I'm sure there are many people who feel that science is destroying religion much the same way the camerlengo does in this book. Far better books have done it more justice than Angels & Demons does, mostly because Dan Brown doesn't even try to do the subject any justice. The whole 'science versus religion' debate is a worthy motif for any story. And that's not what writers do that's what politicians do. So Dan Brown is portraying his (poorly researched) fiction as non-fiction. I don't know if you've spotted the trend yet, but it turns out the 'fact' is not much of a fact. Angels & Demons has a nice little 'fact' preface that warns us all about antimatter. Responsible authors, particularly authors of historical fiction, write historical notes that mention where they've deviated from, you know, actual history. That's condescending, and I don't like condescending. In either case, it sends the message that he doesn't think his readers are worth the time to produce a book that's more accurate. The sheer number of errors and oversights on Dan Brown's part, however, means he is either too lazy to do research or wilfully neglecting the fact-checking. Were it not for the depressing overabundance of nits to pick, I might agree with my straw man opponent.

Who cares about minor details? I'm just being a downer nitpicker! Peter's Basilica is travertine instead of marble.

All those inaccuracies, they're just artistic license, right? It doesn't matter that the facade on St. Say what you will of Angels & Demons dismiss it as 'light entertainment' that should be celebrated because it's a well-paced thriller with a pseudohistorical, pseudoscientific plot and a hot yoga-practising Italian physicist. Also worthy of note is this blog post, which mentions the absurdity of the claim that Vittoria 'disproved one of Einstein's fundamental theories' by observing fish. I could take my time to detail the many factual errors present in this book, but TV Tropes has already taken care of that for me. Bashing Dan Brown is like bashing That Vampire Series: yes, I could do it, and I could do it well. But the problem with bad, popular books published ten years ago is that most of the witty deconstructions have been done. I love to tear into bad books-and make no mistake, Angels & Demons is a very badbook, and not in the naughty sense. In fact, re-reading this book was a bad idea, but I chose to do it for reasons that will soon become clear (that, and I wanted to give it a more accurate rating on Goodreads). Right, so, I don't really want to write this review.

Angels & demons dan brown