Still A Dreamer

I’m trying to figure out – why didn’t I love this book?

I thought The DaVinci Code was terrific as was Angels and Demons, yet something was missing in The Lost Code for me. What Katherine Solomon was studying and what “The Word” was really all about are right up my alley, but was there too much of it? Was there more information about the Freemasons and the Masonic symbolism than was needed to keep the plot moving briskly?

As always, once I was reading, it was hard to put down, but away from it, I didn’t feel like I couldn’t wait to get back to it! Most strange. I still say that Brown has an excellent way of jamming suspense and intrigue into a very short timeframe in which the novel takes place, and for that I enjoyed The Lost Symbol. But something wasn’t right.

While I never saw it coming who Mal’akh actually was, I also found him to be somewhat of a 2-dimensional character. Yes, he was a psychopath at this point, but I don’t know if I was given ample reason to understand how he got that crazy considering his background. I also don’t recall the interior dialogue of characters in italics in previous books, though I just may not be remembering, and I’m not sure that I liked it.

I was fascinated by the information about the Washington Monument and the surrounding buildings and their architecture, but did so much factual information pull me away from the storyline? Was there just too much? Next time I’m in D.C., I will look at the buildings described in a very different light, no doubt, but I think I was being overwhelmed with non-fiction in a fictional account. I believe Dan Brown has a message – an important message about man and his future – that he wants to share. I like the message. I guess I’m wondering if Brown is conveying it in the most accessible way.

I’m puzzled. But then, who am I to criticize? These are just my perceptions, and I wonder if others share them or feel differently.