Customer Reviews

Rule of Four

5 star:		(156)
4 star:		(201)
3 star:		(168)
2 star:		(273)
1 star:		(436)

 

 

I have to admit - after two thirds of the book, I could go no further. I put it aside never to return. The plot was a little cliche, riding the tails of other books about mysterious discoveries that shed truth on cultural history. That would be OK. The plot, however, got lost in the personal and sophmoric antics of college students that were frankly uninspiring. However, if all the padding about Princeton were taken out, there would be little left. The pace was too sloooow and the writing not tight enough to make it interesting. The discoveries of protagonist were too infrequent and the impact was lost. I also heard some of this book on tape. The reader was excellent, but it was clear that he was even straining to generate some interest in the listener.

I went to Princeton, and the only aspects of this book that I found worthwhile were its oft-evocative descriptions of my alma mater. (Though, for the record, I'd like to state that it's not very accurate in its depiction of the undergraduate experience.) I can't imagine what anyone without fond memories of the university would see in this poorly-written and poorly-plotted novel.

My main complaint, I think, is with the self-consciousness and artificiality of the prose. The book reads as if its authors are trying to show off their creativity and intellectual prowess. Unfortunately, the resulting text contains awkwardly-structured sentences and laughable similes (a book "spread open on the floor with its spine broken, like a butterfly somebody stepped on"; "a good graduate program can smell indecision like a dog can smell fear"). The writing is such that you can't get lost in the story, for you always feel the authors' presence.

It doesn't help that the characters are flat and not even remotely believable, and that it is utterly lacking in suspense--odd, that, in a novel billed as a thriller. Both problems are largely a result of the structure of the book, which relies on frequent flashbacks to develop the psychology of the characters and explain the strangely powerful hold a Renaissance-era manuscript, the Hypnerotomachia, has over them. The technique of revealing details about the personalities of characters through flashbacks can be a very useful one, but here it falls flat, simply because nothing important is ever revealed.

Still, I might have forgiven _The Rule of Four_'s vapid prose, poor pacing, and undeveloped characters if there had been a compelling case made for the seemingly-supernatural significance of the Hypnerotomachia. Alas, nothing ever comes of it. It isn't often that I regret having read a book, but this one really was a waste of time.

The premise was interesting, but the characters were lifeless for me. I didn't care about any of them. There was way too much about college life and not enough about the so-called mystery, although if they had stuck to the mystery the book would have been a fraction of the length. If the mystery/suspense aspect hadn't been hyped so much, I wouldn't have bought this in the first place. I have many books that I read and re-read mainly because I enjoy the quality of writing and the characterizations, but this certainly isn't one of them.

The choice of writing in the first person present tense was curious. This works for short stories, but I think this book shows why it doesn't work for novels, at least for me. It made it very difficult to get past the reading process and into the story. I can generally get lost in a story and forget I'm reading, but not with this one.

I rarely get rid of books (I have 3700+ around the house), but this one is headed for Goodwill or Half Price.

According to the press reviews, this looked like my kind of book: a scholarly, erudite, well-written thriller. At the moment, I'm trying desperately to make it to page 150, constantly irritated by inconsistencies and downright idiocies. Here are a few examples.
1. The opening scenes take place during an April snowfall. While this is not improbable, it's described as the first snowfall of the year. Give me a break, no snow in New Jersey during January, February, or March?
2. Arcangelo Corelli is referred to as "a slightly obscure Italian composer". As a musician, I found this a strange statement coming from the mouth of a character supposedly named after Corelli, who is not obscure in the least.
3. Another character is portrayed simultaneously as suffering from a heart murmur and as being an athlete and football player. Not impossible, but a potential contradiction which demands some explanation, such as "Despite his heart condition . . . "
4. In one of the events taking place in the 15th century, an "illiterate pickpocket" is hired to break into a residence and copy some documents. How someone illiterate could copy anything written is beyond belief.
And these are just a few. Even without such inanities, the book is poorly written. It sounds just like what it is, the product of a couple of pretentious Ivy League undergrads. What I don't get is the enthusiastic reception it got from the critics. Did they actually read this nonsense?

This book was written in a style of older fiction and you could tell the authors were trying was to hard to do so. Never have I seen so many classic literature references in one book. It was like the authors were trying to prove they were well educated. The story was also very boring....no action mainly just character developement for characters that I never really cared about. Don't be fooled by the comparisons to Dan Brown because these guys are nowhere near him. The only similar thing about them is that the book they were researching in the story was old...thats about it. Don't waste your time on this one.

Compared to other academic thrillers like Rabid: A Novel, The Dante Club: A Novel, or Special Topics in Calamity Physics, The Rule of Four doesn't measure up.

The Rule of Four is set at Princeton, very obviously at Princeton, at look-at-me-I'm-a-Princetonian Princeton. There's a part in this book where the authors (and the characters are obviously the authors,) sneer at someone who is too obsequious, too flashy, not Ivy League subtle enough, and yet that's exactly what they're doing throughout this whole book.

Plotwise, the major turning points were oddly pulled out from under the major characters, much like a duel that happens off-stage and then someone staggers onto stage and tells you about it, and in a boring manner.

It's a first novel, and these two writers are very young. Some of the passages have merit. It will be interesting to watch them mature as writers.

Minna

The author thought a lot of himself thinking that we would be interested in hearing his exploits in the steam tunnels (for example) at his school. Potential here, but this work needed a good editor.

not sure how this book got published. Can't believe that it was listed anywhere around the Di Vinci book. First mistake that I have ever purchased on Amazon.

I love books.
Many different kinds of books.
I have over 600 of them & they are all my friends that I sometimes revisit when the mood strikes me.
Some I was not thrilled with, but I could at least see what the author was going for.
For me to give away a book is unheard of.
I gave away "The Rule Of Four" as soon as I finished reading it, which took me longer than usual because it was so BORING & INANE!

My mother has a great word to describe this book: "Discombobulated"!
The premise of the book sounds intriguing, but the delivery is choppy,
sophmoric, & greatly lacking!
Just when I thought it was heating up, it went off in a completely different direction, bringing any hope of excitement or consistency to a grinding halt!
Example: One of their friends takes a swan dive from a building-Was he pushed or did he kill himself?--
"My God! He's DEAD!"
Takes a breath..."So....What are YOU wearing to the party?"
(Well, maybe not EXACTLY like that but very close!)
Reading this book gave me that feeling you get when you have to sneeze but CAN'T!

If they wanted to write a book about life at Princeton & their socialistic "eating clubs" they should have just gone ahead & written it!
Then maybe all these peeps who say that they recalled fond memories of their own college years would have been happy. The End. Bye-Bye, now.
Instead, they attempted to promote it as a thriller (THEIR word, not MINE!)& threw in a murder or 2 in order to lure many of us into buying it!

I greatly disagree with those that call it "intellectual", "cerebral", "thrilling"...It is NONE of these!
It is pompous, self-serving, & boring!

This was a good idea for a book, but it was very poorly written. The effect of this unfortunate combination is a boring book hardly worth the trouble of reading. I wish that I would have done what others reviews did and stopped after 50 pages.

There are insipid chase scenes devoid of suspense; feigned scholarly discussions that are lacking insight or purpose and a pointless central mystery plot with no hint of cleverness. The characters are shallow, dull, uninteresting, boring, lifeless and just plain drab and awful. While in some professions these attributes might be considered an asset; in a modern mystery novel they are in fact a real detriment. None of the principal players are at all interesting. The four main characters are not at all likeable and I couldn't sympathize with any of them on any level. Count yourself as lucky if you have none of these manikins for friends.

The historic references to the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" are the only bright spots in this pathetic waste of a book. The reader will have to force himself through a sluggish plot with boring characters and a slow pace to learn a little about this renaissance love story. There is a modern translation of the original book in question. I wish that I would have read the modern English translation of the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" and never heard of "The Rule of Four".

I have the feeling that "The Rule of Four" is for an early adolescent audience while the serious books are left for the grown-ups.

On the positive side, the cover of the book is a very pretty shade of red.

This was painful to read.
Pompus and pitiful.
I would not recommend this book to anyone; not even my enemies because that would be too cruel to make them suffer through this terrible book.