Same Plot, Different Title

Now I read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code way before the majority of the United States, and I had fun reading it.

It wasn't a good book by any stretch of the imagination, but it was interesting to read his theories about Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and the Holy Grail and the whole art thing. And yes, there is a connected between Mythra and Christianity and there are theories that Mary meant more to Jesus than just a whore he helped "see the way". And the plot was interesting, if not totally impossible and convoluted. I enjoy crazy theories of odd connections in history and art and was therefore fairly entertained.

HOWEVER, that book should never have spawned an ABC special looking into the theories behind "The Da Vinci Code". It was basically a reiteration of the book for stupid people who can't read and need the TV to give them the gist of things. It also seemed to give the whole thing a lot more credence than it deserved. Mood lighting and dramatic music do not turn theory to fact, sorry ABC.

That aside, the book was enjoyable enough to warrant the purchase of another one. This was "Angels and Demons". I should have saved my money.

The biggest issue I had with this one is that Dan Brown, rather than coming up with a new plot, copies verbatim the structure of "The Da Vinci Code". They both begin with a dead man found with some sort of symbolic thing on his body. Then Robert Langdon, Brown's protagonist du jeur, is contacted in the middle of the night. He then has to investigate with the help of a smart and attractive woman, whom he obviously ends up with. Step by step, every single main plot point is the same; just the details vary. It is disheartening to start a thriller and know the end within a few chapters...especially when you have 500 pages to go.

Another problem, I had with this book is that his underlying plot was weak. His bad guy's reasoning was so utterly ridiculous and unrealistic that it undercut anything worthwhile.

One of the things that was so much fun about "The Da Vinci Code" was that the conspiracy he wrote about was so complex and multifaceted. He kept the reader engaged pretty much all the way through with puzzles, logic games and wild ideas. "Angels and Demons" tries too hard to force those same things. There isn't the same sense of figuring out an historical riddle to propel you through the tedium of the plot. Even the small little nods he made to how art was used in secret brotherhoods, etc., were just small and uninteresting.

I feel cheated when an author relies on the tried and true formula for a book rather than branching out and attempting to use whatever talent he may have for something new and exciting. I'm not sure if "Angels and Demons" was written first, but there was a definite reason that it was "The Da Vinci Code" was the bestseller and this book is riding on its coattails.