hanging on every word.
But in some instances, simple writing is the trick. And the story that Brown weaved here is all he needs to get people to read. I like deep characters and I like prose-filled writing. This book had neither, yet I enjoyed reading it.
Good luck with your order. Hope it shows up soon.
August 3rd, 2005 at 9:28 am
I like prose.
That said I will agree with the statement of “why use 10 words when 2 will do”. The question that arises is “why do you need more words?” As an example from Scott’s blog Michael Moorcock is not a “wordy” writer, but his prose is poetic and rhythmic. And to describe something with long passages that evoke a response, I am game. What I am not a fan of is John Steinbeck style prose. He can RAMBLE. ugh.
But the word “simplistic” can be seen then 2 ways. Is it simple because the author uses less words to push a plot point, or is it simple because the author has great “stories” and a “less-than” writing ability. I throw Stephen King & Deen Koontz in the later. Great stories, iffy writing talent. On that note, with disclosure in mind, I am reading King’s Dark Tower series currently.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:24 am
[…] Also, for those that don’t know, this movie is based on the novel by Dan Brown. I read and REVIEWED “Angles and Demons” a while back (supposedly they will be making this one into a movie, too), also a Dan Brown novel regarding the Catholic Church and the Priory of Scion/Illuminati. Just like that book, “The Da Vinci Code” moves along and seems to have a lot of research and embellishment on the myths and legends. I am not going to worry about what is true, myth, or made up. Not for me to argue about since I am not a theology or history major. It made for a somewhat entertaining movie however. I am sure “Angles and Demons” will be, too. Quite frankly, I liked the story in “A&D” better. HOWEVER, just like “A&D” the characters are there for the story. There is little or no depth to them. They seemed to try and add some with Sophie’s parents dying and Langdon’s fall into a well as a young boy. But they are there just to follow the paths of the clues. Unlike Brown’s bland writing style, at least with a movie there is other things that can make it interesting and pleasing to watch. Some of the editing tricks they used at least made for good watching. […]