Angels & Demons

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 4:45am

I just finished reading this book today and was curious what other people thought of it. I'd read Da Vinci Code and enjoyed the story (even though I abhor Dan Brown's writing style), but to my surprise, I found myself like A&D more. The plot was quicker, Vittoria's a better equal to Langdon than Sophie, and the theories - while as unbelievable and thin as those in DVC - were more compelling and better integrated into the story.

At the same time, while he's no Tolkien, I find Brown to still be too verbose in his own right. And repetitive, as if he's undermining the reader's intelligence and needs to flog them with the emotional and intellectual weight he wants to infuse in the novel. The same weaknesses in Da Vinci Code are evident here (to me, his childish and amateur writing manner, the overuse of "cliffhangers", the thin theories that miraculously tie facts together and the weak-to-non-existent character development) - I found his writing marginally better in that book.

By the way, I haven't re-read DVC yet since finishing A&D - can someone remind me why Vittoria and Langdon aren't together anymore? I thought she had been killed, so I read the entire A&D expecting her to die.

[DramaDork925]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 6:57am

I loved Angels and Demons much more than The Da Vinci Code... IMO they're both good but I found, like you did, that it was much more fast paced and exciting. I can't remember why Vittoria isn't in the second... I'll have to pull out my book later and check.

[Patronus]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 9:10am

I also liked Angels & Demons a lot better. It was just a more engaging book in general.

I'd like to see it made as a movie with the man who should have been Langdon all along. Gary Sinise.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 10:14am

Third here for saying it was a much better book.

I thought the DVC petered out during the last 100 pages.

I thought A&D was a much more interesting book, but probably would be a bit too controversial as a movie.

Don't remember why Vittoria is not in the book.

FYI - his other two books are basically the same book - just a different setting. Kind of like ALW in book format.
Updated On: 11/15/05 at 10:14 AM

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 10:16am

As a book I didn't care for Di Vinci Code. However I loved the points and theroys it discussed and brought up and the questioning of ancient mythology is what kept me reading.

[JACXR71]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 10:17am

Also enjoyed A&D better. I think RL and Vittoria aren't together in DVC because it didn't work out with her schedule? Didn't he allude to her tagging Beluga whales somewhere in DVC?

[Dollypop]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 11:38am

I've read ANGELS AND DEMONS and THE DAVINCI CODE and found both books extremely engrossing but I was let-down in the last 100 pages or so. What ludicrous endings!

I mean, in ANGELS there is the character falling out of the sky and landing in the arms of the Christ statue atop St. Peter's Basilica. Idiocy!

These are good beach books, where you're looking for entertainment and little more.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 11:42am

I found Angels and Demons, which I read after DaVinci Code, to be highly implausible in many of its plot points. For example, after a marble sarcophagus falls on his arm, Langdon is able to hold onto a tarp while plummeting from an exploding helicopter in order to create a parachute?!? As though that wouldn't rip his arms off!

Unfortunately, now that I have been to Rome and visited many of the locations, I feel the need to reread it!

[Pippin]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 1:19pm

I also read A & D after the Code, and liked it much better. better story, plot, and more immediacy to the dilemma.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 1:27pm

I'm REALLY surprised that people like Angels and Demons more. I read DaVinci Code first and found it to be an exciting, fun thriller that made me think about the religion in which I was brought up in a different way. Angels and Demons, while still fun, contained just TOO many implausible plot points for me to fully give over. The jumping out the helicopter is NOTHING compared to them electing the glorified alter boy Pope!

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 1:32pm

Actually, robbiej, I agree with your assessment. I found A&D much less plausible than DVC. The helicopter sequence boggled my mind. Though, personally, I may have also liked DVC more, because I could envision all the places where the action took place, having been to Paris.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 1:55pm

Although I didn't really like either, I did prefer TDC. It had a better pace and was a more interesting theory.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 2:38pm

Pardon my ignorance, but if this is the same thing as "The Decameron: Angels and Demons" then they just finished filming a movie version of it.

[peach]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 2:39pm

Enjoyed them both - but I have to say I liked The DaVinci Code a wee bit more. Better riddles and clues, and a bit more plausible. But A&D was fun too. Both good beach reads.

I think Hugh Laurie should have been cast as Robert Langdon in the upcoming movie...

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 2:49pm

Eppie, there is a movie called "Decameron: Angels and Virgins" coming out, and it has nothing to do with "Angels and Demons." The movie of TDC will be out next year, tho.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 4:41pm

The are currently filming THE DaVINCI CODE in Paris. Tom Hanks is Langdon.

[Conor]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 4:44pm

Loved Angles and Demons. I thought it was so much better than DC. Also I think Tom Hanks is so miscast for this role! Im' really annoyed. Anyone agree?

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 4:50pm

Most definitely so...

[MissElphie]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 4:59pm

I read A&D first, and just could not put it down. I was literally walking down the street with my head in the book. I then picked up Da Vinci Code, and although I loved it. it did not measure up to A&D for me. I think I just much preferred the subject matter.

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 5:02pm

A&D was fascinating in its own right. But DVC tied everything together in a much more coherent manner.

But it was interesting to have read A&D before the Pope passed earlier this year. It gave a different understanding of the rituals behind conclave.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 6:04pm

I agree, I liked Angels and Demons MUCH better than Da Vinci Code (which I read first). I finished Da Vinci Code and was left feeling sort of....let down, I guess. Some of the plot points were extremely predictable. I guess I just expected a lot more out of it than it delivered. It tries too hard to be profound, and in the end it just seemed very empty.

I decided to read Angels and Demons afterward, and liked it much more in terms of the pacing, and even the storyline. Neither novel is realistic, and I thought that this one had more fun with the fact that it's obviously Indiana Jones-esque thriller/fantasy. I found the twist to be THOROUGHLY unexpected and shocking, which wasn't at all the case with The Da Vinci Code. I liked that Angels and Demons pondered questions of religion vs. science and the way that the two are always at odds. Finally, I LOVED that it was set in Rome, which is my favorite city in the entire world.

Anyway, I also think that Angels and Demons would make a far better movie (it reads like a movie anyway) than Da Vinci Code, even though the latter is more popular... but apparently the powers that be disagree.
Updated On: 11/15/05 at 06:04 PM

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 7:53pm

Overall I was really disappointed with DVC casting. I had pictured:

Langdon - Dennis Quaid (or, now that you mention it, Hugh Laurie)
Sophie - Sophie Marceau
Jacques - Anthony Hopkins
Silas - Ralph Fiennes (a la Red Dragon)
Remmy - Chris Eccleston (or as Silas - I thought he could pull off an albino well)
Teabing - ?



The A&D ending lost me at the point where the carmalengo and Langdon miraculously was able to run from 3 stories beneath ground at St. Peters' tomb, all the way into the piazza and be high up in a helicopter in, what, 6 minutes?? And I couldn't buy that Langdon would have so much wits about him while plummeting to the ground that he would think of making that tarp into a parachute - really?? Also, if the carmalengo lit himself on fire at the balcony, short of spontaneous combustion, I can't think of any instance where the heat would be so high that he would just become ash without anyone noticing.

I wish I'd read the book before the Pope had died and I'd visited the Vatican, but it was nice to read it now and remember some of the sites I'd seen on my trip. Just an excuse to go back!

I'm more interested in the "secrets" hidden in Da Vinci's work, which is why I found DVC so compelling, but the logic didn't work for me. "M" for "Marriage" or "Mary" in the Last Supper? Sophie as a descendant of Jesus? Oh please. It seems like instead of looking for proof in the Bible, Dan Brown used the omission of references as a justification that something was fact. How do we know that Jesus was married to Mary and had a baby? Because the Bible doesn't say they didn't! What sort of proof is that??

Did anyone watch that National Geographic special in June on uncoding DVC? I found it very interesting - if Dan Brown had written a simple piece of fiction, it would be one thing, but he really sets himself up for criticism by asserting in the first page that "All description of architecture and documents are true." Because as it turns out, they're not.

Updated On: 11/15/05 at 07:53 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 8:02pm

Angels and Demons lost me in the first 100 pages when, a) it became clear that Brown is extremely formula-bound, and b) I actually knew that one of his historical facts was wrong from a class I took freshman year.

However, I was in Israel, I'm sub-literate in Hebrew, and there wasn't much English-language reading material around. So yeah, I read it.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 8:27pm

Which historical fact was wrong?

And does he get paid a nickel every time he mentions Harris tweed? Why Harris? Why tweed? Why mention it at least 8 times in A&D?

[Plum]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 8:29pm

If I remember right, it's when he was talking about the origins of assassins. I just remember that my Islamic history course put it differently.

And it's tweeeed. For the tweedy professor. Or something.