"The Lost Symbol"

I picked up Dan Brown's new book over the weekend. Maybe it's not "Baptistically correct" for a preacher to say this, but I have enjoyed his books. I like the fast pace and suspense of the stories. Plus I like trying to solve all the puzzles before the characters do. Don't get me wrong -- I do read with a wary eye as he has proven to not exactly be a fan of Christianity. But they are usually good read nonetheless. Here are some observations on his latest book.

1. I cannot read the book without seeing Tom Hanks face as Robert Langdon. I am a visual person, and my first mental image of Langdon was someone much different. But after seeing the movies, Langdon is now Tom Hanks. I am not sure if that is a function of excellent casting or Hanks' really goofy haircut.

2. Brown again uses his "Facts" page before getting to the story. I still contend, however, that this is the page that is the single most damaging part of his books. Readers are lured into this logical falacy: if all these things are facts, and the book's characters make arguments based on those facts, then their conclusions must also be facts. In "The Da Vinci Code", that meant Jesus married, had children, etc., etc., etc. A note to anyone who reads any of his novels: remember they are works of fiction, not fact, no matter how acurately they describe art or architecture.

3. There are a couple of pointed remarks on the tongue of Langdon early in the book that make me think Dan Brown is rather pleased that he has gotten under the church's skin with his previous books. Think of all the books written and sermons preached to argue against the anti-Christian premise of "The DaVinci Code," including a sermon series at our church. The Catholic Church was particularly outspoken when the movie adaptation of "Angels and Demons" was released. They say there is no such thing as bad publicity, but I think Brown is particularly relishing this particular notoriety.

4. As the old saying goes, "everything old is new again." Apparently the same goes for heresy. Mal'akh, the main baddie, needs Langdon's help to unlock a portal to the Ancient Mysteries, secret knowledge that is believed to confer nearly god-like powers on its possessor. This is little more than gnosticism (from the Greek word for knowledge) that Paul had to confront in some of his New Testament letters. He adds to this a primer on Noetic science (from the Greek word for mind), which appears to be the power of positive thinking on steriods thanks to the latest technology. But no matter how new, shiny or 'scientific' this new package is, it's still the same old stuff.

5. I said earlier I like to try to solve the puzzles. So I am wondering where this book is going to end up. But not only in matters of plot and character, but implications. My hunch is that he may be trying to undermine any sense that the founders of our country professed a Christian faith. The setting is Washington DC, with its landmarks playing the central symbol-laden role. So far, the symbols are Masonic, Greek, Roman, and mystical. I am sure, as I continue reading, I'll be forced to some historical research about our great nation, its founders, and the capital. Right now I am wondering if Brown is subtlely substituting the world view of the designers and builders of DC for that of the founding fathers. Namely, that while this artist or that architect may have a mystical view, they may not necessarily correspond to what, say, George Washington himself believed. Even if a particular fresco or building bears his visage. Especially if it was built or painted years after his death.

Keep in mind I am writing all this after reading only the first 100 pages. So if I am off the mark, here's hoping for a little grace.