Nearly a month ago, I took advantage of a train commute to read The Rule of Four.
There have been plenty of references in describing (read: hyping) this book to Umberto Eco’s novels, but those are only true in genre. While this tale is also a present-day mystery centered around a historical document/investigation, The Rule of Four has none of the enticing (and maddening) depth of Eco’s The Name of the Rose or Foucault’s Pendulum.
I found Pendulum to be one of the best and most frustrating books I’ve ever read. It builds in richness through the first half of the book, mixing story-telling and inventive use of history… but then the rest of the book drove me nuts, because the story dribbled out. The Rule of Four is much more about the story, which is why it’s a quick read. The historical sleuthing that goes on is inventive, but at times it seems too easy, despite the backstory of years of work that is sketched in. I liked the book, but pick it up as a fun mystery read, not an Eco-like exercise of the mind.
I did love one line, though.
The delicious futility of impossible tasks is the catnip of overachievers.
Almost too epigrammatic, but still a fun phrasing and idea.
Note that the website has more than the usual material… they’ve created a game centered on historical sleuthing, via the web, intended to mimic some of the brainteasers and linguistic code-breaking described in the book. I haven’t tried it, but I’m intrigued.