Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I am so glad I am not the only one who thought this was dime store crap. Moved pretty well, but the ending made me feel all smudgy. Like a fourteen year old boy wrote it.

I can't believe this book was a bestseller. I really thought it one of the worst books I've ever read.

I so agree with you both. Just once again proof that religious controversy is good publicity for terrible writing.

I liked this book actually and I felt like the ending matched the rest of the book, it was an ending that should have been expected, but I didn't see coming!

If you disliked this ending, I wouldn't pick up The Lost Symbol, I really did not like the ending of that book at all!

This book was hyped up so much before I had a chance to finish it, so I tried to keep my expectations in check.

It was not too bad. Plausible. Then I tried reading Angels and Demons, and ran face first into wild inaccuracies in the first few pages. And that blew my suspension of disbelief. I don't remember exactly what it was about, but it was stuff that most people know, so not really esoteric knowledge. I'll have to get back to the thread with what it was that bugged me. I could be being overly-picky as an anthropologist. But it still bugged me because it was something that could have been looked up easily in even cursory research. It was a shame, because I did enjoy the Da Vinci Code.

I do think that the last chapter was only added to make up the word count!

I did really enjoy both the book and the film. 5 Stars from me.

I didn't feel like it lived up to the hype, but it went really quickly in the reading so... good beach book, right?

I like a good conspiracy, and this one had the trappings of a good one, but I felt it lacked depth. Can't express it better than that off the top of my head. Maybe this discussion will root out what I mean.

To me Dan Browns writting is addictive for his writting style: short chapters, very condensed action time limit - a few hours max before the next Apocalipse happens.
But, with all that happening he just do not develop his characters enough: Robert Langdon is the classic genius teacher that is a bachelor, good-looking or at least with a bit of charm but it never gets explored; he enjoys his loneliness because he likes to stay at home, atnight with his books and a glass of brandy; he lives,breathes, dreams, argues and suffers for the symbology and as for his interaction with his female partners - Vittoria and Sophie: it´s allvery 50´s shyness and hecan see that they are atractive, there are moments when it seems like they are going to at least give a kiss but alas the action has to continue, relentlessly giving no space for emotions. I would say that it is deliberate: i am now reading Angels and Demons, read The da Vinci Code years ago and Langdon is just as a fuzzy character as on the 1st time i started to read it.

Nevertheless i love these books for the fasgt pacethatyou do not want to put them down. The downside is that the characters are a bit cardboard-y.

I'm fine with the ending, I like Brown's style anyway.

Does anyone else think Sophie's dialogue was a little bit too shallow and lacking in content, while the guys were all-blah blah blah, I'm smarter than anyone, while Sophie seemed wide eyed and utterly impressed with the men talking?

Example: Langdon: ".......History is written by the winners"
Sophie: "I never thought of it that way."

I've read all of Dan Brown's books and they are exactly what they're supposed to be - page turning fast paced thrillers. There really isn't much in any of his endings... it's all in the pages before that.
I expect I would've liked this book, and others, more had there been more depth in the characters. Also, after one Dan Brown book, the story line, esp. the characters, get rather predictable.

Page-turner, yes. Substance, no. I enjoyed reading it for what it was, but got increasingly frustrated at his constant repetitiveness - as though the reader were a 1st grader with no attention span. That being said, I've read most of Brown's works ... but haven't kept the books once read.

The characters have no depth whatsoever, very stereotyped: the charming, older Harvard brain that thinks of nothing else aside History and symbols, the hot young cop whith her je-ne-sais-quois (as she is french), the goodies are very good and the baddies very bad.

One can only read these books for what they are: fast-pace, action all-around in each page, huge entertainment....but no real substance.

Maria wrote: "One can only read these books for what they are: fast-pace, action all-around in each page, huge entertainment....but no real substance.
"

couldn't agree more. however, to wrap it up with history facts, infamous organizations and correlate it our current lifes, it does bring a glance of 'is it real ?'. however, don't get me wrong, i'm not obligating the story into reality, it just brings the ought to know more and learn of what is actually happening, because i basicly just love history ;)

Ricky - agreed: a work of fiction is a work of fiction and you do not take it for gospel but the really good writters will prompt you to search for facts in non-fiction, factual books. And if you have the love for history - as i do, too - you will try and research some of the things in there and see for yourself the hard, boiled-down facts.

Poorly written, but with enough fun stuff to enjoy it anyway.

The novel was entertaining and fast paced but the quality of writing is not as good as other current authors like Umberto Eco or Robert Harris. I also agree that the ending did not elevate the story but allowed it to fizzle out.
Moreover, although the novel did not plagiarise `Holy Blood Holy Grail' it could not have been written without it.

I'm not sure I understand the measure people use for quality of writing here. I thoroughly enjoyed The Da Vinci Code (although I thought Angels & Demons was better), the writing was comfortably adequate for the task - the pace was good, the descriptions worked, the characters interesting enough without bogging down the story and at no point did I feel the writing got clunky or heavy. As far I can see, Dan Brown's writing was pitched at exactly the right level for the style of novel and the flow of the story. Yes he could have made the characters deeper, given more insight into the characters' emotions, used more colourful or intelligent descriptions, embellished the story more, but all these things would have made it less of a fast-paced thriller. It's not meant to be a work of literary art, it's supposed to be entertaining and sell well - I think it succeeded in both those things.

Maria wrote: "The characters have no depth whatsoever

I COMPLETELY agree with that assessment. There was no character development AT ALL. Every single person in this book was completely one dimentional and for me, that translates to me not really caring about the outcome. I need to get invested in the characters to consider the book a success.
That said, I thought the book was ok. Not bad, but kid of bland, and certainly not up to the hype it received.
I don't have a problem with the writing style, it moves quickly. It's what I call a "twinkie" book. All fluffy and light with nothing of substance inside it.
But to bring it back to the actual topic of discussion: I wouldn't call it the "worst ending ever" but I do agree that the epilogue chapter was probably superfluous and didn't really need to be there.

Mason wrote: "Does anyone else think Sophie's dialogue was a little bit too shallow and lacking in content, while the guys were all-blah blah blah, I'm smarter than anyone, while Sophie seemed wide eyed and utte..."

Ha ha. Very good point. I never thought of it that way.

Rodney wrote: "Maria wrote: "The characters have no depth whatsoever" and Elia wrote:"I COMPLETELY agree with that assessment. There was no character development AT ALL. "

I think having characters the way Dan B..."

I wholeheartedly agree with you Rodney.

I read this book with the complete awareness this was potboiler nonsense. Having said that, I loved it. If I'm on a bus I don't want to be reading Ulysses by James Joyce. This kind of book is perfect, except it makes me me my stop...

I think that the ending sucked donkey genitalia. It was cheesy and corny, like the ending of The Notebook.

I completely and utterly agree. I couldn't have pout it in better words myself. So he semi-solved the case. Bowed down to a dead person, and prayed. Yes, yes, very good nding. NOt. >:( It was stupid. >:P

I loved teh book though...

The best part of the book was that I read it on a plane to Paris. Made my Parisian stay more interesting...

Beginning, middle, and end, this is an easy book for Christian fundamentalists to hate and those rebelling against Christianity to love. The truth is that there is just enough in it that is real to make it plausible and just enough hyperbole to give Christians something to deny it. I don't know if any of that makes it a good book, but it makes it a helluva a marketable story.

Inasmuch as I don't have any theological skin in the game (my spirituality is divorced from institutional religion), I'm not offended by it. As an amateur student of history, I can appreciate the part that is real as well as that which is fiction. Actually, I have to give the author props for blending it so well. As an author of historical fiction, I work hard to achieve the same goal.

Yes, the characters are three-dimensional, but just barely so. I would liked to have seen them fleshed out a bit more. However, character development is often sacrificed in modern novels for keeping up the pace so that readers won't get bored and flip on the television.

Ultimately, I recommend the DaVinci Code, especially to my Christian friends who need a little adrenalin rush to keep them going.

As important as the ending is to a plot, when it comes to books by Dan Brown (especially the Robert Langdon books) the plot twists are very much the essence of the novels. The main focus, I think, should not be on the writing or how it all turns out in the end but on the puzzles designed by Brown. And so it might be unfair to judge this book solely on its ending rather than its content.

Really? Well, to each their own, I guess. But I thought that the ending was genius. It makes you think and theorize even after you're done reading.

Not just worst ending ever, but one of my contenders for worst book ever. Read Faucalt's Pendulum for intelligent treatment of the same subject.

I thought it was a terribly written book over all. It seemed to be just a bunch of word puzzles with a crappy story connecting them.

Mason wrote: "Does anyone else think Sophie's dialogue was a little bit too shallow and lacking in content, while the guys were all-blah blah blah, I'm smarter than anyone, while Sophie seemed wide eyed and utte..."

I noticed that too.

This book was over hyped and yes it has its interesting moment and a good premise, but I think the plot was poorly developed as a whole. I always felt this could have bee much better.

After the characters leave Sir Leigh Teabing the just gets more boring with each page. The ending just fits the general clumsyness of the book.

I like Angel & Demons a lot more. Similar structure but way better development story wise.

I don't know, I feel I have to give the book that it reminded me a few times favourably of the Broken Sword Games series.