2 Days Later (Serious Spoilers)

As you can probably tell, I wrote this two days after another post on Angels & Demons.

In general, a number of fact jumps increased in intensity.  A few other things I mentioned in that post also got worse--Langdon and Vittoria chatted it up after finding out the killer was a few feet away instead of rushing in. They would have gotten him and prevented two killings. Possibly. It would've at least turned out better than them rushing in once everyone was dead, for the first time not considering that the killer might still be there, and then getting caught. Of course, none of these possibilities are true in the constraints of the story, but the odd chattiness makes it seem that way. It almost seemed too stupid to be realistic compared to their usual protocol. I mean, Vittoria was willing to rush two old ladies, but not rush the building where the actual killer is? 

It's a World of Pale Blond Hair and Blue Eyed Characters

And the other thing--pale and obviously handsome Langdon (I'm sorry--American White men don't tend to look that handsome. This is why you're not supposed to impose descriptions and impressions on the reader. Langdon is obviously the fraternity-type legacy professor who gives grades to White male athletes. If you know the type and Brown's background, you'd agree; if not, don't get offended!) instantly describes the Arab as a "dark monster." Okay, I only have to read that once, right? Nope. Ol' blue eyes then thinks it's horrible for him to have dark eyes (I always read stories when I was small about teenaged white female characters hating brown eyes and I never knew what that was about). It didn't mean dark and evil eyes... he just had "black" eyes. The "animal" he was later described as seemed less about his killing and more about his aforementioned appearance.

The things you notice when you aren't in the worship-blond-hair-and-blue-eyes group.

When I write my stories, I do not only write them for African-Americans, but I am aware that less open people will be turned off by descriptions of curls, curves, and thick curly hair. That is out of my control and also something that I should not cater to. However, I've read books that cater to White folk all my life. They hardly attempt to acknowledge there is diversity in the world. Sure, I threw in a black character, but if my other characters are surrounded by White people and only talk about "White ideals," is that a reflection of my environment?

I read back on stories I wrote years ago, where I describe pale skin and grey or green eyes like I'm describing the Holy Grail (luckily it was hardly ever blue eyes, but brown was sadly not that frequent either). Surrounded by White writers, I became used to my own exclusion. In order to think they were beautiful, I had to think I was not. It was hardly ever a neutral message and never told me both were beautiful. Which brings me to my next point.

The problem I see in books today is we aren't just excluded--we are excluded in a way that makes us seem subpar. If pale skin is so beautiful that it warrants a page-long description, the skin this person have before s/he became a vampire (for example) must have been ugly! (I make this sound like a deduction, but some of these stories do state it explicitly.) Similarly, reading one White person call another dark as if that is "exotic" is strange, but it sends a message.

Then there are authors who, whenever making a sci-fi species that is enslaved, decide to make them brown-skinned. I've even seen cases where only the enslaved have skin colors... But that's another story.

No one ever looks at it as, you are abnormally pale! Yet it seems to happen for all other groups.

It's understandable if this is the author's ideals manifesting, but my point is it's the majority of authors. In one of my manuscripts, I describe pale skin in ways it appears, similarly to White authors, but I do not glorify it. To people used to its glorification, the descriptions could come off as purposefully degrading. (Many authors will describe the pale skin and crooked nose of a character to a vivid T, then the label of "beautiful" or "ugly" they attach seems to be arbitrary, but they do it nonetheless.)

Back to Angels & Demons--I still love the book. I was just moved to put it on the chopping block as an example for some reason. It did raise good points outside of the strange fact-jump inconsistencies (unless it's a pattern!).

Surprises in Dan Brown's Angels & Demons (Spoiler Alert)

There are a lot of character inconsistencies in Dan Brown's Angels & Demons. I'm surprised, but the urge to point them out grew because there were so many. Because of it, the best characters are sometimes the ones with the least showtime.

Sometimes the characters do things that are, well, out of character. Here's a few examples just from the past 40 or so pages:

The Temporary Expert

The Case of Vittoria

Vittoria, despite being an educated scientist, does not understand why one must wear gloves when dealing with ancient documents. She asks similar "stupid questions" throughout the book. I can't help but wonder if it's because she's female. Of course, she's a great character and Dan Brown does flaunt her mental prowess.

I believe Brown is trying to make Langdon the archive expert and not her, but she would have some common sense knowledge. For instance, she should understand oxidation without Langdon explaining it to her. And she should not simply state that they can replace an ancient book removed from the archive room as if it will not be damaged by the air or destroyed in the frantic search they will be carrying out.

Vittoria, despite supposedly believing in God, does not understand the meaning of something being hidden in plain sight in a document, only for those who understand. Ever read the Bible?

I know this is a symptom of her femaleness, but she states God is a she, which it would have been in character for her to provide an explanation. There is none. I do think Brown added this because a lot of "progressive" females like to say this. My mother and I both agreed that a female God wouldn't have made man first or put him in charge to make up for his weaknesses. There's also the possibility a "she" wouldn't have created them at all.

The Case of Langdon

Langdon, who states that he is familiar with only a little Italian from his art history studies begins translating ancient Italian that even Vittoria, a native speaker, stated she could not translate. In the next chapter, he "struggles" but that seems like an understatement.

Sudden fact changes are a prevalent type of jump. At the end of one chapter, Langdon says he needs to write something down but they don't have time, and in the next chapter he's already deciphered the text without even glancing at it again.

Miscellaneous

Similarly, the Illuminati is stated to be against Catholicism for most of the beginning of the book, then against Christianity, then against all religions towards the middle. The latter is certainly false (let's not forget they recruited Muslims and anyone against Christianity according to the book...), but the first is the only one that Langdon/Brown explains through history. Outsiders just start saying Christianity, which is understandable, especially if they're Catholic, but Langdon himself starts confusing Catholicism with Christianity.

Another thing that gets me is sometimes the same concept is repeated over three times by one or two characters over the span of a chapter or two (~3-10 pages), I believe in an attempt to have it seem more complicated. Perhaps this is an effective technique and I only notice because I am usually familiar with the concepts.

Also, exotic or otherwise known-to-be-unsettling terms are used to describe the two Black people who have made brief appearances, although a Japanese women is mentioned and we have an Arabian character. So an American is exotic? And an African? But not someone from Asian countries? Got it.

And here's a funny one: whereas The Lost Symbol might be considered too actiony, Angels & Demons is the opposite: when tension is high and time is short, Langdon and Vittoria stop to chat. Every time. Without fail. Not only that, but they chat about unimportant things. Slightly related, but nothing to do with solving the crisis at hand. It is incredibly effective at further building the tension--I have to suppress the urge to skip their conversation.

And a big spoiler: Langdon discovers the clues to the so-called Path of Illumination were lain out in a way scientists would understand. Not only is Vittoria a scientist who figures out little if any of the clues, even as a team they have such a hard time (Langdon actually figures the stuff out a little too quickly, especially seeing that his art history knowledge wouldn't line up with the modern times, which Brown also points out). Langdon flipping through art catalogs really makes you wonder how it's supposed to be done.

Sweet and Sour 

Don't get me wrong--I love the book, though it seems to genuinely romanticize one group of killers by comparing them to another (something Brown did not do in The Lost Symbol). The way Langdon keeps hoisting science over religion is strange considering the book is centered around God's existence. Both of these points could be really good character development on Langdon's part, but I'll have to wait until the end to see. Plenty of these are small issues that just caught my attention (and made me wonder about his editor(s))--I hope it never comes to a time when people try to censor authors. I do wonder how much similar slip ups in books say about the author's beliefs, though.