angelophile | What I am Reeding

The mystery thriller is a genre that thrives on characters who are more cliché than realistic, plot devices that require an inordinate amount of suspension of disbelief, obvious facts that everyone can ascertain except for the character who needs to know it the most, important information left out of the story and then conveniently placed at the end to provide for the surprise twist, and not all plot lines being brought to a successful conclusion by the time the story is over.

Sadly, despite the massive critical acclaim this book has had, amid the controversy of its subject matter, Dan Brown doesn't actually avoid all these potholes and on occasion goes tumbling into them arse over tit.

Okay, the basic premise of the book if fairly solid - the curator of the Louver is found murdered and he has left a series of seemingly impenetrable clues as to the identity of his murderer and leading historian Robert Langdon and cryptologist Sophie Neveu on a treasure hunt of seemingly impenetrable clues in the hunt for the Holy Grail, that clearly is not what it appears to be.

The controversy over the Holy Grail itself left me cold - certainly I can believe much of what is claimed, but when it starts to slip deeply into Masonic, Knights of the Templar mode my interest wanes. Yeah, the whole book's a big conspiracy theory and while much of it is plainly true, much of the supposition in the book seems to be based more on wish fulfillment than any evidence.

That aside, the game of cat and mouse with the captain of the French police, Bezu Fache, is entertaining enough, although it's never really above average for the genre. John Le Carre has done this sort of thing with much more character depth over the years - Sophie is never really well drawn - she's just a witness through which the reader can learn some of the history of the grail. However, Dan Brown has a very annoying habit of teasing the reader by revealing half a story, then cutting it off as the narrative is interrupted by some crisis or other. The first time someone says "The holy grail is really… wait, are we being followed?" is mildly annoying. By the tenth time it's happened I was half way to tossing the book down and walking away. There's only so much you can tease the reader before it becomes both frustrating and boring.

Without giving more of the plot away, suffice it to say that everyone in this book is in the hunt for the secrets hidden by the Templar Knights including the Grail. Some want to protect it, some want to expose it, and some want to destroy it. The plot device of having clues left along the way that need to be deciphered to move onto the next clue is fair, but never really stretches beyond a fancypants treasure hunt and you have to wonder what kind of idiots could keep the Grail hidden for two thousand years, but then leave an easy to follow trail to its location that's nothing more than a child's game. There's a mix of clues here - some are impenetrable to anyone without an encyclopedic knowledge of art history, or are private clues that only the characters in the book are able to answer, which is frustrating if you're trying to work it out yourself. Others are so blinding obvious it makes you want to scream at the page. One of the final clues is stretched over a hundred or so pages, over which we're meant to believe that the genius characters in the book are wholly unable to decipher them. And think and think about them over days without making headway. Whereas, of course, the answer is screamingly obvious to anyone but a child. The suspension of disbelieve can only be carried so far.

Never more than an average book, I fail to see why it's so critically acclaimed, beyond the controversial subject matter. It's an interesting theory at the end of the day, but theory is all it is, or can be.

Don't believe the hype and it's an okay read, but what the hey.