Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
Sep. 2nd, 2012 10:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackHm. As a plot, Angels and Demons is fairly good. Particle accelerator scientists at CERN discover a new source of energy. Scientists with religious backgrounds read theological implications into apparently "free" energy. Illuminati-infatuated terrorists steal a test device and secrete it in the Vatican on the eve of a Papal election. Academic historian with expertise on the Illuminati is called in to predict the movements of the terrorists. A small romance subplot. Lots of science vs theology discussion.
In general, it's all stuff I really like. It portrays both science and religion sympathetically (although it does keep having Catholics as antagonists).
He avoids the mistake of Da Vinci Code in publicly claiming that all the conspiracy theory crap he made up or stole from somewhere was actually true.
However, I still find it difficult to read, because about three times a page, there's a Big Revelation where he spells out something many ten year olds would find obvious. Which is very unfair of me, because if you're NOT very academic, you may well NOT know all of this (I don't know any of the Vatican history stuff, for instance). But it does make it hard for me to read.
I don't have time to list ALL of the things I found annoying. But a random selection of the first few dozen:
* Don't start by telling us that all the lady professors think your protagonist is super-sexy, even though they all know he doesn't think of himself like that
* If someone has hidden a nuclear bomb in the Vatican, EVACUATE IT. Don't spend a day delaying and putting everyone in danger. Seriously, God's will can be quite ineffable, but I thought "don't sit on your thumb on top of a nuclear bomb while not really doing anything about it" was fairly clearly forbidden.
* CERN does not have orbital shuttles it uses as taxis
* Particle accelerators producing "free" antimatter out of nowhere is really, really unlikely
* But even if they did, it's really crappy proof of the existence of God
* If the terrorists are only aping Illuminati, they've no particular reason to go to the real Illuminati sites, the press splash would be equally good somewhere Dr Symbologist couldn't track them.
* If all of the actual plot twists are physically and logically implausible, it makes it impossible to catch the "clues"
* Are there thirty-year-old well-educated adults who've really not even heard of antimatter? Not even "like a nuclear bomb, but worse"?
* There's not a binary choice between the Illuminati "existing" and "not existing". In fact, I'd be surprised if no-one claimed to be part of an Illuminati conspiracy, it's not evidence that there's a "the" Illuminati.
* There are ways other than "I enjoy rape" to characterize your assassin as "evil"
* I think assassins-for-hire who are able to follow convoluted agendas, and willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause, are probably non-existent.
* The idea of a secret mark which only the Illuminati knew how to construct, but anyone could recognise, is a very good idea. But writing a word so it looks the same upsidedown is not good evidence of that. You readers have literal real-world proof in front of them that some random novelist guy can do that, so the idea that it needs a secret renaissance society of Illuminati is implausible.
In general, it's all stuff I really like. It portrays both science and religion sympathetically (although it does keep having Catholics as antagonists).
He avoids the mistake of Da Vinci Code in publicly claiming that all the conspiracy theory crap he made up or stole from somewhere was actually true.
However, I still find it difficult to read, because about three times a page, there's a Big Revelation where he spells out something many ten year olds would find obvious. Which is very unfair of me, because if you're NOT very academic, you may well NOT know all of this (I don't know any of the Vatican history stuff, for instance). But it does make it hard for me to read.
I don't have time to list ALL of the things I found annoying. But a random selection of the first few dozen:
* Don't start by telling us that all the lady professors think your protagonist is super-sexy, even though they all know he doesn't think of himself like that
* If someone has hidden a nuclear bomb in the Vatican, EVACUATE IT. Don't spend a day delaying and putting everyone in danger. Seriously, God's will can be quite ineffable, but I thought "don't sit on your thumb on top of a nuclear bomb while not really doing anything about it" was fairly clearly forbidden.
* CERN does not have orbital shuttles it uses as taxis
* Particle accelerators producing "free" antimatter out of nowhere is really, really unlikely
* But even if they did, it's really crappy proof of the existence of God
* If the terrorists are only aping Illuminati, they've no particular reason to go to the real Illuminati sites, the press splash would be equally good somewhere Dr Symbologist couldn't track them.
* If all of the actual plot twists are physically and logically implausible, it makes it impossible to catch the "clues"
* Are there thirty-year-old well-educated adults who've really not even heard of antimatter? Not even "like a nuclear bomb, but worse"?
* There's not a binary choice between the Illuminati "existing" and "not existing". In fact, I'd be surprised if no-one claimed to be part of an Illuminati conspiracy, it's not evidence that there's a "the" Illuminati.
* There are ways other than "I enjoy rape" to characterize your assassin as "evil"
* I think assassins-for-hire who are able to follow convoluted agendas, and willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause, are probably non-existent.
* The idea of a secret mark which only the Illuminati knew how to construct, but anyone could recognise, is a very good idea. But writing a word so it looks the same upsidedown is not good evidence of that. You readers have literal real-world proof in front of them that some random novelist guy can do that, so the idea that it needs a secret renaissance society of Illuminati is implausible.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 09:14 am (UTC)Maybe there was something about the way it was described that made it ring false to me.
Langdon had heard of it in a vague "StarTrek"y sort of way, which makes sense. I can't quite put my finger on what was wrong. Possibly the way the CERN scientists played up the "ooh, antimatter" aspect while ignoring the "we created energy out of nothing" angle just didn't ring true for the way they explained it.
The Vatican head of security seemed annoyingly dense. His reaction was "that much explosive contained in less than a gram of material? No, that's impossible! I know all about munitions and nothing is close to that explosive, I shall ignore you as cranks." OK, they probably get a LOT of cranks, but seriously, if someone tells you a bomb threat, you're just going to IGNORE it? Even if it's only a conventional explosive, that could still kill all of the cardinals at the election, that would be almost as bad.
I guess perhaps "not having heard of antimatter" isn't the problem, but something seemed off. Possibly the way the characters played up the "we Know About Antimatter and no-one believes us!" trope?
no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 09:30 am (UTC)[1] you know, there aren't all that many circumstances under which I'd have to shamefacedly admit to not having read a Dan Brown novel.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 09:36 am (UTC)I was going to say, you confess? I think not reading a book you're pretty sure you won't enjoy is a good thing :)
If the person in the book who hasn't heard of antimatter is not someone who'd match my perhaps-plausible characterisation
Well, I think they DO, it's just that is STILL rings false to me but I'm not sure exactly why.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 09:51 am (UTC)I agree, of course, which was more or less the point of my footnote :-) The reason I wrote "I confess" was not because I thought it was shameful per se for me not to have read the book; it was because I recognised that one might consider it a bit shameful for me to quibble at length with your criticisms without having read it, since that constitutes arguing without a good grasp of the facts.
(Perhaps odder still is that my original quibble puts me in the position of – at least slightly – defending Dan Brown against accusations of poor writing!)
no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 10:45 am (UTC)Oh, sure. But don't worry, I think this is a case where you probably can make sensible speculation based on my description.
defending Dan Brown against accusations of poor writing!)
Well, defending him against accusations of poor research; his writing still seems bad in that respect :)
Although, in fact, I do feel compelled to defend him: a lot of the details are bad, but I don't think he's uniquely horrible, just happened to write an enjoyable book with bad details that got really popular.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 01:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 02:44 pm (UTC)"Hilariously wrong" definitely described a lot, but I'm trying hard to be fair; I may not have got the right balance.