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 02:55 pm (UTC)That's probably true, although of course it confuses the issue somewhat that you say "crime" rather than "moral wrong" – don't forget that in Ankh-Morpork, assassination isn't a crime! In fact, perhaps that's another factor in this case: the assassin isn't doing anything wrong according to the prevailing norms of their own society, even if those norms don't match those of the reader.
And to some extent we do take that into account when making our hero/villain judgments: in fiction set in ancient Rome, for example, we're prepared to see it as a sign that someone's the good guy when he sets one of his slaves free as a reward for exceptional service and doesn't beat any of the others, in spite of the fact that contemporary moral standards would strongly suggest a course of action more along the lines of "don't buy any slaves in the first place and vigorously campaign for abolition".