I wish that I could say that I am excited to write a review about Dan Brown's latest book, Inferno, but I cannot say that is true. I found many issues with this book, which I will outline below, but in order to provide peace of mind to those still wishing to read this book, I have identified the spoilers section below and provided my conclusion above the spoilers.
The Issues:
I have major issues with the length and breath of this book. Seriously, the amount of repetition was overkill. I felt the entire story could have been told in fifty chapters or less.
What normally draws me to the Langdon books is the symbology aspect. Taking a symbol and showing how it is used at different times in different contexts among different cultures. But this book clearly deviates from this formula, becoming nothing more than a travelogue and art history book.
Besides the narration problems, including the over complication of events, I have real issues with the antagonist solution and the protagonist response.
I do respect Dan Brown's research abilities in putting the art history and Italian history portion of this book together even if overdone. However, with the above mentioned internal problems and fallacies I have little respect for this book as a complete package.
Overall score: 2 Paws (Less than satisfying)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Spoiler Alert*
Ok, so I really like Robert Langdon in the previous books as a well traveled academic with some interesting perspectives, but this book makes me really doubt Robert Langdon as a narrator. While I am guessing that this was intentional, it does not bode well for any upcoming Langdon novels as I no longer trust our protagonist.
My guess is that this also was intentional by Dan Brown, since he likes to make his readers think about the issues brought up by his books. But I would think about it a lot more if I didn't see so many fallacies with his reasoning, unanswered questions as to the real affect of his solution, and ethical arguments therein.
1. Is it men and women who are infertile?
If both, then how can one guarantee that 2 fertile people are coupled? This has the potential of setting up a "has vs has not" scenario and further decreasing the gene pool.
2. Does the virus also affect the desire to procreate?
If not, there could be added angst to the situation as well as increasing the black market for children.
Many people do not know the extent to which others will go to to raise a child. I have known many adoptive parents whose desire to parent has few bounds including waiting years on a waiting list, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and traveling all over the world. This desire has also created a market where people sell their children, or worse where children are kidnapped, and sold to wealthy adoptive parents.
3. No guaranteed population regulation is apparent in this plan. It actually means a smaller gene pool. Just because fewer people can populate doesn't mean that they won't also overpopulate by having more than the average amount of children. I have known families that have 10+ children just because they can. This ratio negates the population control theory. The only solution to this is if the gene marker also had a limitation effect (limited number of viable eggs).