Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ycore Rixle" data-source="post: 1002316" data-attributes="member: 675">I just got done posting a review of Angels and Demons over at Amazon, but that rant hasn't quite purged my system.This book from Brown (the Da Vinci Code guy) advertises physicists, the Illuminati, assassins, the Catholic church,  and "a frantic hunt through sealed crypts, dangerous catacombs, deserted cathedrals..."  Right up my alley, I thought.The ignorance in the book is shocking.  On the cover of Angels and Demons, it quotes the San Francisco Chronicle:  "Exciting, fast-paced, with an unusually high IQ."  On Dan Brown's website, it quotes the New York Daily News, "His research is impeccable."  Read my review below and see if you agree.  (Do I really live in a world where reputable newspapers can say things like this and remain in business?)I'm finally running out of steam, so I'll just copy my review below.  I hope that Da Vinci Code has better science in it; I'd hate to think that something this horrid could be a blockbuster bestseller.Review:First, I am horrified by the absolute ignorance of physics shown by Dan Brown in this book.  A PhD physicist character saying she has created an experiment "no scientist has ever thought to do... recreate the Big Bang."  And she is a particle physicist at CERN, no less.  Never thought to do it?  EVERY particle physicist at CERN DREAMS, probably every single night, of recreating the Big Bang.  Go to Google and do a search, verbatim, for "recreate the Big Bang."  You get over a hundred links to physicists talking about how they want to recreate the Big Bang!  Never thought to do it?  This is like saying "no doctor has ever thought of making humans eternally young and healthy."  It's the whole gosh darn point of the whole gosh darn profession!  Never thought to do it?  The idea haunts them!  They dedicate their lives to just approximating the thing!  Other shockingly ignorant physics blunders: The Director of CERN, no less, is not only surprised, he is shocked into "clear astonishment" and can only stutter "Incred... ible..." at this idea: using a magnetic field to separate charged particles.  My god in heaven!  A good high school physics class, and I would hope any college general physics class, covers that idea.  For Dan Brown to write that the Director of CERN is shocked by this idea not only makes the character unbelievable, it makes the novel absurd.  I won't even detail numerous other blunders; a few of which are: the PhD physicists' discussions of "reverse polarity vacuum"; "antimatter positrons" (as if there were any other kind!); and the infuriating, constant confusion of antimatter atoms with simple sub-atomic antimatter particles.Second, the hero is an IDIOT.  He is supposed to be a PhD academe teaching and researching at Harvard, and yet he is more ignorant than an average New York City 8th-grader (I know, because I teach New York City 8th-graders).  For example: 8th-graders usually have heard of E=mc^2, and the smarter ones understand that it expresses an equivalence between energy and mass.  Our hero?  Not a clue.  His reaction on learning this is a fascinating two-sentence inner monologe: "Matter is energy?  Sounds pretty Zen."  The guy is a doughnut.  Not to mention he has "buddies in the physics department" at Harvard, and yet he's never even heard of CERN.  There is even a flashback scene where one of his physicist buddies talks about the SSC.  Langdon knows the whole funding history of the SSC but he's never even heard of CERN?  This is like knowing the precise displacement of the Lusitania but never having heard of the Titanic.  It defies belief.  In fact, Langdon seems present in the book not so much to act as a hero but more to act as a sop for the reader's ignorance; not a hero to identify with but a vacuum to dissipate into.All that said, Brown does fine on the English.  The plot, setting, themes, style, and characters all do exactly what he wants them to do.  He is in control, without a doubt.  Unfortunately this competence only implies a further affront: surely a man of his talent could have made the science right if he thought it were important?</blockquote>

Verification