At the deception point

The author had stopped blogging for a couple of weeks and regrets to inform you that she is back (without a bang) inspired wholly by this particular post. Whether the "enthu" sustains, only further books that she reads can determine. In the meanwhile, raise your glass (or cap will suffice) to Dan Brown, the reason the author is back.

Though my choice of words, at present, might seem shockingly negative, I am inclined to present to you my astonishment over what can only be described as a (failed) attempt on Dan Brown's part to recreate the magic of Da Vinci Code. If you have already read the book and didn't like it, I'm sure you would agree with atleast certain aspects of this review. On the contrary, if you God-worship him (the way I did before reading Deception Point) there is all the more reason why you should be reading this review. (Superstition is not good for health) If you haven't read the book at all, then Brown must be thanking me; for controversy is his
cup of tea.

Clubbing science with fiction has always played toward increasing the selling count because it appeals to the intellect of the reader and on any day, I would rather read a (juicy) murder mystery and go to bed feeling very intelligent for having understood the plot rather than take a Stephen Hawking book and actually try to understand something. There, my friends, is the difference betwwen science in fiction and pure science.

Having read (and worshipped) "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Angels and Demons", I set out on the (tedious) task of reading a book that could have easily been written in about three fourths of its current size. As one would expect typically, it involves a series of murders by an annonymous killer, whose shocking (yawn) identity is revealed in the last few pages of the book. Quiet used to his style of writing, I could make out, in the first half of the book, as to who the murderer is. It would be the most honest (trustworthy) and in a nutshell, the person you would least expect it to be. Talk about novelty.

The only hitch, however, is that the killer would have come as a shock to people more fortunate than yours truly had they not read Brown's earlier books and got accustomed to his writing. But the shock is soon overcome by a strong sense of mortification at finding themselves at- The Deception point. In a vague attempt to avoid the reader from guessing he killer, the character of the killer is protected all along and so are his motives. During the unveiling, unfortunately, the "motive" of murder (read desperate, planned, cold blooded killing) is not only unconvincing and vague; it is also contradictory to some of the
emotions that the character has displayed earlier in the book (again, in the blind attempt to prevent the reader from guessing).

So, ultimately, to the reader who has struggled through about 600 pages of science that he can't fathom, he has been presented with a murderer, who kills people for a cause that does not benefit him. The only reason that I, with my limited intelligence, can think of, is that in the desperate hope that people should have thier suspense maintained till the end, the writer has obviously forgotten that murder is only his forte and normal people (read fictious characters) do not murder just to make a book interesting (?)

Had I not had great expectation, had I not found the killer earlier, had the killer had any motive, had the book not been this long, or this ocean-descriptive (my fear of the ocean leaves me obviously prejudiced) I would have probably given the book an 8.5 on 10. (Somehow 8.5 is a number that I can't get out of my head, atleast for a while ;) )

With all due respect to the amount of (scientific) information that the book has presented to me and gratitude for having eaten about fifteen hours of my life, the book left me entertained, exhausted and mostly deceived. I, to my great disappointment, found it
neither intellectually inspiring nor emotionally stimulating.

If you haven't read it yet, try skipping conversation-less pages. Trust me, it won't make a difference.