Dan Brown tries to hit a home run with this book, but instead ends up hitting into a double play. There are several things that are wrong with this book. One, Dan Brown has written the exact book three times. Angels and Demons, The Da Vinci Code, and The Lost Symbol all follow the same basic plot line and share many details. Consistency is nice, but what ends up happening is predictability. I knew everything that was going to happen before it happens not because I am smart enough to figure it out, but because Dan Brown is so transparent it is unbelievably easy to see where he is going. There is not one thing original about this book. Dan Brown has ripped himself off, as well as other works (Holy Blood, Holy Grail; National Treasure; The Red Dragon).
Two, the 'bad guy' in this book is an absolute joke. Nothing weakens a character more than not being able to kill one character who he should be able to kill and not killing someone else when he says he is going to do so. It is hard to take him seriously when he cannot or will not follow through on his threats. I did not believe he would kill Katherine, Langdon, Peter, etc. because he had not killed anyone of any significance. Also, Mal'ahk's motivations really slow down the novel. All he really wants is to be a god, or demon. So he has orchestrated this whole thing to make that happen. Not really edge of your seat kind of pay off. Yes, he tried to upload the video, but in the end that was just icing on his cake of being a supreme being. Silas and Company wanted to shake the foundations of the world; the Hassassin and Company wanted to blow up the world; Mal'ahk wants to be special. The plot is dead. Also, does anyone else think it is interest that Zachary, when he is younger, vehemently rejects everything his father stands for (Mason stuff) and then grows up to immerse himself in that and achieve what the Masons ultimately want? Hmmm.
Three, Dan Brown wastes too much of his time spreading information. His little one liners of tidbits of information coupled with his multi-paragraph explanations on how to blow something a) take up time, space, etc. and b) make Dan Brown come off as arrogant. It's almost as if he's saying, 'Look what I know that you are to stupid to know. Let me share this with you.' As a side note, Dan Brown's material is so sloppily researched that it is clearly evident none of what is in the book is actually true, though he claims it is.
Related to that, Dan Brown, it is increasingly clear, has a pretty bleak view of humanity. In the Da Vinci code the problem is the world is not ready to receive this ground-shattering information. The same is true here. The Masons keep their secret because the rest of the world is not ready. In other words us 'regular' little humans with our small minds and weak hearts cannot possibly maturely digest this supposed wisdom without the world coming to an end. Also, related to the video, we bickering humans will not be able to survive once this scandal. The world will just fall apart. Has anyone counted how many sexual scandals there have been in the USA in the last decade. A lot, and look, we're all still here. It would take more than an video-tape to bring down this country and the rest of the world. But, according to Dan Brown, humanity is far too weak and immature to handle such information.
Robert Langdon continues to astound. First he continues to be brought into these situations. You'd think he would learn. Second, for someone who is as smart as he is he sure is astounded a lot. Third, for someone as open as he is he sure is skeptical about anything he thinks is silly. Langdon is quickly becoming one of those characters you hate.
Overall, this book is bad, and not as in good. The plot is perfectly predictable; the characters are not developed, believable, or real in any way. It drags in some places, because of its predictability and Dan Brown's incessant need to flood our minds with useless (and often times untrue) information. The same is true of all his books, but some of the others have at least the thrill factor to make it exciting. This one does not have that, which is where Dan Brown really missed. The plot, in a lot of ways is absolute crap.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Lacuna, by Barbara Kingsolver, * * * *
The Lacuna, by Barbara Kingsolver is written in a very similar way as her previous novel, The Poisonwood Bible. In The Lacuna, Kingsolver seeks to place her main character, Harrison Shepherd, in a historical context. Shepherd spends time with the likes of Diego Rivera, Leon Trotsky, and Frida Kahlo. All of these characters, in their own way, have a profound impact on Shepherd.
This story is told though journal entries, written by Shepherd and later published by is longtime assistant, Violet Brown. From a young age, Shepherd writes. Frida encourages him to do so as well. The idea is for Shepherd to tell his story. At times Shepherd is reluctant to do so, even going so far as to have his assistant 'destroy' (which she does not) all his journals. These journals create a unique perspective in the book. We are told the story from a first person point of view, but Shepherd does not reveal very much about himself. He is telling the story of the world around him, which comes across as third person point of view. However, since the story is told through journal entries the reader is given only limited information. What the reader ends up with is: first person, third person, limited (non-omniscient) point of view. The reader sees Shepherd's world through Shepherd's eyes, but not all of it.
Shepherd is modeled after reclusive author J.D. Salinger. I do not know if Kingsolver had Salinger in mind specifically, however there are several similarities between Salinger and Shepherd, most notable being Shepherd's desire to stay out of the public eye. At times in the novel this is almost frustrating because in the absence of Shepherd's own words the public creates a view of him that is not true. All he needs to do is grant one interview, but he maintains his privacy and will not succumb. Though frustrating, this 'reclusivity' ends up making Shepherd a very strong character. He does not care what other people think of him. He is strong, confident, etc. enough to live his life without the approval of the masses.
Using character to show history Kingsolver paints a picture of a very dark time in the world's history, the Red Scare. This was a time when the world was at war, though without any weapons being fired. Communism was spreading like wild-fire throughout eastern Europe and Asia and the United States was absolutely horrified that communism might take hold in America. To that end many people were accused of being communist, or communist sympathizers. Shepherd falls victim to this paranoia. Since he does not grant interviews the public has come up with their own view of him: communist sympathizer. This image is enhanced do to Shepherd's past association with Rivera and Trotsky.
Kingsolver highlights some key things here. One, how easily panic spreads. In the beginning Shepherd is seen as a hero because he is such a gifted author. In the end, though, he is vilified for his supposed communist leanings. Why? The country is in a panic. Fear runs rampant and because of that Shepherd suffers. The fear of the American public, and government, lead to his fall from grace. Two, the prejudice that exists in human hearts. Shepherd has several strikes against him. One, he is half Mexican. Two, he is a homosexual. Three, he is private (which, in the eyes of everyone else, means he is hiding something). These aspects of Shepherd's character are used against him, even though he is, in absolutely no way, communist.
Most of the book is sad, due to Shepherd's life and the things he experiences. However, Kingsolver ends on a positive by revealing Shepherd may actually be alive (he supposedly commits suicide rather than face the 'communist accusations). This is a great way to end the book. Shepherd gets what he always wanted: a private life, away from everything, free to live how he wants.
Good book overall. Kingsolver manages to once again weave a great story through some historically tumultuous events.
This story is told though journal entries, written by Shepherd and later published by is longtime assistant, Violet Brown. From a young age, Shepherd writes. Frida encourages him to do so as well. The idea is for Shepherd to tell his story. At times Shepherd is reluctant to do so, even going so far as to have his assistant 'destroy' (which she does not) all his journals. These journals create a unique perspective in the book. We are told the story from a first person point of view, but Shepherd does not reveal very much about himself. He is telling the story of the world around him, which comes across as third person point of view. However, since the story is told through journal entries the reader is given only limited information. What the reader ends up with is: first person, third person, limited (non-omniscient) point of view. The reader sees Shepherd's world through Shepherd's eyes, but not all of it.
Shepherd is modeled after reclusive author J.D. Salinger. I do not know if Kingsolver had Salinger in mind specifically, however there are several similarities between Salinger and Shepherd, most notable being Shepherd's desire to stay out of the public eye. At times in the novel this is almost frustrating because in the absence of Shepherd's own words the public creates a view of him that is not true. All he needs to do is grant one interview, but he maintains his privacy and will not succumb. Though frustrating, this 'reclusivity' ends up making Shepherd a very strong character. He does not care what other people think of him. He is strong, confident, etc. enough to live his life without the approval of the masses.
Using character to show history Kingsolver paints a picture of a very dark time in the world's history, the Red Scare. This was a time when the world was at war, though without any weapons being fired. Communism was spreading like wild-fire throughout eastern Europe and Asia and the United States was absolutely horrified that communism might take hold in America. To that end many people were accused of being communist, or communist sympathizers. Shepherd falls victim to this paranoia. Since he does not grant interviews the public has come up with their own view of him: communist sympathizer. This image is enhanced do to Shepherd's past association with Rivera and Trotsky.
Kingsolver highlights some key things here. One, how easily panic spreads. In the beginning Shepherd is seen as a hero because he is such a gifted author. In the end, though, he is vilified for his supposed communist leanings. Why? The country is in a panic. Fear runs rampant and because of that Shepherd suffers. The fear of the American public, and government, lead to his fall from grace. Two, the prejudice that exists in human hearts. Shepherd has several strikes against him. One, he is half Mexican. Two, he is a homosexual. Three, he is private (which, in the eyes of everyone else, means he is hiding something). These aspects of Shepherd's character are used against him, even though he is, in absolutely no way, communist.
Most of the book is sad, due to Shepherd's life and the things he experiences. However, Kingsolver ends on a positive by revealing Shepherd may actually be alive (he supposedly commits suicide rather than face the 'communist accusations). This is a great way to end the book. Shepherd gets what he always wanted: a private life, away from everything, free to live how he wants.
Good book overall. Kingsolver manages to once again weave a great story through some historically tumultuous events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)