I think the reason for the lack of characterization is that this is the second book in the series, and actually not the first book with Langdon. It's the middle book of a triology, and for people to pick that up as their first go into it is going to, by that nature, leave out a lot of details. Like he keeps mentioning "the Vatican a year ago" and sometimes you wish he'd explain, but he's not going to, because that was the first book. The first book was about the Illuminati, and the third will be about the Freemasons.


I found the plot to be a B+ and the readability to be a B+ but the skill of writing to be a D-. But that's more from my training as a writer now and watching him put in too many obvious cliches than any skill in writing. And his skill at obfuscating the twist was bad to the point of misleading, which makes many readers more angry about the twist than impressed with his ability to mislead. It could have been done much better than it was.

As far as the rest, I more or less agree with your ratings. :)