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.
