David Gibbons is a diver and has dived in the Mediterranean and made interesting finds, which lends ample credence to the parts of the book where Jack and Costos dive in the Mediterranean Sea and try to find stuff on the sea floor that belonged to Paul. It is also evident that he did his research.
TLT is apparently the third book in the Jack Howard series. In the prior books Jack discovers Atlantis and the lost menorah from the Temple in Jerusalem, and the rest of the series seem to be about similar historical discoveries. Jack is the typical ruggedly handsome archaeologist who is also a dynamite deep sea diver and is very physically fit and fearless and knows about like every type of history, art and architecture. Very Gary Stu-ish. As a result he is not a very well-rounded character, although the book tries to make him interesting by giving him a like star-crossed former lover who maybe is killed because she tried warning him about the danger (signs point to her maybe surviving).
The other characters in TLT are from his archaeological diving team and/or are contacts in the history/archeology etc. fields who help him out in his travails. I noticed that despite their being experts in their fields, at some point or another they have an oddly out of character blank in their knowledge, something even I know, which is clearly there so that Jack can swoop to the academic rescue and explain it for them and the reader. They also spend a lot of time explaining historical/archaeological facts to each other, which is clearly intended to inform the audience. This wasn't too annoying for me, because I like these topics, but it might annoy other readers. One character, Costas, got very grossed out when having to navigate around dead and rotting bodies (that had been dead for hundreds if not thousands of years), which would be accurate for a lot of people, but I felt like it was written in for comic relief and to showcase how stoic and brave Jack is. My favorite character was the Ethiopian nun who helped them get into the main cathedral in Jerusalem.
Despite the characterization flaws, The Lost Tomb is a very interesting story that pulls you in and makes you want to know what happens next. The flatness of the characters does not diminish the story; the discoveries and chases are the point. I liked the different settings in places I'd like to visit and the subject matter. Obviously, in a genre like this you have to compare the book, main character, and writing to Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code books. I read the latter in high school, so it's been quite a while, but I think David Gibbons' series comes out on top, mostly because it isn't trying to be more than what it is and isn't smugly patting itself on the back at every clever turn. Brown's series also uses sex and murder to be shocking, while Gibbons relies on the twists and turns to keep you reading. I will say that if memory serves, Brown's writing is better than Gibbons', with more character growth. It also has more intrigue, if you're into that. Both books obviously rely on unproven things being true in order to build on them and have more untrue things being true (because A, then B, therefore C, even though A has never been proven and is probably made up). For The Lost Tomb, it was assumed that the shipwreck the Apostle Paul went through when being taken prisoner to Rome happened off a different island than was mentioned in the Bible.
The Lost Tomb also has the same assumption as The Da Vinci Code that because the Bible has had so many transcribers and translators, the original meaning was lost, and rapacious Christian leaders co-opted Jesus' words to their own means for both profit and power. This is untrue, since great care was taken in both the transcribing and translation of the texts, and it bugs me to hear educated people still parroting that sort of view. The issues within the Church are the same as the issues with humanity in general: we are imperfect and proud and like to be right, and this creates problems when there are large groups of us. No one who began the Christian Church ever set out to profit; they wanted to spread the good news. Also, obviously the Roman Catholic church has done a lot of harm over the ages, and is not great today in terms of women's rights, covering up child abuse, and birth control, but I think we're all over making them the Big Bad. Like, it's so done. Find a new villain, you know?
While he is not religious, Jack finds religion interesting and thinks certain things about are true, which contrasts him with the evil priest dude who wants to keep the truth about Jesus' gospel a secret in case it dismantles the Catholic church's power. This also did not really ring true to me. What devout Christian wouldn't want to hear what Jesus said? Wouldn't they want to read it even if it demolishes certain beliefs they've always held? I doubt any Christian, including high-up Catholic officials, would be like "screw what Jesus wrote! It will take away my power!" Also, murder is clearly outlined as Wrong in the 10 Commandments. There was also this whole subplot about Boudicca and how Christianity was brought to the British Isles that I thought was unnecessary (as much as I love Boudicca and Gothic architecture). Like, wasn't it just the Romans who brought it to them? I thought that was obvious. A lot of religious weirdness going on here.
Ultimately I enjoyed this book, even though I had to suspend my disbelief a lot. I'll read the others if I come across them.
Score: 4 out of 5 stars
Read in: mid January
From: free books rack at the library
Format: paperback
Status: put back on the free books rack at the library
Read in: mid January
From: free books rack at the library
Format: paperback
Status: put back on the free books rack at the library
No comments:
Post a Comment