Lost Symbol

I like the gory details that Dan Brown puts into his works. Now that it is being made into a series (not a movie), I expect to see the same thrill that runs down in the book to be presented on the screen. However, besides creating a close-to-be-true fiction out of real buildings, artifacts, locations, communities, etc., the charm of Brown is fading away for me. After reading Angels and Demons, and Origin, I can now predict that a particular thing would not be revealed in this or that chapter. And I know that when the next chapter will shift to an entirely different person. Even the ending plots are similar. I am in an in-between state where I like the vivid imagery conveyed by the sentences glorified with numerous feelings and adjectives, but at the same time I am frustrated to read those lines conveying repetitive events. Overall, if I had read this book without knowing some of the works of Dan, it would certainly have blown me away. Yet, I can assure that it is not a bad read either.

Posted Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Actual Rating: 3.85 out of 5 stars

Originally posted on Reviews of a Self Proclaimed Bibliophile.

I feel as if I am in a constant state of love-hate with Dan Brown when it comes to The Robert Langdon Series, there are moments where I am struggling to get through the book and there are others where I am just completely enthralled by what I am reading and unable to put the book down. I find myself so drawn in by the puzzles, the mysteries, the discussions of philosophy – those are the plot points which keep bringing me back to this series. I have so much that I want to say about this book and a lot of it is going to be very spoiler filled – so please, if you have an interest in reading this book in the future and don’t want to be spoiled be mindful of the spoiler tag!

Character Development

I have written before about Brown’s use of characters and character development, his most notable trope being the building up of characters in a positive light only to later discover that they were the antagonist all along. I feel that Brown improved his character development skills in this novel because it didn't utilize the exact same trope, though what he did with his characters does remain somewhat close.

Let's start with the character Inoue Sato, she is built up in such a way that the reader is immediately put off by her. The reader is made to feel as if she is hiding information which ultimately makes her seem untrustworthy. We are then sympathetic and understanding when Langdon chooses to escape from the company of Sato and her CIA unit with Katherine Solomon, but we are ultimately left to wonder this - If Sato had shown the tape of the Masonic rituals to Langdon upon first meeting him, how different would the progression of events have been? Running from the CIA certainly adds a layer of anticipation and suspense, but at the same time Langdon and Sato were both working towards the same goal although their motivations differed. Oddly, I found myself really liking Sato - she is everything I would have expected of a high ranking official of the CIA, her entire demeanor was that of a person who demands respect and is deserving of it. She managed her team well and had excellent instincts when it came to decision making, overall she was just a very interesting character and I think it would have been incredibly interesting to actually witness Langdon and Sato truly working together towards a goal as partners.

My next bit of character discussion is in regards to the Solomon family, specifically Peter and Zachary, and the character Mal'akh. The fact that it turned out Mal'akh was actually Zachary the whole time seriously threw me for a loop, I found myself reading it over and over because I just wasn't expecting that twist while I was reading. Now that I have taken some time to actually reflect on it, I feel like I should have made the connection much sooner because truthfully I doubt that a stranger from a prison who just so happened to overhear the conversation Peter had with the warden about the release of his son would go to such lengths to destroy an entire family unless there were strong emotional ties to such a feat especially after acquiring the wealth that Zachary had for yourself - it just isn't likely. The anger and hatred that Mal'akh carried around in him towards Peter and his family was incredibly frightening because there is a potential for such strong feelings of anger, hatred, and hurt inside all of us towards those who wrong us - it is an incredibly scary thought. Yet, through all of this Peter couldn't bring himself to further hurt his son...he couldn't bring himself to kill his son even after all of the wrong that Mal'akh did to him including the removal of his right hand! I doubt that I would have had the strength that Peter had to just walk away.

Matters of Philosophy and Religion

I think this novel in The Robert Langdon Series, so far, has had the most resonating impact on me on a personal level. I've spoken before about how I was raised Mormon and left the church at the age of 19 for various reasons. One of the things I have always had a difficult time accepting when it has come to organized religion is the idea of heaven being exclusionary towards those who faith differs from your own. I have always been of the thought that if there is a god and a heaven that all who lived their lives in a positive manner would be welcomed, regardless of what faith or religion you practice. I found myself agreeing with a lot of the ideas and practices of the Freemasons, specifically their celebrations of their being one universally accepting god and the idea of at-one-ment (not atonement). The very thought of at-one-ment is incredibly interesting because it truly embraces the idea of apotheosis. Apotheosis on an individual level is fascinating, true there is its literal meaning which is "make a god of" but it also can be described as "the highest point in the development of something; culmination or climax." What if the idea of apotheosis is an individual reaching their highest point of development, or their highest point of understanding? One of the quotes which is mentioned multiple times is "Know ye not that ye are gods?" from Hermes Trismegistus, and it poses a very interesting question. There have been debates that one of the faculties which most differentiates humans from animals is that humans have the ability to create - the power to create has also long been thought to be a power of the gods, so it stands to reason that perhaps humans are a type of god. I won't go so far to suggest that we are the gods of the entirety of the universe, but there is a little bit of god in each of us - it is in our ability to create as much as it is in our ability to destroy.

TL;DR Review: I keep bouncing back and forth between rating this book at 4 stars, but I just can't do it because while I enjoyed the book overall it just didn't feel like a 4 star read to me. There were just too many points where I found myself struggling to read the book which was frustrating because I really wanted to enjoy it and like it. It is likely to be one of those books I'll read once and probably not read again for a very long time. I'll be moving on to Inferno very soon and I am hoping that I will be impressed or at least less negative, otherwise I don't know whether or not I will continue the series should Dan Brown choose to release another Robert Langdon novel in the future.

The Lost Symbol is the third Dan Brown book about the character Robert Langdon. Dan Brown books seem to follow a pattern in the Style they are written. Because of this, if you enjoyed The Da Vinci Code you will probably enjoy The Lost Symbol. The chapters are short making it easy to read the book in small chunks one chapter at a time. What is lacking is the surprise of the other Robert Langdon stories. Many of the twist and surprises are predictable. The central focus in The Lost Symbol is Washington D.C. and The Masons. After finishing 1/4 of the book I had already figured out who the villain is and where The Lost Symbol was hidden. Many of the problems with this book are the same problems the movie versions of the last two Robert Langdon stories and I think that was Dan Brown's intention in order to make the book more movie script friendly. Even though I enjoyed The Lost Symbol, I only gave it three stars because I felt it could have been better if a movie version had not been thought about while writing the book.

"The Lost Symbol" by Dan Brown is an interesting, gripping thriller with Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, the Masons, and Washington, D.C.. An improvement on his previous two Langdon books, "The Lost Symbol" shows more mature plot construction and the usual Brown engagement with history, secrets, and symbols. The book follows Robert Langdon, a middle-aged Harvard professor on an unexpected trip to Washington, D.C. for an old friend. The trip takes him all around the nation's capital and shows the secret, hidden history of Washington, D.C.. Brown can expound on the sacred architecture of D.C., the mysticism of the founding fathers, and extort the reader to look back to ancient mysteries and ideas as ways of moving forward to the future. One can recognize that this is a Dan Brown book for a number of reasons: the short chapters, the cliffhangers, the mysterious organization, the lone madman, secrets buried in plain sight, fusion of science and religion/mysticism, and a race against time against seemingly impossible odds. I'm happy to say that Dan Brown starts to break out of the normal pattern I've seen in his other works. This book brilliantly uses the Masons, one of the world's oldest bogeymen as its "evil organization." The reasons why I find this brilliant is because the Masons are one of the most misunderstood organizations in the world and the rumors swirling about them make the reader more likely to have preconceived notions going into the book. Brown has also created interesting characters. I'm especially pleased with how he has given the villain Mal'akh (a character who is not a simple as he first appears) much more face time than the other villains in Brown's previous books and presents his twisted journey towards his ultimate goal. The ultimate conflict is profoundly personal and keep the reader fully engaged from start to finish. A few criticisms that I have is that while I enjoyed the plot more, the book is a bit more laden with ideas and exposition on what are admittedly complex ideas and topics than the average reader may want to read. The plot also does not move quite as smoothly as "Angels and Demons." But I can't help but like Brown's books, including this one. The changes in plot construction, excellent locations, and the interesting characters make the book worth your time.

Oh dear. I have casually enjoyed Dan Brown's other tomes; however, The Lost Symbol didn't even have that brain candy charm. Tense scenes were frequently interrupted by several page long asides of dubious relevance. The so-called science was hilariously awful and the end of the book suspense revolved in part around the fear that someone would exsanguinate through a "medical needle" placed in a vein in the antecubital fossa (i.e. venipuncture.) Luckily, that part was so ill-paced that the character was saved before I had to waste too much time screaming about how infeasible it was to be killed by an IV.

The core plot -- many important men in Washington are Free Masons, a group that has left hidden symbols all over Washington DC and celebrates human life -- was far less intriguing than Brown's other books.

Overall -- this was in SORE need of an editor and a fact checker.