Right, this blog is back in action. Yep, I know it's been more than half a year of being dormant, but i just feel an urgent need to write a book review.
Rule of Four
by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason
I dunno, I had great expectations for book. Not unreasonably great, but it came decent recommendations from some people. But at least I know it was not as going to be the same as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (or any of his other samey lesser-known books). I'd like to think that the two authors didn't set out to emulate anything similar to Dan Brown's book, but inadvertently the publishers and the marketing people would have seen it as a great idea to focus on the similarities, given the success of the former.I was disappointed with the book. Because it doesn't really go anywhere. You wade through the 400 pages of it, and find out there is no real secret or conclusive ending to it. You would think as a work of fiction (or fiction based on some strands of historic fact) the two authors could have added a lot more stuff to make it interesting and compelling. But no, there is hardly any action in it, and the so-called mystery text that the entire book is based on, well, to put it in a nutshell, it all comes to nothing and is utterly disappointing.Well, if you must know, the story is about 2 best friends (you just can't help but assume they are 'loosely' based the authors themselves) studying in Princeton, and they're are both fascinated with this 1499 book called Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. The book is a complicated tome of pseudo-philosophical and erotic babble, mixing different languages, telling this story about a guy in love (I think). But the thing is that a few people, including the two friends think there is more to the book than what it offers at face value. They suspect that the book hides an answer to a riddle that points to an ancient crypt of manuscripts and artefacts.And so in Da Vinci Code style, they use literature and mathematics and they actually find the answers. One of the cryptogram they use is the so-called 'Rule of Four' thing (i was so disappointed to find out what it actually was).This highlights why I feel the book fared poorly. The authors attempt to tie in the duality of the Rule of Four with the main characters. The two friends each have a roommates, and they four are apparently best friends. Frankly, the other two side characters come across as paper-thin and under-developed, not really adding to the flow of the story. The authors try to inject side stories about them and entire chapters where they bond with the main characters, but it was all tiresome and too far digressing from the main storyline.Then there is the love interest of one of the protagonists, going through the history of how they met (via flashback) and how they go through some rough patches because of his obssession with the book. At one point I could hear myself telling the girl to just dump to book nerd.So much promise, all wasted, that's what i felt when i finished. And i'm not even comparing it to Dan Brown's book. This is actually the authors' first novel after graduating from Harvard and Princeton respectively. I'd like to see them do better in a second book.And the open ended ending didn't help my opinion of the book, either.
If you liked this book, you might be interested in:
![[ Registered ]](http://www.diarist.net/registry/button.gif){kind=small}
