The Lost Symbol

A couple of weeks ago, I finished reading Dan Brown's new book, The Lost Symbol. It was a typical Dan Brown affair with lots of skipping from place to place and character to character, strong on action, and a nice puzzle. It also had Brown's typical push of his world view, which caused the denouement to drag on long after the story was really over. All in all however, it was a fun read, if not a slightly predictable one.

As with his other books featuring Professor Langdon, the other character were more facilitating than the protagonist. The villain, Mal'alk, was particularly interesting. Mal'akh, in my opinion, is strongly based on Siddhartha, the title character in the novelette by Hermann Hesse. (Siddhartha is not the story of the Buddha, but rather a fictional contemporaneity with the same name, who also seeks and eventually finds enlightenment). Both men seek themselves and happiness in indolence and excess, and then turn to an ascetic path. Both men are transformed through their lives' journey. The glaring difference between the two is that Mal'akh choose the dark path and thus never finds true enlightenment.

One could also look at the similarities between the transformations of Mal'akh and Frankenstein's monster; however, I shall save my ramblings and analysis of Frankenstein for another time. Besides, further discussion of Mal'akh's transformation could ruin one of the major plot twists (no matter how predictable) for those of you who have not read the book and choose to do so.

-Phil

Literary Friends

Other than my usual pilgrimage to the gym, I have spent most of the day reading. If you knew me when I was younger, you would be rather surprised that I read novels (even more so to find out I do it for fun). I never really read much as a kid, with the exception of non-fiction books with pictures and diagrams. Honestly, I read so slow that I couldn't find any enjoyment in reading novels.

Over the years, things have changed. I still read slowly, but I can read much faster than I used to. (I guess practice really does help). I have also come to love certain books and series. Most notably, I love C.S. Lewis' Chonicles or Narnia. The allegorical nature of the books is a nice intellectual treat, and the action, adventure, and intrigue can make for a lively read. However, these are not the major reasons I love the books. It is because of the characters.

I read the entire series while I was in Iraq. (I know, 15 months, but it wasn't the only thing I read over there). I almost felt as if the characters were my friends. The books gave me a place were I could go and not worry about the world around me. In truth, I was rather sad upon finishing the last book, not so much because of the way it ended, but rather that I would no longer be able to go on new adventure with my friends.

As a youth, I wondered why one would read a book when there was the movie. But, books and movies are totally different forms of media. movies are able to go at a fast pace and they usually is little to no need to read or think. However, the viewer is unable to connect to the characters as deeply as the reader can. It takes little or no effort to watch a movie or a TV show (unless you find it boring or slow, or just plain bad. I think most of us have seen that one show that we wished we could get our time back). Reading takes effort. Reading requires us to create the scenes and characters in our minds. Many times we almost find ourselves in the situation with the characters. We relate empathize with the characters, and some times it seems that they become our friends.