Reviewing a rotten review of a ridiculous, repulsive potboiler

(Quick, say it ten times, really fast!)

From the Teen Ink Magazine site (not a regular stop, be assured), a book review of sorts of Dan Brown's Angels & Demons:

Initially readers may pick up this book because of the movie success of Da Vinci, but Angels and Demons turns out to be a hidden gem eclipsed by Brown’s other work.

Uuuh. A "hidden gem"? Tell me this is a spoof. Please.

Unlike Da Vinci, Angels and Demons leans more toward the science geek, as well as being packed full of Brown’s trademark historical details.

Sphheww! [Wiping coffee from computer screen and keyboard.] Well, if by "trademark" you mean "wildly incorrect," "laughably wrong," and "outrageously off the mark," I can go with it. Otherwise, I'm going to have to text your history teacher and turn you in for crimes against reality and my monitor.

As with Da Vinci, the style keeps readers in suspense, and they are compelled to continue turning pages.

The style kept me in stitches, actually, and I was compelled to throw up several times, because my stomach wouldn't stop churning. Very ugly. I was especially annoyed that characters kept trying to get dial tones on their cell phones. Why not just use a land line? They have much better dial tones. And they take you directly into The Matrix, which, come to think of it, was far more believable than anything written by Dan Brown. Yes, even the third Matrix movie.

The story goes quickly, leaving readers hungry for more.

No, not at all. It leaves you ill and feeling like you've been poisoned. This is the first book you've ever read, right?

The first chapter reveals a scene so lurid that audiences are instantly captivated.

I have to hand to you: Dan Brown's writing does have a lurid quality to it, like Jason attacking the English language with a sharp typewriter and a demonic hatred of facts.

Angels and Demons reels readers in as easily as children to an ice cream parlor, and the experience is just as sweet.

That was vaguely creepy in a double-decker-crispy-cone sort of way.

In addition to the twisting appeal of Angels and Demons, one has to respect Brown’s skill;

Sentences like that should be taken out into the desert and starved to death.

he is indisputably one of the most historically correct authors of this decade.

[Incomprehensible noises. A loud scream. Crashing sound. Silence. A gurgling noise. Is it—? Yes, a glass of Terminator Stout is being poured with great care and growing desperation.]

The tone of this book changes appropriately, setting the story’s pace.

Whatever does that mean? The tone sets the pace? Wha--? Wait, I think it's a haiku:

The tone of this book
Changes appropriately
Setting the story's—

Nope. Too many syllables. How about this:

Angels and Demons
Are non-corporeal beings.
Dan Brown is a hack.

No, it ain't Shakespeare. But it ain't Dan Brown, either.

Countless readers have stayed up well past their bedtime...

You're only seven years old, aren't you? Real readers don't have bedtimes! This desperate journey into the Heart of Teenage Literary Darkness is starting to make sense now. "The horror! The horror!"

... to uncover the next scene, which can almost never be said about a novel that presents historical facts.

But shouldn't you read a novel that actually presents real historical facts before you uncover such a statement?

Play the detective on a whirlwind journey that will leave you staggering with each roadblock. You’ll find yourself swooped up in an adventure that drops you off in another world.

Play, stagger, swoop, drop. Sounds like a great drinking game. And if there's one thing a Dan Brown novel will do, it is drive you to drink. (But not, of course, if you're underage. That would be historically irresponsible.)

Anyone interested in the talents of Dan Brown should pick up Angels and Demons immediately.

Why? Is there a CD of his music underneath it? Does he yodel?

Comments

[Cristina A. Montes]

Huh?

[Evan]

I read Angels & Demons about the time of the papal conclave. If I recall correctly, the conclave in Brown's book garnered absolutely zero attention from the media and the wider world, there was a lot of talk about the irrelevancy of the Church, etc.

I got a huge kick out of reading the novel alongside the important affair that was the actual '05 conclave. The only thing that seemed to be irrelevant was Brown's characterization of things.

[Janny]

You needed to post a beverage alert on this one...

I hope you've forwarded your response to the publication (?) in question. It's too funny not to be put side by side with this incredibly ignorant "review."

JB

[LJ]

"In addition to the twisting appeal of Angels and Demons, one has to respect Brown’s skill; he is indisputably one of the most historically correct authors of this decade." -Alexa

So Carl, do we laugh, cry or laugh ourselves to tears? This is the next generation of journalists and media critics. At least you are helping us prepare for it.

[Thomas]

"The movie success of DaVinci"???

I'm not even being my usual smartass self, because I don't have the numbers. What success?

I was under the impression that The DaVinci Code movie was a box office disappointment. Or am I confusing it with The Golden Compass, which I KNOW was a box office disappointment?

[Carl E. Olson]

Thomas: The movie was a moderate success in the U.S., but a huge success worldwide, with close to $760 million grossed, which is #26 all-time. You may have been thinking of The Golden Compass, which didn't too very well considering all of the publicity and hype.

[k]

I have been waiting for this Carl, your criticisms of Angels & Demons(Although sometimes I wonder if one gives too much credence to pop-drivel by answering it, rather than merely ignoring it). I remember sitting in a theater and watching the trailer and laughing out loud when Tom Hanks says, "The Illuminati were a secret society dedicated to scientific truth. The Catholic Church ordered a brutal massacre to silence them forever. They've come for their revenge." Unfortunately not that many people laughed with me.

[Nick]

The reviewer keeps bringing up the fact that the book is historically accurate. Hmm, was the reviewer paid by Dan Brown to make this book review, or is he/she just that thikc-headed?

[Cristina A. Montes]

"Thomas: The movie was a moderate success in the U.S., but a huge success worldwide, with close to $760 million grossed, which is #26 all-time."

Although I do know that the movie was laughed at during the Cannes Film Festival.