On The Bookshelf: Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol"

- Posted by Rusty
What did I read? The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown


What did I think? In my first big English class in college, I had this amazing professor—bespectacled, Gandalf-y, and who walked around with such enthusiasm (delivered in that wise, aged British accent) for learning Middle-English, that you couldn’t help but get swept along. I think he said it best about Dan Brown: “High literature it’s not, but, damn it if I didn’t spend a whole day reading only him. As did my wife. And my son.”

My feelings exactly…

Dan Brown is not a great writer, and I don’t think his books stand up to re-readings...but the guy sure knows how to entertain and keep you reading. The Da Vinci Code was one of the most-read books of all time (I’m guessing in the same league as Harry Potter…and, um, The Bible) and it was a solid, impossible-to-put-down thriller. Tiny chapters, tons of suspense, twists at every turn, cool tidbits on history, and my personal favorite: ingenious little puzzles. Terrific fun to read...even if, once the excitement dies down, it becomes a book you shrug off more than one you’re passionate about.

In my view, Angels & Demons is actually his best book. It has all the best elements of The Da Vinci Code, but it reads like a better adventure; plus, I thought the villain’s identity was a genuine surprise, and his motivation far more interesting than other Brown baddies (including his current one). I don’t care as much for his big hero, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, as, say, Hogwarts wizards and Michael Crichton’s dinosaur “chaoticians”; still, Langdon’s a dependable, familiar lead, and I’ll gladly follow any of his secret society-infused, puzzle-filled adventures.

And, well, I can safely that his Da Vinci Code sequel, The Lost Symbol, is a good two-thirds vintage Dan Brown: the twists are there, there are some fun new things that only Langdon could decipher, and the novel starts on the perfect footing. Unfortunately, it’s that last third that brings everything down. That’s when the book gets hampered down by some disappointing choices, complete with a twist you could see coming from miles away (and I’m never one to really figure these things out) and a cheesy, overwritten epilogue (not to mention an anticlimactic final reveal—you know, just that hyped-up, Holy Grail-like object everyone in this book was looking for).

The set-up really is excellent: Robert Langdon is called to Washignton DC as a favor to his old friend and mentor, Peter Solomon. Turns out, Peter has actually been kidnapped, and Langdon finds himself at the mercy of a man named Mal’akh, one who is determined that Langdon find a hidden object at the heart of Washington DC (Langdon is fast becoming like a male version of Angela Lansbury in Murder, She Wrote—any time he enters some historically rich city, rest assured that someone will die, and there'll be an ancient-puzzle-wielding psychopath behind it). The Suspicious Secret Society this time around are the Freemasons (also mentioned in The Da Vinci Code…and, well, National Treasure...but I think Brown will hate that comparison), and one of their core beliefs is called into question as Langdon races to save Peter before Mal’akh could put his plan into action.

Brown deserves credit for finally giving Langdon some character details—here, Langdon struggles against his own skepticism and unwillingness to “believe,” and, really, just tries his best to save the man who means so much to him. In the previous novels, Langdon didn’t really have a connection to the crazy events around him—giving him something personal to latch onto gives the novel an emotional push that I thought the others were missing. Plus (and maybe I’m the only one really happy about this), kudos to Brown for finally giving Langdon an age-appropriate, believable love interest. It would have been really hard to accept another impossibly gorgeous particle physicist (or, for that matter, a French cryptographer) who’s instantly attracted to Langdon; Peter Solomon’s sister, Katherine, a Noetic scientist and someone who holds a special connection to the plot, feels like a much more natural match.

There’s also a nice running theme about learning to see things from a different perspective; the book doesn’t get bogged down in big ideas, but this was a nice touch. One's perception of things could change dramatically if they approach it in a different manner, essentially seeing it in its best light—I think it’s true in everyday life, and Brown uses that idea in pretty clever ways, especially with regards to the book’s major puzzles.

Sadly, though, the novel falls apart as we head toward the end. I remember this was actually supposed to hit shelves three years ago (under the much-better title of The Solomon Key), but was suddenly delayed. While I’ve never been under the kind of pressure Brown was (it must be insanely hard to top one’s own phenomenon), I have a sneaky feeling that he had trouble resolving his messy plotline. He’s got too many characters here, way too many secrets to juggle, and I think he struggled with how to best get his characters to the climactic site and make it feel like a natural part of the story. And that’s when the novel resorts to moronic decisions by the CIA (really, once you read it, you’ll be amazed too…especially since the CIA director did nothing but yell at Langdon early in the book for his poor decision-making) and major pacing lags as Brown tries to cram too much information before and after the climax (most notably with Mal’akh, for it seems Brown realized late in the game that we still don’t know what he actually wants).

Worst of all, perhaps, is that Brown failed to give the story an air of danger, with something real and palpable at stake. In The Da Vinci Code, it was the nature of Christianity; in Angels & Demons, it was a time-bomb in Vatican City—both are good, game-changing threats, ones where you understand the significance if Langdon fails. Here (and maybe it’s just me), it’s really hard to sympathize with the “national security” matter that the CIA informs us of. We get that requisite moment—the CIA director shows Langdon something secret (carefully hidden from the reader up until that point), Langdon gasps in horror, and we, as the audience, are supposed to finally click with an understanding of just how crucial their mission is. Too bad it didn’t feel like anything that dangerous; I could be wrong here, but the consequences seemed to be a lot less dire than everyone in the book complained about. It’s hard to believe that this one piece of information would cause such fuss and hysteria…let alone the anarchy that Langdon very seriously warns us about.

All of these weaknesses would be a lot easier to stomach if the characters and the emotions of the story were actually worthwhile. Although Langdon gets a bit more to do this time around, it’s not enough to distract us from the one-note group of people surrounding him, including the tattooed, philosophical villain who gets resolved in whimper of a final twist. Brown is certainly talented (his ability to hold a reader’s interest deserves a lot of respect); I just wish he’d learn to give us actual people to root for, as opposed to walking, talking information-sources. Michael Crichton was my favorite popular writer growing up, and Brown could really learn a thing or two from him. Crichton’s novels had the same basic formula: smart people caught up in historical/technological conspiracies…but something like Timeline (my pick for his best book after Sphere) has more depth to it—more character, more heart, and a much more lasting imprint. Brown has a gift for tightly-reined suspense, visual puzzles, and some tempting historical mysteries, and I know he has good, entertaining books left in him. This one is just not it.

Would I recommend it? Yes and no…although I’m leaning towards “no” the more I think about the book.

You do get some great twists and suspense scenes, you learn tons of cool factoids about the Masons and Washington DC (something I knew pretty little about—Brown is always good for some nice facts to store away about art, architecture, and history)…but, past the halfway mark, it becomes a truly frustrating read. Characters make stupid choices, and I think a lot of readers will be disappointed by Brown’s ending and biggest revelations (not to mention their surprising corniness).

You won’t be angry you picked this up—it’ll be a fast read, and you’ll probably enjoy it for at least a good majority. But this can’t hold a handle to the equally compulsively-readable Harry Potter, or even Brown’s own earlier Langdon novels. At best, this is a missed opportunity; Brown has a good formula (even if it’s wearing a bit thin), and I’m hoping the so-so critical reception of this one will spark those creative juices of his to give us a far better follow-up novel.

I know, it’s incredibly easy to criticize—let’s see me try and write one of these novels. The fact remains that Brown is an enormous success, and he’s far more adept at crafting these kinds of addicting reads than I ever could be. But he could do better. And, for a smart guy (and an English professor!), he has to know it.

Would it make a good movie? Maybe...but it would depend on the filmmakers taking a few liberties with the source material. I’m not a fan of the Dan Brown adaptations to begin with (more on that in a bit), but you could clearly see when reading the other two books how they could make great films. Both Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code had breakneck pacing and pretty much non-stop thrills—excellent recipes for the book-to-film jump. They also had pretty solid plotlines—sure, not much character and tons of logic gaps, but both stories ran smoothly and led to an appropriate conclusion. The Lost Symbol, on the other hand, starts in that Brown-perfected, thrill-a-minute manner, but then gives way to a ludicrous (and very talky) final act. It will be hard to take seriously, and, well, it will also be hard to ignore that National Treasure took place in DC too, and (although very, very few agree with me) gave us similar story beats with much more panache…and with a great deal more fun too.

I think the key will be Langdon’s relationship with Peter Solomon—the book gives us glimpses into their decades-long friendship, and the film could expand on that—make us feel the personal mission Langdon needs to accomplish, and giving the movie a much-needed dose of character in the process.

For everything else, I think some chunks of the book would have to be rewritten; the premise and puzzles could stay the same, but the messy final chapters and a good deal of the Mal’akh material should probably be toned down...or revamped with some creative additions. In my eyes, the best solution would be to use the novel as a base point. Hire a talented writer (like Angels & Demons script-polisher and Spielberg-favorite, David Koepp) and give them some creative license. The novel has a lot of problems, but it has the undeniable backbone of a good thriller; perhaps some fresh eyes and new ideas could do the story a world of good.

With that, this could be a golden opportunity to actually make a strong Robert Langdon movie. Take the basics from the novel, but then start from scratch with the other elements. You’ll still have the chases and the ancient artifacts and the Masons, but now the filmmakers could finally give Tom Hanks and co. something meaningful to do. Some innovation and a break from the source material might be just what this franchise needs—just look what it did for Jason Bourne (which bears little resemblance to their original novels, other than title and set-up)!


Is it a movie? Not yet…but you can bet we’ll see one in the next few years. From what I know, Sony Pictures had an early copy of the manuscript, and they already set their writers off to work on a script. Both director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks are set to return in what will most likely be the final hurrah for this series.

Honestly, I think the Dan Brown movies before went with the wrong approach; my biggest problem with the Da Vince Code and Angels & Demons movies is that they took the source material so seriously. Yes, the novels have a historical bend to them…but they’re not high-minded literature. It’s amazing that two of the most readable novels turned into movies that were borderline boring at times (although Angels & Demons was a big improvement over the first). By being so reverent to the material, the movies lost the pulpy fun of the original books. What happened to the excitement of solving the puzzles? The edge-of-your-seat chases? That breathless energy? The books are brainy entertainment at best; why try to make the films Important, complete with deep discussions of faith and religion?

In my eyes, National Treasure (itself an heir of Indiana Jones) is the best take on such material. Say what you will about those movies—yes, they’re often corny, convoluted (how is finding a city of gold meant to clear Nicolas Cage’s family name in the Lincoln assassination??), and groan-inducing…but you can’t deny they produce a rousing time at the movies. These films embraced the ridiculousness of the material, while never losing that infectious spirit of discovering historical secrets. They don’t expect us to take them too seriously (case in point: the invisible treasure map on the Declaration of Independence!), and the characters are developed enough that we’ll follow them for the ride anyway. And, really, I think I’m not alone in that I’d rather spend time with Nicolas Cage’s colorful group of treasure hunters instead of Tom Hanks’ pensive intellectual. (Even Indiana Jones had religion-based storylines, and it still managed to be smart and heartfelt entertainment…while never losing the pure joy and excitement the series was supposed to deliver.)

If The Lost Symbol becomes a movie (and it most surely will), this could be the chance to finally energize this franchise. Re-write some of Brown’s novel and make it a personal journey for Robert Langdon. Let him actually enjoy the process of cracking some centuries-old codes. Director Ron Howard (who did the last two films) is a smart, capable filmmaker and Tom Hanks is one of our very best actors—that combination has to produce something good for us in the long run.


Here’s hoping this coming adaptation could break apart for the others. The potential is there, and maybe it will take the weakest book in the series to make the filmmakers realize it. After all, Indiana Jones and Nicolas Cage can’t dominate the historical-artifacts field forever… Here’s your chance, Professor Langdon—step up and give us an adventure worth caring about!

And, as always, here are some fun facts before we go…

Fun Fact 1: Ralph Fiennes, Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, George Clooney, and Bill Paxton were all considered for the role of Robert Langdon before Ron Howard ultimately chose Tom Hanks. All fine actors, to be sure, but my personal pick of the bunch would be Hugh Jackman (even if he’s a decade too young for the role)—he has just the right amount of charisma and smarts, and would have easily pulled off an academic who’s quick on his feet.

Actually, the best choice (and Dan Brown even hinted to this in the novel) would have been a Harrison Ford in his 50’s. Oh, well, guess Ford will just have to fall back on another treasure-hunting character...

Fun Fact 2: Alfred Molina, another very good actor (Doc Ock in Spider Man 2, the Count in Chocolat) played Bishop Aringarosa in The Da Vinci Code. I have trouble remembering what his character did in the novel, but (MINOR SPOILER ALERT) it was all mainly a distraction from the true villain’s identity. In fact, Aringarosa is Italian for “red herring,” a popular term in mystery novels/movies for those suspicious characters meant to take the reader’s attention away from the story’s big secrets.

For an extra bit of coolness, Molina did the voiceover for the Angels & Demons teaser (see it below—it’s actually an excellent trailer) in a distinctly American voice. And, for those who watched the film, he does the opening narration as well, but this time in his native British accent.

Angels & Demons Trailer:

The Da Vinci Code Trailer:

--And that’s it for another “On the Bookshelf”. Thanks for sticking with me, guys; this is by far my favorite column to do, so I’m going to try to be much more consistent about it. And now I turn the floor to you. Did anyone read The Lost Symbol? Do you disagree with my take on it? (Luke and I are actually at odds on this one—he really liked it, while, as you can see, it drove me crazy when the book started falling off its rails). And how do you feel about the Tom Hanks adaptations?

For my next column, to complete my Up-inspired obsession with old adventure novels (something I really should have embraced as a kid), I’ll finally do the original 1912 The Lost World by Sherlock Holmes mastermind, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, followed by Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island (inspired by watching Treasure Planet with my friend—man, I need to stop watching cartoon adaptations…). Then, if all goes well (and I keep reading instead of procrastinating and discovering new TV shows), I’ll have Inkheart, The Lovely Bones, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Tender is the Night, and Austen’s Sense & Sensibility for you. And, even though I read it before, I’m really tempted to flip through my just-rediscovered copy of Timeline, one of my favorite modern thrillers (itself a really nice update of the classic adventure story), so maybe I’ll squeeze that in between.

Lots of good books await—see you next time!

Images courtesy of Doubleday Books and Sony Pictures.
Clips courtesy of Trailer Addict.