Angels and Demons Book Review
Sep. 9th, 2014 10:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
leia131So, Andrew and I FINALLY finished Angels and Demons the other day, and I have some things to say.
Things about Angels and Demons, in no order whatsoever:
-It was published in 2000 (and therefore written before then) which is before 9/11, before The Da Vinci Code, and before everyone had a smartphone at their side and could Google fact check all of Dan Brown's utter bullshit. Because of this, it's possible that it was perceived as a better book when it first came out 14 years ago.
-This book has almost the same plot and carbon copies of the characters as The Da Vinci Code, but TDVC is better written.
-Dan Brown purports things to be true which are just not. And he can't even get basic facts (like the words of the Hail Mary) correct.
-He also makes wild assumptions that may or may not be true, like that all priests are virgins. Men aren't born priests, Dan Brown, and you're allowed to become a priest even if you've been married or had kids. Our priest in Winston-Salem had three or four grown children that used to come to church and sit in the front pew.
-This book is TERRIBLE, but I really enjoyed reading it, the same way I enjoy watching Sharknado and other SyFy original movies. And it did make me laugh, more than once, on purpose. Dan Brown's humor is actually not bad.
-Robert Langdon is the actual, literal, worst. I think Dan Brown thinks that having Langdon fail at most things, all the time, in the worst possible ways, and yet somehow manage to solve the mystery is endearing or makes the reader more able to relate to him. In reality, it makes the reader want to punch him in his stupid face, because he can't grasp simple concepts and forgets EVERYTHING he ever knew about art history until the second before he needs the information. He literally remembers every crucial piece of info on the page he needs it, after going on for the three previous pages about how he doesn't know the answer and can't think of anything.
-Dan Brown, to his credit, does manage to create likable female characters, but only because SOMEONE in these books has to be capable of using a gun and making decisions and getting shit done, and Lord knows it's not Langdon.
-The Hassassin character (who never has a name) is such a stereotypical (and racist) villain that I kept waiting for him to twirl his black moustache and literally drool as he advanced on Vittoria to rape her. Because rape is obviously all the villain has in mind, there’s no other reason for him to kidnap Vittoria. And of course Langdon has to be the white knight that shows up to save her, because if there’s a cliché to be had, Dan Brown will fit it in here somewhere. (God bless Vittoria, by the way. After Langdon failed to save her, because he is the literal, actual worst, she saved her own damn self by escaping from her bonds, burning the Hassassin with a torch, twice, one time in the face, and pushing him off a balcony.)
-Where Dan Brown succeeds, ever so slightly, is in building tension and making me want to know. I really wanted to see how everything was going to wrap up, and I wanted the things I had already figured out, because his foreshadowing is so heavy handed it's like he's wearing chainmail, come to pass.
-Between the blatant misinformation, the heavy foreshadowing, and the preaching, I think I strained something rolling my eyes so hard at this book. Also, sentences like this were all over the place: "Quite simply, the goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear." NO SHIT, LANGDON.
-The way Vittoria is described, especially through Langdon's eyes, is also ridiculous. Dan Brown should stop describing women like they're in a romance novel, and everyone who meets them is arrested by their beauty and immediately wants to bang them. The Hassassin even wanted to bang Vittoria before he had laid eyes on her, she was that hot.
-Dan Brown (and all his characters) remained convinced throughout the book that if the Vatican was destroyed, this will somehow end Catholicism. I don’t think it works like that.
-The fucking ambigrams. Langdon spends literally pages going on about how they're perfect, and no one in the centuries since the Illuminati invented them has been able to make any ambigrams that spell out the four elements perfectly, and seeing them means the Illuminati are DEFINITELY back... Meanwhile, Andrew and I were yelling that any chucklehead with a graphic design degree could make those things, and their presence proves jack shit about the Illuminati’s existence. The book literally disproves Langdon's conclusions, because someone designed the ambigrams printed in it, and they even made the title into one. Langdon, they are NOT THAT IMPRESSIVE.
-Biggest problem with the book: If Langdon and Vittoria hadn't gone to Vatican City, absolutely nothing would have changed (except maybe the Hassassin would still be alive. Maybe.) They failed to save the cardinals, they failed to stop the Hassassin, and what they did accomplish was destroying priceless artifacts and half the Vatican Archives. The anti-matter was never really a threat, and if the two of them had stayed with Kohler in Switzerland, they all could have shown up at the end and stopped the camerlengo just like they did. The book would have ended exactly the same, and Kohler might still be alive. But they didn’t do anything smart, because Langdon is THE WORST.
-To give credit where credit is (minimally) due, the book did raise some excellent points about Catholicism and religion's relationship to science... But I'm not sure Dan Brown knows this. He still thinks that Catholicism and science are MORTAL ENEMIES, because he can describe sculptures in excruciating detail, but can’t bother to research the central theme of his book.
-Bottom line: If you want to read a well-researched book about The Vatican, art, history, art history, The Illuminati, Bernini, science, religion, or the relationship between science and religion, this is not the book for you. If you want a fun race against time romp through Italy, with a bumbling protagonist but a pretty awesome woman, then give it a shot.
Things about Angels and Demons, in no order whatsoever:
-It was published in 2000 (and therefore written before then) which is before 9/11, before The Da Vinci Code, and before everyone had a smartphone at their side and could Google fact check all of Dan Brown's utter bullshit. Because of this, it's possible that it was perceived as a better book when it first came out 14 years ago.
-This book has almost the same plot and carbon copies of the characters as The Da Vinci Code, but TDVC is better written.
-Dan Brown purports things to be true which are just not. And he can't even get basic facts (like the words of the Hail Mary) correct.
-He also makes wild assumptions that may or may not be true, like that all priests are virgins. Men aren't born priests, Dan Brown, and you're allowed to become a priest even if you've been married or had kids. Our priest in Winston-Salem had three or four grown children that used to come to church and sit in the front pew.
-This book is TERRIBLE, but I really enjoyed reading it, the same way I enjoy watching Sharknado and other SyFy original movies. And it did make me laugh, more than once, on purpose. Dan Brown's humor is actually not bad.
-Robert Langdon is the actual, literal, worst. I think Dan Brown thinks that having Langdon fail at most things, all the time, in the worst possible ways, and yet somehow manage to solve the mystery is endearing or makes the reader more able to relate to him. In reality, it makes the reader want to punch him in his stupid face, because he can't grasp simple concepts and forgets EVERYTHING he ever knew about art history until the second before he needs the information. He literally remembers every crucial piece of info on the page he needs it, after going on for the three previous pages about how he doesn't know the answer and can't think of anything.
-Dan Brown, to his credit, does manage to create likable female characters, but only because SOMEONE in these books has to be capable of using a gun and making decisions and getting shit done, and Lord knows it's not Langdon.
-The Hassassin character (who never has a name) is such a stereotypical (and racist) villain that I kept waiting for him to twirl his black moustache and literally drool as he advanced on Vittoria to rape her. Because rape is obviously all the villain has in mind, there’s no other reason for him to kidnap Vittoria. And of course Langdon has to be the white knight that shows up to save her, because if there’s a cliché to be had, Dan Brown will fit it in here somewhere. (God bless Vittoria, by the way. After Langdon failed to save her, because he is the literal, actual worst, she saved her own damn self by escaping from her bonds, burning the Hassassin with a torch, twice, one time in the face, and pushing him off a balcony.)
-Where Dan Brown succeeds, ever so slightly, is in building tension and making me want to know. I really wanted to see how everything was going to wrap up, and I wanted the things I had already figured out, because his foreshadowing is so heavy handed it's like he's wearing chainmail, come to pass.
-Between the blatant misinformation, the heavy foreshadowing, and the preaching, I think I strained something rolling my eyes so hard at this book. Also, sentences like this were all over the place: "Quite simply, the goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear." NO SHIT, LANGDON.
-The way Vittoria is described, especially through Langdon's eyes, is also ridiculous. Dan Brown should stop describing women like they're in a romance novel, and everyone who meets them is arrested by their beauty and immediately wants to bang them. The Hassassin even wanted to bang Vittoria before he had laid eyes on her, she was that hot.
-Dan Brown (and all his characters) remained convinced throughout the book that if the Vatican was destroyed, this will somehow end Catholicism. I don’t think it works like that.
-The fucking ambigrams. Langdon spends literally pages going on about how they're perfect, and no one in the centuries since the Illuminati invented them has been able to make any ambigrams that spell out the four elements perfectly, and seeing them means the Illuminati are DEFINITELY back... Meanwhile, Andrew and I were yelling that any chucklehead with a graphic design degree could make those things, and their presence proves jack shit about the Illuminati’s existence. The book literally disproves Langdon's conclusions, because someone designed the ambigrams printed in it, and they even made the title into one. Langdon, they are NOT THAT IMPRESSIVE.
-Biggest problem with the book: If Langdon and Vittoria hadn't gone to Vatican City, absolutely nothing would have changed (except maybe the Hassassin would still be alive. Maybe.) They failed to save the cardinals, they failed to stop the Hassassin, and what they did accomplish was destroying priceless artifacts and half the Vatican Archives. The anti-matter was never really a threat, and if the two of them had stayed with Kohler in Switzerland, they all could have shown up at the end and stopped the camerlengo just like they did. The book would have ended exactly the same, and Kohler might still be alive. But they didn’t do anything smart, because Langdon is THE WORST.
-To give credit where credit is (minimally) due, the book did raise some excellent points about Catholicism and religion's relationship to science... But I'm not sure Dan Brown knows this. He still thinks that Catholicism and science are MORTAL ENEMIES, because he can describe sculptures in excruciating detail, but can’t bother to research the central theme of his book.
-Bottom line: If you want to read a well-researched book about The Vatican, art, history, art history, The Illuminati, Bernini, science, religion, or the relationship between science and religion, this is not the book for you. If you want a fun race against time romp through Italy, with a bumbling protagonist but a pretty awesome woman, then give it a shot.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-09-10 02:16 am (UTC)HOWEVER.
I definitely do not recommend Inferno. If you thought this book was terrible, you'll die reading Inferno. I don't think you'll even enjoy it like you did this one. The first half is not so bad, though a little slower than usual, then the next quarter is VERY fast-paced, as though trying to catch up after going so slow, and then the last quarter... ugh. The ending made me want to punch something. I'll probably still read Brown's next book whenever it comes out, but not with the same enthusiasm. If it's a sequel to Inferno I'll skip it entirely.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-10 06:27 am (UTC)"The Da Vinci Code" is way, way better from both a story-telling view and from him understanding the world about which he's writing (because he knew jack-shit about the Vatican and priests and the actual views of Catholicism), but even the Da Vinci code is riddled with errors and is never going to be what you call 'good' writing.
It was hilarious when Ben read "The Da Vinci Code" because he actually lived in Paris for years and he was like, "It says they're driving to this location . . . they're driving the wrong way." Like, he puts in minute detail, including streets, landmarks, and driving directions . . . but they're all wrong. He just knows general things in Paris and thinks that by talking about them it'll add authenticity.
Also, he got some historical things very, very wrong--like he said the Emperor Constantine lived in a century that he did not live in. We actually read this book for a religion class when I was in college and the priest who was our professor had us write essays about everything Dan Brown got wrong about religion. It was pretty hilarious.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-10 08:54 am (UTC)DVC is the only Dan Brown book I've read, and I read it when I was 15ish, so before I had developed any critical thinking skills, and so I thought it was okay, but I remember my first Art History lecture at uni and my lecturer put up a photo of the cover and was like, "This is an example of really bad art history."
no subject
Date: 2014-09-10 02:34 pm (UTC)I think we have The Lost Symbol on our list, but I hadn't even considered Inferno. Thanks for the heads up!
no subject
Date: 2014-09-10 02:36 pm (UTC)I have exactly zero knowledge of the layout of Paris or The Vatican, so that didn't bother me, but I do have a pretty good handle on Catholicism, which he got wrong as often as possible.
Basically, he suffers from 'good idea, poor execution'.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-10 02:38 pm (UTC)TDVC is ok, and a lot better than this one. The main problem with TDVC is that Dan Brown is trying to say the stuff he's writing about is REAL and TRUE OMG when it is clearly not. But it sold him a lot of books, so...