Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricia
I agree with everyone who finds the plot very similar to its predecessors.
Also there are huge gaps.
SPOILER ALERT
Zachary Solomon appears to die in prison. The villain has got hold of young Soloman's personal fortune.
Now, on hearing about young Solomon's death in prison, didn't it occur to his father, Peter Solomon, to wind up his son's estate, trace the money and see where it had gone? After all, in the absence of a will, he would be his son's heir. And Peter Solomon has already spoken of the family fortune as needing to be used responsibly.
You would think that he would check it out. On finding that the fortune had been transferred hours before his son's death, he would surely have tried to trace the person who had acquired it.
|
How about running around town with a recently severed hand. I'm thinking the act of chopping off a hand sans anesthetic and then cauterizing the wound would result in shock (especially combined with the other trauma). If it wasn't cauterized, then he would have bled to death.
However, these things (and the hundreds more we could mention) are nits. It's a Dan Brown novel. You volunteer to sacrifice credibility (and almost every other literary virtue) at the altar of an exciting plot. The problem with this book is that after making the necessary sacrifices, the reader gets nothing in return.