I broke down and grabbed a copy of Inferno by Dan Brown, from the library last week. It was a one-week loan; one of their frequent flyers. I only made it halfway through because I worked last weekend, and it wasn't very good.
Brown is known for his stories rather than his writing. They're thriller-mysteries, involving a lot of travel, a bit of killing, and are successfully wrapped up with a conclusion. Inferno meets all of these; it takes place in Florence, begins with a suicide, and ends with the main character safely on a plane (I skimmed the epilogue). As an added bonus; it includes Robert Langdon one of Brown's enduring characters.
Where this book failed was the pacing. Every few pages it hit the pause button to go on at length about a painting or a sculpture. I'm a history buff; I understand the significance of the setting, and the many gorgeous works of art created throughout the renassiance. But is it necessary to go on, and on about them? Seriously I could've cut this book's length by a good 50 pages by asking the question: "How is that relevant to the plot?"
What happened to the style of the DaVinci Code? It was faster paced, with enough dialogue to make it a really easy read? The characters led the action, not the writer. Inferno is written as if Dan Brown is more impressed with himself, than into telling a good story.
With the time spent on Florence, and its history it reads like a travelogue. And if I wanted one of those, I would've picked one out, instead. I have no idea how this is still on a best-seller list.
I felt the same way. Kept making Da Vinci Code comparisons.
ReplyDelete