Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol
- Thread starter vedek
- Start date
Actually, there are illustrated editions of Angels And Demons and The DaVinci Code.
I'm serious.
Well, that was lame.
Not that I was expecting something fantastic from Brown, but Angels & Demons was actually pretty decent, and even The Da Vinci Code was more entertaining than The Lost Symbol. There were some ideas with potential in TLS, but Dan Brown's amateurish writing makes it impossible for any of it to seem interesting at all. He also tried to stuff way too much into it. The story felt unnecessarily bloated and plodded along for a huge portion of the book, which is never a good thing in what's supposed to be a tense, fast-paced thriller.
And then the "revelation" at the end...I just really don't know what to say. It wasn't anything that people around the world haven't already considered themselves. I think Brown needs to get away from the idea that his Langdon stories have to feature some controversial idea that flies in the face of everything and just keep his symbologist involved in more grounded stories. Brown doesn't have the talent to pull off something epic.
I'm glad I didn't pay for this book.
Not that I was expecting something fantastic from Brown, but Angels & Demons was actually pretty decent, and even The Da Vinci Code was more entertaining than The Lost Symbol. There were some ideas with potential in TLS, but Dan Brown's amateurish writing makes it impossible for any of it to seem interesting at all. He also tried to stuff way too much into it. The story felt unnecessarily bloated and plodded along for a huge portion of the book, which is never a good thing in what's supposed to be a tense, fast-paced thriller.
And then the "revelation" at the end...I just really don't know what to say. It wasn't anything that people around the world haven't already considered themselves. I think Brown needs to get away from the idea that his Langdon stories have to feature some controversial idea that flies in the face of everything and just keep his symbologist involved in more grounded stories. Brown doesn't have the talent to pull off something epic.
I'm glad I didn't pay for this book.
Freakin' Boyscouts. Never did trust 'em!
Finished it myself a while back. It had some interesting concepts, but I find myself agreeing with many of the reviews mentioned here. The Noetic Science bit is extremely appealing and seems to really be picking up steam, particularly with the release of the book.
I just finished it.
- I disliked the ending, they could remove everthing after the conclusion of the main plot line and you would lose nothing of any value that wasn't already said or hinted at.
- The main villian did take me by surprise, so ther's that. In reality it does add a nice twist to the story line.
- Like the first point, I found the events of the ending idiotic.
- It was just too much talking. I'm sure they will make a movie, but there is hardly any action in the book at all to film. You may as well put two people at a desk and have them talk for an hour and a half.
- I disliked the ending, they could remove everthing after the conclusion of the main plot line and you would lose nothing of any value that wasn't already said or hinted at.
- The main villian did take me by surprise, so ther's that. In reality it does add a nice twist to the story line.
- Like the first point, I found the events of the ending idiotic.
- It was just too much talking. I'm sure they will make a movie, but there is hardly any action in the book at all to film. You may as well put two people at a desk and have them talk for an hour and a half.
On the whole I didn't enjoy the book, although there was a section in the middle that carried me along. I stopped reading when the main plotline was wound up. The identity of the villain didn't take me be surprise at all and I couldn't decide whether the reader was supposed to have figured it out or not. I think Brown used the same trick twice in a way - with Sato and Zach. Sato turning out to be a woman was cleverly written, so when he played the same linguistic trick about "Zach died that night" or however he worded it, I'd spotted it. Actually, I wanted the villain to win because he seemed to me to be the character we'd spent most time with, so maybe I had a bit of literary Stocholm syndrome. I always enjoy Brown's "conspiracy theories" and he seems to enjoy parading his research, and I enjoy reading it.
I always enjoy Brown's "conspiracy theories" and he seems to enjoy parading his research, and I enjoy reading it.
Looking back there was a number of clues that provide you the clues that Mal'Akh was Zach. Probably the one that sticks in my head so much is Zach's Bridge. Peters says something to the effect that ONLY He ever went this far into the woods.
There are a number of other clues, and to be hohnest, Zach was never mature enough to know why it was Peter left him there. And to Zach's Point, he wasn't mature enough to understand Peter wasn't giving him an altemadum on the wisdom vs. money thing either.
There are a number of other clues, and to be hohnest, Zach was never mature enough to know why it was Peter left him there. And to Zach's Point, he wasn't mature enough to understand Peter wasn't giving him an altemadum on the wisdom vs. money thing either.
What did people think about
Robert Langdon dying? I totally bought it. The man took what like six years to write a sequel to the best selling book of all time, he clearly resents his fame and success and wants to kill off his character so he doesn't have to write for him anymore. I thought wow, you actually have balls, man. Oh well.
I was thinking about Derek Storm... Is that wrong of me?
I'd say I didn't buy it for any number of reasons.
I don't know whether I bought it or not, although I was irritated that he referred to Langdon's corpse, which, since he wasn't dead, it wasn't. I knew the moment that he started mentioning Langdon's consciousness that he'd be back.
which was a two paragraph chapter right after he "died". There wasn't much time to consider his actual death at all.
True. I did like the bit leading up to the drowning, though. I enjoyed the way he wrote that.
I thought it was another of Brown's research screwups.. I immediately thought of super oxygenated liquid but also dismissed it for several reasons.
Then to have him up and running about immediately afterwards - it doesn't work that way. That is one reason it isn't used, the recover time is long and difficult. It also has a nasty habit of causing pneumonia almost instantly after use.
Still like I said earlier, the book was easy beach reading. Enjoy it and toss it.
Then to have him up and running about immediately afterwards - it doesn't work that way. That is one reason it isn't used, the recover time is long and difficult. It also has a nasty habit of causing pneumonia almost instantly after use.
Still like I said earlier, the book was easy beach reading. Enjoy it and toss it.
I like to hread his books for the research stuff he does, even if parts are glossed over or buit up into something they are not. I find them interesting. One of my problems with his books is that they on the whole are too talkative, too much of langdon thinking he knows everything and wont stop talking.
In this book, Langdon was wrong about EVERYTHING and wouldn't accept for one second the reasons he was where he was.
The final plot device for why ther ewas a national security situation was also rather dumb and I felt it anti-climatic.
In this book, Langdon was wrong about EVERYTHING and wouldn't accept for one second the reasons he was where he was.
The final plot device for why ther ewas a national security situation was also rather dumb and I felt it anti-climatic.
Just read the first half, don't plan on finishing it. DC is a poor substitute for the Vatican/Catholicism in terms of ancient conspiracies and mysteries - never mind all the similarities it bears with National Treasure, which at least had the good taste to be goofy fun.
I love the two movies, but can't picture a movie adaptation of this being anything but fail.
As for the noetic science gobbledygook... yuck. That is all. And the revelation of the Word? Spare me.
I love the two movies, but can't picture a movie adaptation of this being anything but fail.
Agreed. Hardly any action, way too much necessary character exposition given in flashback form, no love interest, only one antagonist - ooh, scary! - far too little movement on Langdon's part, did I mention similarities to National Treasure?
As for the noetic science gobbledygook... yuck. That is all. And the revelation of the Word? Spare me.
It's a good quick read. Not much beyond what you get in National Treasure movies...popcorn filler. It's certainly not as good as the previous two books (Angels & Demons was always my favorite). The antagonist is initially presented as an almost exact duplication of Silas (minus the self-flagellation), which I thought was rather lazy on Brown's part.
The best twist of the book has nothing to do with the clues and the journey, and I must admit it did catch me by surprise. The ending is a bit of a letdown, actually more than a bit...you can figure out on like page 4 the eventual destination because of the "pound it in your head over and over" descriptions of certain things. Not sure why Brown felt it necessary to give away the ending in such a manner...it's very obvious.
And I agree with the poster above...the noetic science crap is just that: crap.
The best twist of the book has nothing to do with the clues and the journey, and I must admit it did catch me by surprise. The ending is a bit of a letdown, actually more than a bit...you can figure out on like page 4 the eventual destination because of the "pound it in your head over and over" descriptions of certain things. Not sure why Brown felt it necessary to give away the ending in such a manner...it's very obvious.
And I agree with the poster above...the noetic science crap is just that: crap.
