angels...

I finished reading Angels and Demons by Dan brown last night. and i have to say, i was dissapointed in the ending.

if you havent read yet, there may be some spoilers. so. be forwarned.

My take on dan brown books is that they are basicaly indiana jones story except instead of ancient african relgions, its the catholic church and the secret anti-catholic societies. whatever. thats the part that every one has their panties in a bunch over, and thats the part idont care. its not an attack on the church, its just a damn adventure story.

heres the part i didtn like. he spends the whole book developing this caracter of the popes chaplain, the carlevato (i think) and in the LAST CHAPTER he changes that character. He changes from a devout and intelligent man who is mourning the death of his mentor, and struggling to remain cool in the face of tragity, to an insane person. I didnt like that. I understand the desire to have a twist at the end, or a surprise in order to create suspense for your reader, but that should NOT be at the expense of character integrity. I want to know that when im reading the book, im not being lied to by the narrator. it would be different if it were a first person narative, and it was from the bias of another character, but from a 3rd person, omnipotent narrator, thats unacceptable.
The davinci code did not have that problem, and while the plot of angels and demons was more interesting and, as peg says, more gritty the ending really just killed it for me. I dunno. there had to be a better way to do the twist at the end. even if there were NO twist at the end, perhaps just a lead in to davinci code(which supposedly comes after) either way. there were plenty of twists along the way. i was dissapointed.

anywhooo. i was up till 3 am reading it, and today im sleepy. it was a good read. i would still recomend it. I just think that the dan brown books, while good, were over hyped.