2 Stars
I imagine many readers of Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons" first heard of CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) through the book. I, on the other hand, actually first heard of "Angels and Demons" through CERN. After I was hired for a summer job at CERN, I spent some time exploring their Web site. I quickly found a very long page in which they attempt to correct many of the errors about the lab (and physics in general) contained in "Angels and Demons". When I got to Europe and saw "Angels and Demons" on the top of all the bestseller lists (above even "The Da Vinci Code"), I knew I had to read it.
What I found was a mixed bag at best. The plot (if the word can be used) is basically identical to that of "The Da Vinci Code": Harvard art history professor-cum-action hero Robert Langdon is summoned to the scene of a brutal murder to interpret mysterious symbols left on the victim's body. Teaming up with the young, attractive, resourceful, bereaved female relative of the deceased, he must follow a string of cryptic clues to unearth an ancient conspiracy, solve the mystery and save the day within a matter of hours. As in "The Da Vinci Code", there is a character (if the word can be used) so obviously guilty he has to be innocent, and a character so obviously innocent he has to be guilty. The requisite final plot twist is so sharp you can see it coming from chapter 8 (of 137). In short, "Angels and Demons" is a cheesy thriller with formulaic writing and stereotyped characters so thin a light breeze would blow them away.
Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. Brown clearly did not attempt to make a great work of literature when he wrote "Angels and Demons". His goal was a cheap crowd-pleasing hack and, judging by the other reviews, he's basically succeeded. Just because a novel is trashy doesn't mean that it can't be entertaining.
However, there's a bigger problem than Brown's plot, characters and clumsy writing: his claim that (at least some of) the information in "Angels and Demons" is factual. Let's consider only the page labelled "FACT" (Brown's capitals), in which Brown claims that "CERN recently succeeded in producing the first particles of antimatter". Even ignoring the fact that antimatter has been around since the beginning of the universe, he's still dead wrong: antimatter was first experimentally observed and produced over 70 years ago, decades before CERN was founded. On the same page, Brown claims that antimatter is "the most powerful energy source known to man", which is simply ridiculous -- antimatter isn't an energy source at all (very far from it). He then asks whether antimatter will save the world or destroy it, a nonsensical question. It will do neither, because it cannot do either. Had Brown gone through the trouble of looking up "antimatter" in an encyclopedia, he could have saved himself a good deal of embarrassment.
The nonsense doesn't stop when the fiction officially starts, either. Brown's description of CERN is so far from reality that I found it absolutely hilarious. Imagine reading about X-33 spaceplanes, "ultramodern structure[s] of glass and steel", a "free fall tube... for stress relief", and grounds that "looked like an Ivy League campus" while sitting in a sweltering office (CERN considers air conditioning an unjustifiable luxury) with four desks crammed into it (without even the benefit of cubicles) in a building that (like most at CERN) could best be described as somewhere in between a trailer and a warehouse situated in what is essentially an industrial site. I couldn't help but simply laugh out loud at Brown's bizarre fantasy. All of this would be harmless, of course, were it not for the fact that CERN actually exists and is very different from Brown's invention.
Of course, CERN, physics, and science are not the only things Brown gets wrong (they're just what I know best). Others have written about how he freely redraws the map of Rome (all the while claiming "References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels, and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations)"). Still others have written about his many errors relating to Catholic ritual, Papal conclave, Switzerland and history in general. Some of Brown's mistakes can only be described as bizarre. Take for instance his claim that Christian Holy Communion is based on Aztec rituals or his apparent belief that canonization is a routine procedure for junior priests. As recent scandals have clearly demonstrated, not all priests are saints.
In light of all these factual errors, I hope (for his own sake) that Brown's claims to do research for his books are lies. It's one thing for an author to make mistakes in a trashy novel he pulls out of his nether regions. But it would be truly pathetic if Brown actually does the rigorous research he claims and still manages to screw up so often and so spectacularly.
Go ahead and read "Angels and Demons" -- who knows, you may enjoy it. Just be careful not to trust a single "FACT" it contains.
(2 July 2005)
