Ian Caldwell & Dustin Thomason - The Rule of Four

[Kell]

The Rule of Four
Authors: Ian Caldwell & Dustin Thomason
ISBN # 0099451956
Publisher: Arrow Books
1st Published: 2004

Tom Sullivan, about to graduate from Princeton, is haunted by the violent death of his father, an academic who devoted his life to one of the rarest, most complex books in the world. Coded in seven languages, the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, an intricate mathematical mystery and a tale of love and arcane brutality, has baffled scholars since 1499. Tom's friend, Paul, is similarly obsessed and when a long-lost diary surfaces they finally seem to make a breakthrough. Only hours later, a fellow researcher is murdered and the two friends suddenly find themselves in great danger. Working desperately to expose the book's secret, they slowly uncover a Renaissance tale of passion and blood, a hidden crypt and a secret worth dying to protect...

Dubbed “The Da Vinci Code for people with brains,” the back cover screamed a promise that wasn’t really, in my opinion, kept. Yes, it was an interesting story, but much of the action is kept from the readers’ view & we only see the answers, not the puzzle itself.

The writing style was a little stilted, possibly the result of having two authors working together on the project; there were moments where the joins weren’t quite as seamless as they could have been, but it didn’t really detract from the tale.

The Hypnerotomachia Poliphili is obviously a book very close to their hearts & I suspect their own college dissertations may have involved it, perhaps providing them with the inspiration for The Rule of Four. The story really focuses more on the relationships between the four friends; Tom, Paul, Charlie & Gil, so it’s a bit of a disappointment that I didn’t feel any real connection with any of those characters – I didn’t feel I got to know them at all with the exception of Tom, & that was only because the story was being told from his point of view. The dual themes of obsession & betrayal were of more interest to me, so it was a shame more wasn’t made of them instead, other than to show how the book manages to draw people into it.

All in all, this was a more challenging read than Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, but slightly less satisfying. I think that given time, this writing duo will go far & that their storytelling skills will be more finely tuned the longer they work together, should they choose to take that direction, although I’d be interested in seeing what they can do on their own steam & seeing which voice flavoured this particular offering more.

[Anonymous]

Dubbed “The Da Vinci Code for people with brains,” the back cover screamed a promise that wasn’t really, in my opinion, kept.

It was an absurd statement to make given that they were of different genres and Foucault's Pendulum (Umberto Eco) is the choice for the brainy ones. The Da Vinci Code being a sort-of thriller and The Rule Of Four being little more than a coming of age story set in a college with some historical intrigue added to ensure a bit of texture.

The writing style was a little stilted, possibly the result of having two authors working together on the project; there were moments where the joins weren’t quite as seamless as they could have been, but it didn’t really detract from the tale.

The writing was okay but there were many occasions where it was simply limp and lack-lustre. I thought the book served as more of a catalogue of Princeton than any-sort-of thriller as their was little tension but much focus on college pranks and traditions, such as running about naked.

The story really focuses more on the relationships between the four friends; Tom, Paul, Charlie & Gil, so it’s a bit of a disappointment that I didn’t feel any real connection with any of those characters – I didn’t feel I got to know them at all with the exception of Tom, & that was only because the story was being told from his point of view.

Tom was strange in that, if I remember correctly, he suffered some mental conflict over whether to pursue the secrets of a very old mystery or go to dinner with his girlfriend.

I must be honest, I binned this book just before two hundred pages; it was just going nowhere. The back cover of the hardback promised a blend of Brown, Tartt, and Eco - the last two should sue.

[Michelle]

Dubbed “The Da Vinci Code for people with brains,” the back cover screamed a promise that wasn’t really, in my opinion, kept.

It was an absurd statement to make given that they were of different genres and Foucault's Pendulum (Umberto Eco) is the choice for the brainy ones.

I find it quite insulting that any book can be labeled as one for 'brainy people'. This whole attitude that brainy people only read certain types of books is getting rather tedious.

[Freewheeling Andy]

I would argue that non-brainy people would have a lot of difficulty with Foucault's Pendulum, Michelle. It's a chewy, heavy book. Very hard work.

Perhaps the word brainy is wrong, but people with wide knowledge and long attention span can read pretty much any kind of book. Those without are going to struggle with some books. Foucault definitely falls into that category.

[Anonymous]

Dubbed “The Da Vinci Code for people with brains,” the back cover screamed a promise that wasn’t really, in my opinion, kept.

It was an absurd statement to make given that they were of different genres and Foucault's Pendulum (Umberto Eco) is the choice for the brainy ones.

I find it quite insulting that any book can be labeled as one for 'brainy people'. This whole attitude that brainy people only read certain types of books is getting rather tedious.
But, Michelle, as Kell has already said, The Rule Of Four was also dubbed thus.

[Michelle]

I would argue that non-brainy people would have a lot of difficulty with Foucault's Pendulum, Michelle. It's a chewy, heavy book. Very hard work.

Perhaps the word brainy is wrong, but people with wide knowledge and long attention span can read pretty much any kind of book. Those without are going to struggle with some books. Foucault definitely falls into that category.

IMHO, having a wide knowledge and long attention span does not necessarily equate with intelligence. Part of it, yes, but there's alot more to being brainy or intelligent.

Plus, do brainy people only enjoy heavy books, that are hard work? Why not a good thriller / horror / sci-fi etc?

[Anonymous]

IMHO, having a wide knowledge and long attention span does not necessarily equate with intelligence. Part of it, yes, but there's alot more to being brainy or intelligent.

Of course there's more. A bit of critical application doesn't go amiss.


Plus, do brainy people only enjoy heavy books, that are hard work? Why not a good thriller / horror / sci-fi etc?

Of course they don't.

As for the thriller/horror/sci-fi question. I'm not so sure that there's much good horror in the market at the moment. King is churning out so-so novels, Herbert is taking forever, Brite left the genre years ago, Koontz has obviously been inspired by Henry Ford, Laymon is dead, Lovecraft is dead, Poe is dead, Stoker is dead, Little isn't too well known, Kiernan isn't too well known, Hutson is pathetic, Fowler puts too much humour in his horror, Rice has went all Jesusy, and the rest of the bookshelves in most stores are devoted the Buffy the freaking Vampire Slayer. Shouldn't those books be in the kids' section? The only semi-decent horror - and with a fine dose originality - to make a mark in recent years is Mark Z. Danielewski's House Of Leaves, although part of that disappeared up its own behind.

I don't know much about thrillers, admittedly, but I know that James Patterson can't even be bothered to write the books he puts his name to these days. He just sees books as one big exercise in taking your money - setting up reader groups to find out what you want to read and then commissioning somebody to write it and then putting the book out as James Patterson with so-and-so. With? WITH?

Scifi. I'm not too into other worlds and aliens within fiction, preferring that stuff for television and cinema. I'm a big fan of JG Ballard who has written some influential science fiction, I've read Philip K. Dick, and will read more sci-fi authors in time.

There's nothing wrong with any of them; it's just that so much dross floats to the top.

[Freewheeling Andy]

I would argue that non-brainy people would have a lot of difficulty with Foucault's Pendulum, Michelle. It's a chewy, heavy book. Very hard work.

Perhaps the word brainy is wrong, but people with wide knowledge and long attention span can read pretty much any kind of book. Those without are going to struggle with some books. Foucault definitely falls into that category.

IMHO, having a wide knowledge and long attention span does not necessarily equate with intelligence. Part of it, yes, but there's alot more to being brainy or intelligent.

Plus, do brainy people only enjoy heavy books, that are hard work? Why not a good thriller / horror / sci-fi etc?

Not at all. You're mischaracterising what I said, I think. For one thing there are many aspects to intelligence.

But some books are very cerebral, and I think those books are limited in terms of who can read them. I specifically didn't say that "intelligent" people, however that's defined, don't enjoy reading other stuff, but some people are going to struggle with, say, Umberto Eco or Thomas Pynchon.

I don't know anyone who only reads cerebral novels, though. There's nothing precluding anyone reading Sci-Fi or thrillers or whatever, although there are better and worse, and trashier and less trashy, in any group of books. Some of the most intelligent people I know only read SF when reading fiction, but that's because they read for the ideas, rather than plot or characterisation, for example.

Interestingly, the SF I most enjoy is exactly the same as Stewart's. JG Ballard and Philip K Dick.

[Inanna]

is the choice for the brainy ones.

Its nothing but a sales gimmik when they say a certain book is for people with brains and the people who buy a book purely on that reason are surely so far up themselves to believe that they are more brainier than others just for reading that book!!!!


I find it quite insulting that any book can be labeled as one for 'brainy people'. This whole attitude that brainy people only read certain types of books is getting rather tedious.

I second you on that Michelle, but we both surely know that only egotistical people would buy into that 'label'

[Marilou]

For brainy people? For boring people more like! I fell asleep about 3 thousand times while reading...sorry, because i was reading this book!
Well, I suppose, it's a good choice for insomniacs. finally they will be able to fall asleep. Good nite

[dogmatix]

Im not getting trapped in this discussion but I will discuss the book:blush:

The Rule of Four had SO much potential and while reading it I found it a haunting page turner. I have to agree with Kell though, in the end I found it lacking something and a bit short in cohesiveness. This book would benefit form a re-work after these two have matured a bit as writers. I would certainly read it again and found the premise fascinating. I truly did enjoy it, warts and all.