Rating: 
Summary: Ignore the Hype!
Review: This book gets hyped and I was led to believe it is something like Umberto Ecco or Dan Brown. It is most certainly neither. I wanted to like this book, but it was just a bad experience. The Hypnerotomchica mystery is only a short part of the book, utterly superficial and most of all more than unbelievable. If you are interested in endless descriptions of Princeton campus life or of problems between a dead father and a son who rather has dates with his girlfriend than working on a far fetched mystery, then you might like this book. Otherwise it simply sucks.
Rating: 
Summary: Very good
Review: I loved this book. When I saw it was called Inginious by the New York Times, I wanted to buy it immediately, and it did not dissapoint. Lots of adventure and fun stuff, but also some parts that were very emotional and written well. If you are expecting Da Vinci, it is not quite that fast paced, but its still worth the price of admission! Highly recommended!
Rating: 
Summary: I was prepared to love it...
Review: Plot sounds fabulous doesn't it? Described by the publisher as 'a tale of timeless intrigue, dazzling scholarship and great imaginative power', I just couldn't wait to dive into this thriller and escape! Who could resist catchy buzzwords & phrases like 'mysterious coded 500 year old manuscript, lost ancient diaries, hidden crypts'? Many who have now read 'The Da Vinci Code', or more intellectual thrillers such as 'The Name of the Rose', "The Dante Club" and so many other clever thrillers of merit are thirsting for more of the same. Instead, with 'The Rule of Four' I found way TOO much standard 'coming of age' and very little by way of suspense--despite the potential of a fantastic basic plot involving the very real and very rare Hypnerotomachia Poliphili... I found myself growing incredibly impatient with the slow & uneven pace of this novel. Although they say write about what you know [which the authors obviously did- therefore the 2 star rating], I just couldn't help thinking of our tireless glimpses into campus life and the concerns of the pallid main characters, as stale and irrelevant- an amateurish device to fill pages. I agree with the Booklist review, which said in part, that the novel 'occasionally betrays its origins as a post - college project'. It has that feel about it, which to be fair, may be forgiven in a first novel??? After finishing this book I was left with the sneaking suspicion that these two guys, riding on the staggering success of The Da Vinci Code, simply decided to try and crank out a commercial thriller...It has THAT feel to it too. If you are truly searching for a clever, well-written 'tale of timeless intrigue, dazzling scholarship and great imaginative power' try the lesser-known "Gospel" by Wilton Barnhardt; a big, fat satisfying read. Another would be "The Flanders Panel" by Arturo Perez-Reverte. Also recommended: Shadow of the Wind, Club Dumas, The Quincunx, The Alienist, The Eight...
Rating:
Summary: Amateur sleuthing hour
Review: I am half-way through this book and am still waiting for the action to begin. It's about some medieval book that is complex, might harbor secrets, people have been killed over, etc. etc. But at this point in the book, all we have is a bunch of Princeton undergraduates playing highjinks within a looming framework of angst and confusion. The characterizations are awful, the dialogue is unnatural and forced, the chapter transitions are childish (as if the authors had cut and pasted a bit of Clive Cussler), and there is utterly no momentum. I am so bored with this book, but I will keep going as it was a birthday present. This would never have been published had it not been for the success of Da Vinci Code. That book was deeper, better, more urgent, and more fun earlier and throughout. Clearly the publishers of Rule of Four saw some of the same things here as in Da Vinci Code: an old mystery, medieval, and with killings involved to protect secrets. However, The Rule of Four is almost a parody of bad medieval mystery writing -- a sort of "paint by numbers" undergraduate fiction effort -- and certainly is nowhere near Da Vinci Code in terms of action, suspense, or fascinating information.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty good
Review: The book cover says Caldwell and Thomson have been writing this book since 1998, and it shows. So many parts of the book have a crafted quality I rarely have seen in books written in a year, as many authors do now. Scenes are set in fascinating places, underground tunnels to fancy eating clubs, and even the most boring of all settings, the library, comes to life as in few other novels (though my favorite is still the final library scene in The Name of the Rose -- nothing compares!). I think there are parts of this book that could have been cleaner. I felt at times things were not completely explained, but my friend who read the book said she thought it moved at the right pace, so more might've been too much. My favorite part of the book was not the codes, which others have mentioned. I actually preferred seeing the inside of Princeton, and meeting characters I cared about, which isn't what I expected from a book like this. As a first novel, I thought this was amazing. It is not quite as good as The Name of the Rose, hence 4 stars, but still definitely worth it!
Rating: 
Summary: Different and worthwhile
Review: The reviews here have focused a lot on similarities between this book and The Da Vinci Code. There are some similarities, but what I mainly enjoyed here was a fun, well written tale of friends coming of age. The adventure and history, and the authors' great job of making the Hyperotomachia book come to life, just makes it that much more of a page turner. Readers who feel this is not as well written as The Da Vinci Code must have been reading a different book. How Rule of Four stacks up against Donna Tartt is more debatable, but however you look at it, the writing here is pretty much the gold standard for a thriller. Very smart, and very enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing to get excited about.
Review: This book is like the person who thinks they have it all -- looks, personality, charm, charisma. But, the realty is that they are unoriginal, boring and try too hard. When I finished The Rule of Four I thought nothing. I didn't hate it and I didn't love it. It was forgettable. The book starts off with the main character, Tom Sullivan, telling the reader about the Hyperotomachia, the mysterious book that is the center of the story. This would be great, but the authors fail to give the reader a reason to care. They seem to be so caught up in writing the story with it's complicated riddles and details of snobby ivy league students that they forget that a story is only compelling and passionate to the reading public if they can in some way identify or empathize with it. Therefore, I read the book always feeling like I was waiting for something to happen. Something with real emotion. Something truly intriguing. Something I could care about. Sadly I never got that.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyed it despite the negative reviews
Review: Understandbly some people are going to dislike this book for no reason other than the fact it has been "hyped." So many books seem disappointing for this reason: Someone has "told" us we're going to like it. Franzen's THE CORRECTIONS fell to this sad fate. But THE RULE OF FOUR is really an interesting book if you get past that. It's slightly like DA VINCI, but then so are about six or seven other books out there. Anagrams and clues are nothing new in books--authors have been putting them in for years; some blatant, and some, subtly. FOUR is more subtle than DA VINCI, but still catches your attention. What I liked most about this Caldwell/Thomason book was the attention to detail and the fact that the writing was better than CODE. But the only way you're really going to know if this is as good or bad as everyone says, is if you buy it yourself. Also recommended: McCrae's BARK OF THE DOGWOOD
Rating:
Summary: this book is overhyped crap
Review: boy do publishers like to cash in. "people" compare this to "great writing." then people are really stupid. Where does that leave the thirty nine steps, sign of the four(please note the steal of the title), eye of the needle, marathon man, or writers like john mcdonald. robert parker, and grisham. this is the american idol version of a good thriller.
Rating:
Summary: The Rule of Four
Review: What a fantastic first novel for Thomason and Caldwell. For those who think they are jumping on the band wagon of the Da Vinci Code you should read a little closer and see that they started writing the book right after graduating in '98. An absolutely great read.
|
