The forum discussion critiques Dan Brown's "Angels & Demons," particularly its portrayal of particle physics and the use of a digital countdown device as a plot device. Participants express frustration over the unrealistic depiction of a powerful bomb contained in a small cannister, which is powered by a 24-hour battery. The consensus is that the book lacks scientific accuracy and reads more like a movie script than a novel, with many suggesting that Brown's writing style is formulaic and unoriginal.
PREREQUISITES
Understanding of basic particle physics concepts
Familiarity with the Big Bang theory
Knowledge of narrative devices in fiction, such as McGuffins
Awareness of literary critique standards
NEXT STEPS
Research the principles of particle physics and antimatter reactions
Explore the Big Bang theory and its implications in modern physics
Study narrative techniques in thriller writing, focusing on pacing and suspense
Analyze the impact of scientific inaccuracies in popular fiction
USEFUL FOR
Readers interested in literary analysis, science enthusiasts critiquing fiction, and fans of thriller novels seeking to understand the balance between artistic license and factual accuracy.
#31
phyzmatix
313
0
TheStatutoryApe said:
It is the eternal suffering of we the literary geeks to see that common people prefer common literature! ;-p
HAHAHA! That's brilliant!
My apologies to Mr. Pratchett!
I am only about halfway through the discworld series. Which is your favourite?
So far my favourite has been Small Gods and Good Omens, of course, is my favourite collaborative effort.
All of the ones that have Sam Vimes in them! I love his cliche'd "super-sergeant" image.
My cat is adept at reading in low light. It's a talent I value highly while I'm driving. ;)
It seems that you have a resourceful, talking cat; must be a descendant of Puss from Puss in Boots.
#33
GeorginaS
236
1
George Jones said:
It seems that you have a resourceful, talking cat; must be a descendant of Puss from Puss in Boots.
She's a marvel. And she isn't a fan of Dan Brown's either.
#34
binzing
280
0
Well Dave, if you disliked the book, try the movie, there's much less about the physics (faulty or not) and, best of all, no digital countdown.
#35
GeorginaS
236
1
binzing said:
Well Dave, if you disliked the book, try the movie, there's much less about the physics (faulty or not) and, best of all, no digital countdown.
Assuming that Dave is really, really determined to like it one way or the other?
#36
TheStatutoryApe
296
3
I thought I might like the Da Vinci Code movie but couldn't even finish watching it.
#37
binzing
280
0
GeorginaS said:
Assuming that Dave is really, really determined to like it one way or the other?
I enjoyed both, but hey, that's just me. If I wanted to read about physics, or religion, I'd grab a physics book, or Bible (insert Quran, Torah, ancient Mayan codices, lol)
Last edited:
#38
DaveC426913
Gold Member
24,140
8,264
GeorginaS said:
Assuming that Dave is really, really determined to like it one way or the other?
I expect a lot more from a book, but I can see it being an enjoyable action romp. Well, except for the stupid timer device. That'll just tick me off.
#39
TheStatutoryApe
296
3
DaveC426913 said:
Well, except for the stupid timer device. That'll just tick me off.
#40
fuzzyfelt
Gold Member
734
4
DaveC426913 said:
tdVC
Nice use of upper and lower case! :)
Last edited:
#41
Nick89
553
0
I enjoyed the book even though the physics behind it is a bit silly.
The countdown on the canister however is the worst bit of the book in my opinion. It makes no sense to have a battery that dies in exactly 24 hours. How easy would it have been to have had the bad guy put the canister in a device that emits a magnetic field in exactly 24 hours, disrupting the magnetic bottle and thus causing the same explosion?
In the movie, it's even worse. There is no countdown on the timer (only a few bars showing how much battery life left), but they still somehow know exactly when the canister is going to explode... What??
But let's not get started on the movie, it is so much worse... They leave out half the plot!
In the book, the camerlengo (bad guy) is the bad guy because he found out he is the Pope's son (of course, being a Pope he should not have been able to get a son). He murdered the pope for that and had the anti-matter canister stolen... In the movie, there is no mention of this. The camerlengo has NO motive at all to do what he did, and that is not even explained...
#42
binzing
280
0
Nick89 said:
I enjoyed the book even though the physics behind it is a bit silly.
The countdown on the canister however is the worst bit of the book in my opinion. It makes no sense to have a battery that dies in exactly 24 hours. How easy would it have been to have had the bad guy put the canister in a device that emits a magnetic field in exactly 24 hours, disrupting the magnetic bottle and thus causing the same explosion?
In the movie, it's even worse. There is no countdown on the timer (only a few bars showing how much battery life left), but they still somehow know exactly when the canister is going to explode... What??
But let's not get started on the movie, it is so much worse... They leave out half the plot!
In the book, the camerlengo (bad guy) is the bad guy because he found out he is the Pope's son (of course, being a Pope he should not have been able to get a son). He murdered the pope for that and had the anti-matter canister stolen... In the movie, there is no mention of this. The camerlengo has NO motive at all to do what he did, and that is not even explained...
Actually, in the movie, the camerlengo is in it to become the Pope, so they changed and shortened it to fit in a movie.