The Lost Symbol: How to read a Dan Brown novel

Reading reviews about a novel that one million people have already gotten and millions more are going to read, no matter what you tell them, seems like a silly thing to feel obliged to do, and writing one even more so, unless you're being paid for it. But I'm doing it for love--in fact, I'm doing it for the reviewers who don't even like Dan Brown.

Why? Lots of reasons, but mostly because of things like this.

Yes, Brown's style is, um, turgid. Inappropriate adjectives and adverbs will bristle profusely throughout and metaphors may be as thoroughly mixed as an ambiguous weather forecast, but still, you have to take his novels in as a gestalt. Blue-pencilling your way through a Dan Brown novel is a joyless effort, and fact-checking just what is a "true fact" from the fiction in the story is even more of a buzzkill. These are fiction books. They are thrillers. And they are meant to be read by the seat of your pants at a pace that matches the 24-48 hour thrill-ride Brown puts his characters through.

Or at least, that's how I like reading them.

It's not surprising to me that his novels have translated as well as they have to movies--those profuse adjectives and occasional "meaningless" details are a part of lulling the reader into the story with a kind of sensory immediacy. I say--don't fight it. Feel it. Just let your right brain take over--let go, and let Brown. Then you can wonder, "Is that just a detail--or a clue?"

And sometimes, you get walloping big clues, and that's part of the fun. From time to time, the reader is treated to the sensation of "knowing" the solution of the puzzle Langdon is confronted with (I felt really satisfied when mentally shouting at Langdon "View it in a mirror!" reading The Da Vinci Code as well as when saying "It's upside-down, of course!" during this novel). It's participatory, in a way. And sometimes you learn a "fact."

And sometimes, you want to toss the book at a wall for getting on your last nerve--noetics? In my world, that translates as "woo" and I don't want none! I found the science bits more teeth-grating than the pop-Ancient Mysteries stuff. (Probably because the "big secret" of what ancient mystery initiation entails is still left hidden in plain sight--people who are disappointed by the book's lack of a payoff just aren't ready to receive it. Also, the way the villian gets it wrong is so colossally LHP and Old Testament/Freudian that you can forgive the white-lighter, fuzzy bunny optimistic ending. i.e.--it's fiction. What did you expect?)

Anyway, here's my recommendation--read Dan Brown for fun! He finds really fun conspiracy-theory diversions to base his plots in, but just because the material is a blend of fact and fiction about history and science doesn't mean you need to take it seriously. Yeah, I laughed out loud when Langdon in this book lamented that for some people, Google search was research. (Shades of the "Da Vinci Code"/ "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" flap?) It's like, some beers are for sipping, and some for chugging. Sip Umberto Eco. Chug Dan Brown. He is good at what he does in crafting engrossing stories that a lot of people can enjoy. That's a good thing.

(I'm kind of looking forward to seeing if Howard and Hanks tackle this one....)