So, first off, you know the book is in trouble, when the blurb on the inside jacket is as long as a normal chapter in a normal book. You, the reader, So, first off, you know the book is in trouble, when the blurb on the inside jacket is as long as a normal chapter in a normal book. You, the reader, and me, are clearly thought to need extra convincing to buy the book. Am I right? I'm right.
There is absolutely no point to this book. He may well have been "inspired by the traditional 'wonder tales' of the East" but he really should have kept it to himself. The book does nothing, goes nowhere has no beginning, no middle no end, no point. So the jinn are basically...hang on, the Black Jinn, I think it was, responsible for everything that goes wrong in our time - the whole nonsense is being told to people in our future, I think.
Who is it aimed at - kids? I think not, not with all the sexual references. Adults, nope, not after the first time the words "fairy" and "land" are written.
It's not about anything in particular. Look for a message and you'll come away empty-handed. Look for meaning...well, don't waste your time. There are some bits which, if you squint and look at the page from an angle, might be about something or other relevant, but then they're not. If it has a meaning, why make it so un-obvious? It doesn't have any meaning(s). It doesn't have anything to say. Oh, apart from that suicide bombers are suicide bombers because of a distinct lack of action in the leg-over department. Profound.
And yet, I've read some reviews clearly written by people who only need to be told "this is by Salman Rushdie, ffs!" These people can see the Emperor's new clothes!
I really can not be bothered writing any more coherent sentences - I've already written several more than there are in the whole of the bleeding book! So, here are some reviews by people with the afore-mentioned magic specs on:
"It’s a huge relief when Geronimo finds himself back on more solid ground; it will be an ever bigger one when his author does too." YES! At last, some sense.
I got it because I thought it might be cool to have a signed Salman Rushdie in the old collection, but I'm filing this one under Bollocks in my library.
"Greatest mystery humanity has ever faced." No, that would be cancer? Oh dear!
Well, what a "Deadwood, USA." Oh dear...
"Brilliant scientist" oh dear...
"Greatest mystery humanity has ever faced." No, that would be cancer? Oh dear!
Well, what a let down.
I was aware of a little hype surrounding this series (so much so that I got the series unseen), before I tried reading the first one. But then...well, for those of us who have read Rendezvous With Rama and seen Stargate (the film, not the dreadful series and spinoffs), or even read Greg Bear's Eon there's really nothing new here. He's no doubt got praise (I haven't read any other reviews) for the Files and Interview set-up of the book, but that just makes it all feel 'thin' and a one trick pony of a book, stretched beyond breaking point. First few interview chapters, I'm thinking, "ok, I'll go with this," then the next, "ok, surely going to get down to writing prose soon...there was at least some in the first chapter, Prologue, whatever it was" then another and I'm flicking through the rest of the book and knowing "Oh, dear lord...I'm in for a struggle here."
Then it's so blinkered Americo-centric - and he's a bloody Canadian, you'd think they would be a little less geographically myopic - that I'm finding I really don't care that they broke the guys legs so he could walk the other way, to help steer the thing. I'm more thinking "where is all the bloody money coming from?" Even the potential Nuclear War angle well, see G. Bear esq. again - it's there, then it's gone.
The 'But what if we were meant to find it?' does at least to have the potential to be interesting in the next book, but this one isn't.
‘Crapbone.� A complete load of cliched old cobblers.
What a disappointment. What a big fat, arrogant, bloated disappointment this was. I couldn’t quite‘Crapbone.� A complete load of cliched old cobblers.
What a disappointment. What a big fat, arrogant, bloated disappointment this was. I couldn’t quite put my finger is on why has it taken me so long to start reading this one but as soon as I got about 100 pages in, I managed it. A memory came back to me from the end of ‘The Prow Beast� (#4 in the ‘Oathsworn� series) that it seemed like things were going astray. That this Crowbone imbecile was the wrong character to develop. And I was right. Crowbone does nothing to endear himself to us in, erm…’Crowbone,� for all his odd-coloured eyes supposedly signifying Deep Meaning. He comes over as nothing more than a petulant boy, stamping his little foot saying “I am king of Norway. I AM!" and missing his mother's skirts to hide in. And the constant, meaningless story-telling. Enough with that! Does nothing. Show me someone who diesn’t skip those bits.
And then show me someone who isn’t stopped dead by stuff like this: “There was silence, profound as snow; the bleeding men dripped quietly.� Or who isn’t irritated by his having a character think things through, but end the paragraph on “…and he said as much.� Again and again. And again. I lost count of how many times he used that. Clearly, Robert Low’s answer to Anthony Riches� ‘raised an ~eyebrow� Tourette. And if they’re not doing that, they’re scowling at each other. It’s on almost every scowling page. Sometimes receiving a scowl in return. Or a group scowl. Or an eyes to heaven…O wait, that’s from me.
Whilst writing, he’s clearly had the 'Great Viking Story Writer’s Book Of Cliches - Revised and Updated� open at his side. Page one of that states: “In Viking Times, it rained non-stop. And blew a gale. All the time. Rain - authentic Viking story. Sunshine - Hollywood nonsense. Nothing says ‘Evil Deeds Being Done or Planned, in Viking Times,� better than bad weather.� So, as “the wind hissed out of the dark, thick with sea salt and fear…� we pretty much get a something that for much of its interminable length, resembles the start of Macbeth - all the way through. “Ooh, looks like clearing-up weather, help me get the washing on the line, Ragnar� just isn’t gonna cut it in Real Viking Circles.
So, he’s covered the story with so much superfluous crap it’s hard to get through to what is actually trying to write about. It’s obvious that when he’s written some of this bloated nonsense that he’s sat back, hugged himself, picked crumbs from his beard, stroked the cat and thought “That’s great. They’ll never understand that!� “‘They are Oathsworn,� he reminded them and saw the cat and dog chase of that across faces until they worked out the power of the oath they had sworn.� Come again?
So, apart from being set in Viking Times, in the rain (obviously), where exactly is all this taking place? They wander aimlessly around Great Britain and may even end up in Lapland, it’s hard to tell. Though wait, I think at some point they’ve washed up, as the result of storm most likely, in Ireland. I’m not too sure as I kind of lost track of where they were several times. Let’s see if the book can give any clues…”’Dómnall Claen mac Lorcán,� the High King declared blearily. ‘Sure, it is good to have you back among us, so it is.�" Yup, they are in modern day, I mean Viking Time, Ireland.
And “plootering�? Is that authentic Viking-speak? Anywhere?
Is there anything to justify Harry Sidebottom’s lofty claim on the front that ’no modern novelist knows more about the Vikings than Robert Low�? A little. He, like Harry Sidebotton does in Latin, includes a few Norse Words You Don’t Understand, with helpful translation…that make you wonder why he’s putting them in if he’s gonna translate them anyway. Most are right. How do I know? Because I speak Danish. He gets the ‘eyeblink� one right, as in Danish, we use ‘øjeblik� to signify a very shory period, a moment. Some are close to their modern usage. One was wrong, but I nodded off and forgot to write it down. Oh and, he really wants us to know he can play ‘Hnefatafl.� The last ‘Viking� book I read, ’The Sea Road� by Margaret Elphinstone was effortlessly better in every way. Mood, nuance, interest, Norse knowledge, every way possible. I suggest Harry Sidebottom read ‘The Sea Road' and reconsider his rather rash comments.
Whether it’s based on actual history, as he hints at at the end, it’s hard to say. It’s hard to care. It’s hard to summon up any feelings really. Apart from irritation. That’s two weeks I’M not getting back. All the superfluous over-elaborate verbal nonsense, is just that, nonsense. Does absolutely nothing to get the story across and ends up getting in the way of whatever the story might have been. “In the name of Odin! Are there NO good points?!� you say. Well, as if he knows he is proving my starting point, the best bits are at the end. Not the fact that I’ve reached the end (in itself a good thing), but the reappearance of Orm, the main character of the first three ‘Oathsworn� tales. Suddenly, the whole thing is transformed, has meaning, stops meandering, has interest and I care about what is happening for the all too few pages Orm and Finn are present. THIS proves that Crowbone was the wrong way to go. If he ever carries on with Crowbone, I’m off. If Orm came back, I’d come back.
In Miami. Year, unknown. Now? Police called to a double murder. Mother and young daughter? Looks like murderer has just rung the detective. If it is tIn Miami. Year, unknown. Now? Police called to a double murder. Mother and young daughter? Looks like murderer has just rung the detective. If it is the murderer, he knows what is happening. And what will happen. He tells them to contact an ‘Ethan.' A bounty hunter, currently in Chicago. He’s sent to the crime scene. Then taken on-board the investigation, which becomes the province of the US secret people - and they know someone can see into the future and, well, it all goes downhill from there.
Well, not quite ‘from there� there’s more. What if I tell you, that someone who is the son of a scientist involved in the development of the US atom bomb or something, seems now to be a fund-raising conservationist involved helping after natural disasters and has, oh dear god…harnessed a black hole in an undersea lab…I know� Mix in some Bermuda Triangle stuff, some race against time stuff and the non-appearance of James Bond and we’re good to go.
It isn’t quite in Clive Cussler territory. There’s no one called ‘Dirk� for instance. However, consider, if you will: “I want to find and retrieve it before the damned media start swimming around like hyenas looking for corpses.� Swimming Hyenas? Bong! “…a realization thundered through the field of her awareness." Bong!! “…all you've done is stand on his coat tails." Bong!!! Then, if you’ve read other reviews by me, you’ll know my scepticism about people - normal people - ever talking about their ’soul.� They don’t. Outside cheap thrillers and Deep Purple live albums. But now we have a guy whose fiancé's disappearance "...had left in its wake a chilling vacuum in his soul..." Is that something you'd tell a mate? Would you take that to the doctor? Would a friend, acquaintance, or even a passing stranger, say that to you? Bong!!!! Off the scale!!!
I admit missed how they deactivated the black hole in the end, if they did. I can’t quite think why I missed it - either I looked out the window at that point, or he didn’t actually write how they got shot of it amongst all the bangs and water and whathaveyou. You knew it was all gonna end either with him dying in a huge explosion which also destroys all his ‘work,� or being led away in handcuffs, muttering about it having ‘worked, if not for you meddling kids.� But, in the final reckoning, there’s no getting away from the fact that the good guys escape after being in the same room as/dragged into a black hole! Not a theory I’d like to’ve run past Carl Sagan.
As Dean can’t, or isn’t a good enough writer to, work the time-travel mechanics in to the story naturally, he has the characters being lectured to, disguised as a conversation, by an expert at Cape Kennedy, or whatever it’s called. You’ve seen it before in Dan Brown books, in other middling thrillers; “Hold on, I don’t understand..." “It's really very simple..." (then 5 minutes/5 paragraphs uninterrupted talk on how speed of light etc works). “So, let me see if I've got this right..." (Regurgitate in slightly different form what just been told, adding a couple of things previously seen on Nat Geo channel). “That’s incredibly astute of you…� (as is said here to establish someone’s 'astute' credibilities, which will clearly come in handy later on in book for devising ingenious/unlikely way out of impossible situation) and on with Physics, Module 1 - explanation, question and answer session for 10 pages. Forgetting that at the start of the section and a general theme for the story is “HURRY! WE HAVEN'T GOT MUCH TIME!!!" “Yes, but I’m gonna assume all the readers are incapable of taking in anything other than a straight-forward, easy to digest, plain as the nose on your face, assume our readers are idiots, explanation.� Over several pages. Like when the runaway scientist only has, by his own admission, minutes to live, he embarks on a thirteen-week correspondence course in advanced quantum physics. What he is actually doing, apart from irritating me, is surgically removing any tension. Why don’t writers called ‘Dan� or 'Dean' or their editors, see this?
It is books like this that remind me why I like books simpler (on the surface). Books where problems are set up and solved by the characters figuring it out based on their knowledge and character, rather than money having been thrown at it before or after. I’d rather have an old geezer trying to work out why a chalk mark on a wall is where it is, than a yacht big enough to land a helicopter on and a private army dressed in identical jumpsuits.
In a nutshell, a mixture of Denzel Washington’s ‘Deja Vu�, that future crime film with Tom Cruise and the James Bond one with the world media-mogul person, ‘Carver� was it? Shaken, not stirred, into pure bollocks....more
It would be a cliché to give Dan Brown a bad review. Like me proving my good-taste blog-writer credentials. Too easy as well. It must be pretty much eIt would be a cliché to give Dan Brown a bad review. Like me proving my good-taste blog-writer credentials. Too easy as well. It must be pretty much expected to say a Dan Brown book is poor. Especially so if I was reviewing ‘The Da Vinci Code.' Which was actually excellent, if you read it early enough in its incredibly successful life, that is. A real spellbinding thriller - you know it. It was of course, one of the first of that kind of book, but because of all the similar, “me too!�, “we want to sell as many as Dan Brown so we’re gonna write one just like it,� “we’ve also got a Dan Brown on our author list and we’re gonna plaster ‘just like/better than Dan Brown!� all over just about anything we’ve got…�, it got somewhat tainted by the hundreds of poor imitations. I know it’s true, ‘cause I bought half of them!
Even though I tried to like ‘The Lost Symbol�, because I liked ‘Da Vinci Code� and didn’t need to, ‘cause I got it free from the ‘estate�, shall we say, of a friend of my father-in-law’s, it disappointed again and again until suddenly it was a disappointment all the way through.
How? Why?
Lets’s see. Well, first we’ve got a dysfunctional family producing flawed geniuses whose parents died young (And, the mother ‘murdered�? I think you’d have a hard time getting a conviction there, even in an American court). Which is meant to elicit our sympathy and make them believable. Wrong. Eyes shoot to top of head at that hoary old cliché. And gets me thinking; “He thinks that is gonna work? Oh dear, bad start.� Then there’s a fiendish criminal mastermind. Whose fiendish nastiness is supposedly made more fiendishly intolerable, due to his hyper refinement and what we are supposed to presume - not having had access to the amounts of cash he has and is required - is hyper refinement and therefore good taste. Good taste defined purely by the amount of cash things cost. Like footballers believe. And they play football why? Because they were good at football and nothing else. It’s not like it was a choice between Physics Professor at Oxford or playing football, now was it? You know the sort. “That Fabergé egg looks like shit!� “But it’s worth millions!� “That Fabergé egg looks stunningly lovely!� What it boils down to, is that what he thinks is character development, is actually a really exceptionally dull catalogue list and produces a character exactly the same as every other devilish fiend across the house brick-size thriller market.
And, all the way through, I can’t think of if Robert Langdon was actually described, physically. Clothes and age, yes, but not what he looks like. So, i’m supposed to think Tom Hanks? And his likeability is supposed to radiate out and have you to like the story. Nope, that didn’t help either. Langdon’s supposed be brilliant at codes and code solving…or is he? I can’t actually remember him solving anything in this book. All the codes are solved by others, or the right way has been directed by others and Langdon has just said ‘yes, that’s right!� No plot turn is based upon his unique ability to solve codes. Even though he is chosen, by the pantomime villain, as the only person in the world who can solve the riddle. Clearly not true. As Langdon himself says; “You know I didn’t do anything, right?� Or, for the umpteenth time; “I'm not sure I entirely understand it myself." As far as I could see, he didn’t understand anything of what was going on the whole way through. Lord only knows why his rabbit in the headlights character was in the book anyway. They could have managed just as well without him.
So, the daughter of dysfunctional family, with genius siblings, genius father, blah, blah, blah, becomes a scientist. A brilliant one, totally dedicated to science, of course; “Science had become her life partner, and her work had proven more fulfilling and exciting than any man could ever hope to be.� ‘Any� man? Oh get a life! American thriller writers, as I’ve noted so many times, seem to think it gives their characters more credibility, even believability, if they are 100%, black or white, full-on, no compromises, nowhere to go after saying it, totally, dedicated to something at the cost of everything else. Their social lives, their families - if they have one - everything. Grow up! So childish. “I hate you with all my heart!� How old was I when I last said something like that? 6? 7? As if this gives the character a fully-rounded completeness. For the love of God! "Katherine Solomon had read every word Albert Einstein had ever written..." See? All, or nothing. No where to go after saying that. Except for us. We go and question the validity of that statement. It’s meant to say a lot, but says nothing. Did she read the "milk, eggs, marge, jam..." Shopping note Einstein wrote once? I guarantee he did write something like that, and she read it? Or the “pick up dry cleaning, ring plumber" note? No. So she HASN'T read EVERY WORD he had EVER written. So why say she had? Why include a demonstrable lie? Face it Dan, it makes Katherine Solomon LESS believable. If that were even possible.
And while we’re on that sort of putting your back up-type of thing. A challenge: Have you ever told anyone, you feel, or have been, ‘nurtured� by something/anything? Ever? So, why do it? All it does is stop me in my tracks. Stop me reading. Make the reading disjointed. Interrupt the flow that there should be because this is a thriller. It’s supposed to have flow. I suppose he thinks a character who professes to be ‘nurtured� by something or someone, is more rounded. But unfortunately, it’s only in the way of him being both an idiot AND quite probably a piss-head idiot. More one dimensional. Flat. Dull. Face it, if anyone told me they felt nurtured, to my face, I’d laugh and point. You would too. You know you would.
So, the baddie goes to sort the scientist woman out. But he doesn’t drive in his car to meet her, this fiendish madman, he is “pulled onward by destiny’s gravity.� Groan! What is surely supposed to strike terror into our hearts, comes out like a comedy parody of a horror film; because he is, wait for it, “The Hand of the Mysteries.� You can almost hear the “duh, duh, durrrrh!" in the background. And anyway, this one is surely Silas from ‘Da Vinci Code'? With money, without the religion? And darker eyes?
Then, the document they want to see the whole of, that they can only find a censored copy of on the net. They can't identify the IP number. It doesn't exist. And even the brilliant computer expert can’t trace it. So they overpay a hacker, who tries everything, but gets nowhere. "His best hacking tools were entirely ineffective at breaking into the document or unmasking Trish's mysterious IP address." Clearly, the people behind the document do not want to be identified. At all. Ever…But, wait, didn’t our people ‘Google� the original document? But never mind that. Clearly they do NOT want to be found. Then, the phone rings. "This is systems security for the Central Intelligence Agency. We would like to know why you are attempting to hack one of our classified databases.� "Ah! So THAT’S who it belongs to, why did we bother paying someone to find out who it was, when THEY will ring US?!� “What?� Says CIA person; “D’oh!�
What’s the rest of it actually about? Don’t worry about that, it’s not worth it. And the end, the supposed denouement, face it, even if you think I’m wrong, we’ve been led to think there will be a big reveal - is a huge fudge. I’m not even sure what it was and I'm writing this after just having read it. The reveal, like the book and the book after the reveal, just went on and on. And on. Until, I think, well, it was, or at least it could have been…ah, fuck it, I don’t care any more. Muddled, mixed up, no punch.
It’s clear that DB wanted to write an epic, a worthy follow up to ‘Da Vinci Code.� So, ”’Epic�, eh? THAT MEANS LONG! Excellent!� And so, the story not only stops and starts, stretched thinner than a 50-year old’s comb-over, but comes to a grinding halt to be placed on life-support, padded out with all sorts of airy-fairy ‘scientific� nonsense - that because it has appeared in the ‘real� world and is mentioned in his foreword (or afterward, or wherever it was), attains some sort of credibility. ‘Noetics�? OK, it IS a thing, but if it needs to be explained at such length, by two ‘brilliant minds� holding a conversation that isn’t actually a conversation, but is each lecturing the other, he knows it is a load of old fanny and my mind gores off to make a cup of coffee.
It’s tricky to see what Dan Brown wanted to do with ‘The Lost Symbol.� Apart from follow up a huge money spinner, with another (long) one. There is some commentary on the fundamental points of Christianity - all religion, in some cases - but a lot of it is buried away in what is a pointlessly over long book. The revelations (for those who hadn’t read ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail� et al) in ‘The Da Vinci Code,� were much more up front and in your (especially if you were a Catholic) face. Here, the little nuggets - ‘Amen/Amun� (though I can’t remember him mentioning Akhenaten for example), are much further below the surface. One does get the idea that Dan Brown may be an Atheist, he may be wanting to undermine religion(s) by showing their commonality - which would suggest he would welcome another controversy like ‘Da Vici Code,� partly to put his ideas over, partly to sell books of course. And is showing that you can pretty much find anything you want to look for in texts like the Bible. Either he’s very naive, or he’s very clever, slipping his ideas in under our radar. But does the average airport bookshopper care enough? About Freemasons, for example? Hasn’t all that been done enough already? While some of these ideas are pretty controversial, not least because they are logical, something religions never like, their below the radar buried-ness, suggests either he isn’t sure of the ideas, or doesn’t really know how to incorporate them into the suspense side of the story. As he did - admit it - to great effect with the ‘Da Vinci Code.� While that was a real page-turner, can’t put it down, runaway train - this decidedly is not. There were times when I had to keep reading, very, very occasionally because the story captured me, but mainly it was due to the short, choppy, chapter style. Which meant that I thought; “ok, I’ll give it one more chapter…oh, only two pages long, that’s not telling me anything - one more then…oh, three pages, well, the story might move on/go somewhere next time, so one more then…� etc.
One final thing that really irritated me, was a really shocking disregard for the First Nation peoples. The people who were in America before Washington and the other slave-owners decided they wanted a new land in which to own their slaves…He explains that The Library of Congress was “One of the first buildings in Washington to have electric lights, it literally shone like a beacon in the darkness of the New World.� ‘Darkness of the New World�? I bet the Native Americans would beg to differ there. "The founding fathers had envisioned America as a blank canvas, a fertile field on which the seeds of the mysteries could be sown" 'Hello! We were here! It wasn't a blank fucking canvas! There was already a very developed, well functioning civilisation here! We got crushed by the founding fucking fathers!� As someone much later would say; “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, my brothers and sisters, Plymouth Rock landed on us!�
And why three stars if it’s so bad? One star because I managed to go all the way through. One star carried over from ‘Da Vinci Code.' And it gets a full, whole star for having, on P27: ”Awesome!� Someone shouted. Langdon rolled his eyes, wishing someone would ban that word.� Quite right, as any sane, sentient being realises. The last fall-back of those unable to express themselves properly. And the only reason why it gets three and not two....more
Long-winded, convoluted, meandering, unnecessary, “me-too� bollocks at that.
I can only surmise that the people quotedThis is gonna be easy: Bollocks.
Long-winded, convoluted, meandering, unnecessary, “me-too� bollocks at that.
I can only surmise that the people quoted at length on the back cover, who really ought to know better, have been blinded by the dazzling array of ancient scholars poets and painters mentioned inside. As usual, they seem to be describing a book they may well have read, but that, with the best will in the world, isn’t this one. It certainly isn’t “one part The Da Vinci Code�, one part ’The Name of the Rose.� That’s up the top on the back there to say "you've heard of Da Vinci Code', but are too intellectual to read it? Well it's ok to read this, cause we've put The Name of the Rose' at the top as well!� !t isn’t. It wants to be, but isn’t in the same ball-park, however your opinion of the two other books is.
It is a very dull book about another very dull book. A 'real' book it seems, with a very nearly unpronounceable title. One I can’t be bothered going all the way over there to find. One that some Princeton students have decided they can decipher. Not that I could find any reference to anyone ever deciding it actually needed deciphering. Maybe I didn’t look hard enough. It’s perfectly possible. But what’s Wikipedia for, if not to save you the trouble of deciding if anyone has ever felt it needed deciphering and wasn’t actually just a load of dull old crepe?
Can I be bothered reciting the plot? Well, if there is one, it tries to maybe be about obsession. But I really got beyond caring. It really doesn't connect. Tries to, obsessively, but misses. The obsession caused by at least two of them going them very nearly going doo-lally trying to decipher the book, sliding around Princeton in the snow, missing deadlines, fumbling relationships, setting fire to the college library and all that student-type jazz. As with all American novels, of what ever genre, involving four students, each is a unique, borderline genius in his own way (of course). Though (of course) with troubled backgrounds. But they’re, navel-staring, indecisive characters that really aren’t all that interesting, no matter how many scarves they wear.
(And why can’t there be a normal, struggling through, only ever understanding their college years, years later, average intelligence, bloke, in any of these things? US authors always seem to think it’s more convincing if they have characters who are absolutely, exceptionally, brilliantly talented at something - or many things - and then try to suggest they are also ordinary, because they stay up all night researching, wear tatty clothes and forget to eat for days. I wore tatty clothes because I hadn’t two brass farthings (Hey, I remember Farthings!) to rub together. Mainly because I’d spent the rest on BEER, but that’s another story).
Back to the name of the book inside the book. What a mistake that was! There can’t be anyone who has read the ‘Da Vinci Code� bit on the back and then ‘The Rule of Four� who hasn’t tried to pronounce the ancient book’s title a couple of times, given up, then skipped over every mention thereafter. It means you at no time connect with their obsession. You should be able to understand their obsession, by connecting with it. But if you glaze over at the mention of the book’s name, how can you come past that to connect with their problems? Can’t be done. Nope.
In its early stages, it doesn’t know what it wants to be. Where it wants to go. Actually, I NEVER felt it came to a proper decision there. A quest to decipher a code becomes an in-depth look at rich kids� student life at Princeton. Clearly, their editor nudged one of them and points to the supposed premise of the story and yells “get on with it!� No surprise it’s written by two of them. One must have gone on holiday at points during the writing, then couldn’t be bothered reading what the other had written when he got back and just carried on with his section where the other left off. And no, the Princeton stuff isn’t good background setting, it’s padding. It’s there to say to US readers: "Hey! We’ve got somewhere equally as snooty as Oxford and Cambridge!� That’s all. Then, towards the end, realising one of them has written too much about staying up late at Princeton, the other decides to finish it (and you) off with page after page (after page) of explanation of what the unpronounceable book supposedly leads to. And where. Always a bad sign, as I’ve noted elsewhere. Shows they haven't done their job well enough earlier on. And it does go on and on. A couple of pages would have been more than enough. Once it’s clear what it is the book leads to, whilst hiding it from ‘the unworthy�, I’ve lost interest. As, I suspect, the ending shows the authors had too.
A waste of time. Mostly mine. At least they got paid for it....more
Loading...
