OK, so I did genuinely like the book. I enjoyed a lot of the hi
OK, so I did genuinely like the book. I enjoyed a lot of the historical facts and the historical "facts" in the book. I learned some interesting things about the math of the pyramids in Egypt that I didn't know and a fair amount about Napoleon's invasion of Egypt (although this was largely from Wikipedia while doing some 'fact checking' - I'm always curious with historical fiction titles what is real and what isn't). I found the characters to be largely likable, mostly believable and generally well rounded.
I took issue with the card counting Ethan employed at the beginning of the book. Card counting was first 'discovered' in 1962 (although used in the early 1950's). Unlike other mathematical ideas that were 'discovered' in western civilization and the believed to have never existed before then (addressed in the book to a degree), card counting had the same limitations to discover as Bayesian statistics did for Rev. Thomas Bayes in the 1700's (a contemporary of the books) - that is, the math behind card counting is complex enough that simulations are required to demonstrate it's feasibility. While it's plausible that an exceptionally bright individual could have theorized the benefit of counting cards, tested that hypothesis through play and had it confirmed, it would not be reasonable for that person to expect all other players at the table to be equally versed in this advantage. The main frustration of this was the later discussions between savants about the origins of things such as Pascal's numbers and the 'impossibility' of them having existed pre western discovery - clearly the author has some feelings on the subject that are not consistently applied. The philosophical implications of mathematical 'discovery' (do we discover things in math [suggesting that they exist innately] or do we invent them [suggesting that math is a societal construct useful in describing the natural world]?) in the book aren't deeply delved into, but they got me thinking. This was the thing that most made me enjoy the book - the thinking it made me do. I should note that I'm a statistician by profession and my wife is a math teacher, so these are regular discussions we have, the book provided a nice catalyst for some of them.
A lot of the book was repetitious and dry - the same basic scenario being rehashed, over and over again. A lot of time was spent explaining things that had little bearing on the story. If this is an Indiana Jones type adventure (which it very much seems like) then I spent too much time reading about the origin of his hat and whip and not enough about the big boulder rolling toward me.
The book was very Masonically heavy at the beginning, and thankfully it faded to a pathetic whimper by the end of the book, with only passing references to Masonic symbols. I'm as tired of Masons in books as I am of zombies and vampires.
My last gripe about the book has to do with the inclusion of pictures. Pictures were included to help the reader visualize the Fibonacci sequence and how it related to nautilus shells. If this was included, for something so incredibly unimportant to everything in the book, why was no picture of the medallion or the calendar device included? I got tired of reading half-written descriptions of what they looked like.
OK - so I've just complained a lot about the book, but please remember, I spent more than a month reading it (This was a 'fun' book to read, so I take my time enjoying the experience rather than rushing through it), so it wasn't terrible. There was just lots of room for improvement.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback.
Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.