Talk:The Lost Symbol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
December 29, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept
WikiProject Novels (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

List of Places[edit]

It would be useful and relevant to include a section in the article listing and linking to all the important buildings/places visited in the book, including the Washington Memorial, Capitol Building, Washington Cathedral and a number of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.198.230 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

People haven't read it yet?[edit]

C'mon, it has already sold over a million copies, and it's only 500+ pages long. You've all read it in one day, post the synopsis!

Here's from his page:

"As the story opens, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is summoned unexpectedly to deliver an evening lecture in the U.S. Capitol Building. Within minutes of his arrival, however, the night takes a bizarre turn. A disturbing object--artfully encoded with five symbols--is discovered in the Capitol Building. Langdon recognizes the object as an ancient invitation... one meant to usher its recipient into a long-lost world of esoteric wisdom.

When Langdon's beloved mentor, Peter Solomon--a prominent Mason and philanthropist--is brutally kidnapped, Langdon realizes his only hope of saving Peter is to accept this mystical invitation and follow wherever it leads him. Langdon is instantly plunged into a clandestine world of Masonic secrets, hidden history, and never-before-seen locations--all of which seem to be dragging him toward a single, inconceivable truth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.59.87 (talkcontribs)

This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you are not satisfied with the current recap, please be bold and add one yourself. Thank you. blackngold29 14:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but that wasn't a recap, it was the sort of thing that people knew before the book came out, based on advanced publicity. Anyone can read the back cover, we're talking an actual synopsis of the story, from somebody who has read it! ;) 68.53.59.87 00:28, September 20, 2009

Update required[edit]

This book was first rumoured to be released in early 2007 and now it is August of that year and still there not much info. Sadly Brown won't release anything. I wish we had another update from my favorite author. Mehicdino 09:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a link for the new cover in the "New Cover" section below -ice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icefreeze57 (talkcontribs) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The book's working title[edit]

This article [1] indicates that the title 'The Solomon Key' has been dropped. Presumably we should keep an eye out for a new working title and redirect this page there once we have it? Just to alert people...Peeper 11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say wait till any oficial announcement is made, either way. --soUmyaSch 11:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for experienced Wikipedian[edit]

This article contains sentences like:

"and the fact that the most recent U.S. Presidential election was a choice between two members of the Skull and Bones secret society" without any reference to proof.

In short; it doesn't meet my standards, and it probably doesn't meet wiki standards either. Is there any1 experienced enough to decide how to edit this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.25.60 (talkcontribs) (22:40, May 27, 2007

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
You are correct that all statements on Wikipedia should have appropriate references, though with things growing so quickly (we get about 2,000 new articles per day) the level of referencing is often sadly lacking on many articles. If you see a statement that you believe is false, you can either remove it, or request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag at the end of the section in question. Hope that helps, and if you have any questions, let us know.  :) --Elonka 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole article is fairly light on verifiable information - I took a pass through here about a year ago to clean it up and missed the "fact" claim. I've modified that sentence to simply a list of topics that were cited as possible coverage; but without any 'conclusions' on the veracity of the topic. Please jump in there if you see anything else out of place! Kuru talk 00:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml

I'm unfamiliar with editing so this may be in inccorrect format.

Perhaps the writer was referring to the Bush vs Kerry election. Both members were Skulls and Bones members I know and I tried to find a link. Someone more experienced with this may be able to find a better link to proove this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.164.194 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary tag[edit]

This article opens: The Solomon Key is the working title of an unreleased novel currently being worked on by Dan Brown. Exactly how stupid must a reader be to not then realize "This article or section contains information regarding scheduled, forthcoming or expected future book(s). The content may change as the book release approaches and more information becomes available."?

This is an example of a truly unnecessary tag. I know that there are Wikipedians who believe that tags are the greatest thing since sliced bread. But I cannot imagine a newspaper or magazine article, a televised story, or an encyclopedia entry, that would feel it necessary to include both of these statements at the opening of an article like this. One clearly negates the need for the other. Anything that is unnecessary and redundant is inherently poor writing. Wishing to avoid poor writing, we should monitor our use of tags.

Tags warning against POV or lack of verified information are one thing, but this kind of tag serves absolutely no purpose at all. No one reading the opening sentence will fail to realize that the book can still change. For heaven's sake, it even mentions in the opening that the title is a working title, which clearly indicates that things can change. Why on earth does anyone think that this tag is needed? Unschool 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Massive Cleanup Needed[edit]

I intend to clean-up this article soon, but I wish for some feedback on my proposed rewrite first. 1) Remove the 'Likely speculation section' per WP:Crystal and/or WP:NOT. This section is entirely inappropriate. 2) I shall attempt to find sources for the content of this article and statements in that section. 3) Depending on how much actual VERFIABLE information for content I can find I may restructure the article. 4) I'll attempt to find some form of release date or range of release dates. If anyone has any problem with this propsed plan please speak now. I shall commence this rewrite in a day or two. Many Thanks 03swalker (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

-The third refrence is broken 75.134.19.185 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did this come from?[edit]

"After the successful publication of The Da Vinci Code, there were rumors that Dan Brown had a clandestine summit with a few prominent Armenian scholars; this information first originated from conspiratorial sources in the Near-East and could not be confirmed or denied." This line needs a source or it needs to be deleted.(PhilipDSullivan (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

I always wondered about Harvard[edit]

A sentence in the article reads:

"According to current information, The Solomon Key will be the third book involving Robert Langdon, the fictional Harvard University professor."

Despite my once being a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard, I've long suspected that it might not really exist.

(Seriously, though, perhaps it would be worded better as

". . ., The Solomon Key will be the third novel by Dan Brown involving the character of Robert Langdon, a Harvard University professor.")Daqu (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC

I've changed it to "According to current information, The Solomon Key will be the third book involving the fictional Robert Langdon, a Harvard University professor." - hope this is better 84.71.123.26 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
does it really need to be stated that Langdon is fictional? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Masonic ?[edit]

While the Da Vinci Code is often considered to be an anti-Catholic book, it's still unclear whether Salomon Key is anti-Masonic or not. Given Brown's affinity for esoteric knowledge, I don't think it can be labeled that way, and some may even view it as a kind of promotional book, much like Da Vinci indirectly gave publicity to Opus Dei. ADM (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

|Honestly I don't think you can call a work of fiction anti-anything and remain without bias. Nobody even knows how much they will factor into the novel.Sch-u740 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

|Just finished it - I'm a Mason, and I think it's nothing but complimentary to both Blue Lodge and Scottish Rite Masonry. Definitely not Anti-Masonic whatsoever. If anything, it will lead to more men inquiring about joining the Craft. MrBill (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not Anti-Masonic, however a lot of the stuff he trots out in it such as the ending bit about people becoming gods themselves is complete rubbish in the context of regular freemasonry. Also there is a danger that a statement like this could portray Freemasonry as a religion and that is a misconception that the Grand Lodges around the world certainly don't want propagated to the public.Jaquesdemolay92 (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Film?[edit]

Does anyone know if there is going to be a movie of this eventually, as with Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code? Mollymoon 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is the possibility, since Ron Howard has stated that he intends to complete the Langdon 'trilogy' but I wouldn't include a mention because there have been no details and the book hasn't even come out.Sch-u740 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

New cover[edit]

Need to update the cover, it's no longer this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.228 (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the new cover http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=0385504225&cmpid=SL_20090707_RWB

I do not know how to change the picture :( I tried but i dont want to mess up the rest of the page :)

best of luck -ice

People are holding their breath...[edit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090901795.html?nav=rss_email/components Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Symbologist" link[edit]

I see in all three articles on Langdon novels the world "symbologist" links to our rather ugly and confusing symbology page. Should it link to Symbolism? Something else? Joshdboz (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn´t "symbologist" a made up proffesion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Out now![edit]

The book is out now, hopeing a rewrite soon :-)210.84.56.186 (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Added jacket cover puzzle summary[edit]

If any more of the "puzzles" are solved, please update the main page to include the solutions. Thanks so much! Noah (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge all of the puzzles have been solved, but putting solutions in the Wikipedia article really isn't what Wikipedia is for... In fact, the only information that should go into the article should be information that can be linked to a published reliable source. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. The puzzles are fun though! FYI, the letter-number combinations are code for a phone #, and the numeric symbols on the front cover link to chapter numbers, similar to the circular puzzle from the DVC bookjacket. --Elonka 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The DiVinci Code section of Wikipedia has had the "solutions" found on it's Jacket cover for years. Just saying! Noah (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
please do not include actual solutions. just saying there are puzzles is sufficient enough for wikipedia. i know wikipedia has spoilers but this maybe a little too unexpected to readers as they may not even know about puzzles but they would have looked at answers forcibly before getting a chance to solve them. This is not like a sports event where results are expected. -- Ashish-g55 15:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers[edit]

Don't you think it would be a LOT smarter to omit Mal'akh's other identities, particularly as Zachary Solomon? I could see it coming, but it's easily the book's most important secret. Giving it away in the characters list is absolutely insane. I'm taking the Solomon alias off. +1 on this one! It totally ruined the whole twist! Since it in the majority of the book is different charaters it should be listed as that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resonance451 (talkcontribs) 06:42, September 21, 2009

It's a fair concern, but this type of thing has been discussed extensively, as to whether or not to include spoilers in Wikipedia article about books or other works of fiction. See also WP:PLOTSUM and WP:SPOILER. There was even a major debate on whether or not a "spoiler" banner template should be placed at the top of any plot section, to warn readers that such information might be included. But the consensus is that it's to be expected that an encyclopedic article about a book, will contain a concise summary of the contents of that book, and that no spoiler warnings are necessary. --Elonka 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that any reasonable person should be aware that the section titled PLOT is a spoiler and there's no need of a banner announcing it, but this is not always the case in the CAST section. you don't expect one of the most important secrets of the story to be in bold in the first lines of the section. I'm talking about Mal'akh of course. This is what happened to me: I skipped the plot section successfully, but then, there it was. and there is no way you can ignore it. it blows the whole story in a glance. please remove "Zachary Solomon" or at least flag the section as spoiler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessche (talkcontribs) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite a spoiler, but interesting nonetheless; on page 373, when referring to the (questionable) etymology of the word 'sincere', meaning "without wax", DB makes a veiled attack on his previous book Digital Fortress, saying "Ironically, this same code had been a plot twist in a mediocre thriller Langdon had read years ago." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.67.121 (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies and mistakes[edit]

Heh, oh noes, a flaw in the book! That'll be one of about 357 errors, at least.  :) Though as to which ones should go into the Wikipedia article, we should wait to see which ones are genuinely "notable" errors, as in which ones are being written up in outside press. If there's major controversy over an error or a misinterpretation of some sort, that's probably worth including, but other trivia (see WP:TRIVIA) though it may be fun to spot, probably isn't right for the article. If in doubt of whether or not something should be included in the article though, please feel free to list it here on the talkpage so we can take a look at it? --Elonka 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Or that someone with a recently severed hand is calmly walking around, playing tour guide, and walking up and down stairs? ;) Those are, alas, original research and we can't put them into the article. If, however, we can find (multiple) other sources covering these errors, then yes, they might be worth including. --Elonka 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a little too early right now, but it's worth noting that Brown's other books have sections or sub pages titled "Inaccuracies." 5Q5 (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source that can be used for two of the inaccuracies: The direction of travel to Kalorama, and the highest point in DC.[2] --Elonka 03:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, seriously, the best we've got on inaccuracies is that he's got someone driving the wrong direction and misspelling Amtrak? Speculation over what you can "really" see from a plane landing at Dulles? With the intensely precise details on the history, structure and architecture of DC and the minutia on painting and sculpture, if Metro stations and plot faux pas are all we've got, then I'm sorry but imho this needs to stay on the talk page and out of the article. If someone can tell us (with references) that the Capital Building doesn't really have an SBB or the art doesn't really show what he says it does, then we've got something to write. Otherwise it's trivia, and the kind of trivia that simply makes everything else in his book seem stronger. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that it would not be appropriate to create a section for just those two inaccuracies. But I'm confident that more sources will be available in due time. --Elonka 14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
As per WP:TALK, this discussion should remain focused on ways to improve the article, and not a general discussion of its topic. It is not our place to add any information about inaccuracies unless they are supported by reliable, verifiable sources that specifically provide this information in relation to the book, as per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:CS, etc. Nightscream (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus requested - restore or keep off plot material[edit]

On September 22, five hours after I added some factual plot reveals to the article, an administrator came along and deleted them using the reason "condensing plot" (unusual since the plot was and still is sorely in need of expansion) The admin in question happens to be one of, some say the, world's leading experts on Kryptos, the CIA coded sculpture mentioned in Brown's novel and likely the upcoming nonfiction companion book. The effect of the edits was that the plot was returned to its minimal status, which helped Brown and the publisher, but not the Wiki article. I ask for consensus now on restoring the edits in the box below. The admin in question has given a green light to this consensus request on her talk page. I'm not saying the material is perfect, but that's what other editors are for, to tweak as needed. Please register your comments below, and if there is approval I will restore them Sat or Mon. They go in various appropriate places in the article. 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mal'akh destroys Katherine Solomon's Smithonsonian-sponsored laboratory, where she conducted successful experiments in the ability of the human mind to affect subatomic particles, in a fiery nighttime explosion.

Katherine enters the room and is reunited with Peter, who informs her that he had secretly made copies of her computer research records, which proved experiments that "demonstrated the effect of human thought on everything from ice crystals to random-event generators to the movement of subatomic particles."

[people are not God's subjects, but in fact possess the capability to be gods themselves]: the Second Coming is actually the Second Coming of man.

[In the end, Langdon realizes that the word is Hope.] The "lost symbol" in the context of the story, however, is revealed to be a copy of the Bible secreted away in the cornerstone of the Washington Monument deep underground. Unretrievable, it and whatever other secrets may be contained within are lost to time.

Also, here is supporting evidence that the "Lost Symbol" in the book's title is a tangible object, that being a copy of the Bible: Pg 471: (style as written): Peter: "The Lost Word is buried in D.C.... and it does rest at the bottom of a long staircase beneath an enormous engraved stone." Pg 486: Langdon: "The Lost Word was buried in the cornerstone of this monument on July 4, 1848, in a full Masonic ritual." 5Q5 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The plot needs to be longer. I came to this article after reading the book, and I really hoped it was so short because no one had bothered to expand yet. While I understand the desire not to be excessively long, the current summary is a joke. It is ridiculous how little is included here: It even completely leaves out the pyramid and the capstone! It seems to have the first few and last few chapters covered, only giving a list of locations for all the rest! There shall be spoliers on Wikipedia, and I hope that this article is significantly expanded to include all of the major and minor plot elements of this fantastic book. Reywas92Talk 23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I restored the above plot detail to the article and added more. Still needs tweaking. 5Q5 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Plot section is currently at 750+ words, needs to be reduced by about 1/3. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree that the plot section is too long. It keeps creeping up to a large size, and then someone condenses it, and then it creeps larger again, and we condense it... It'll probably continue like this for awhile, so we'll just need to keep pruning until things calm down. --Elonka 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, there's still nothing about the bulf of the book in the summary. It seems someone just added more detail to the final five chapters, but absolutely nothing about the actual search with the pyramid, the clues, the chase, and so on. This is a long book with lots of information, and I expect the plot here to be longer than a generic publisher's summary. Reywas92Talk 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that the plot summary should be 300 to 500 words. It is not intended to be detailed or comprehensive. This is an encyclopedia, not a book review site. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yworo is correct. For more information, see the Wikipedia Manual of Style on this, at WP:MOSFICT and WP:PLOT. --Elonka 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You seemed to have forgetten to read the rest of that paragraph at WP:PLOTSUM#Length. "There is no set length for a plot summary" - If it's such a long book with so much information, there is nothing against it being a little longer. "Well-written plot summaries describe the major events in the work" - This one sure as hell doesn't do that. It wouldn't take much to cover the many events, but they are not currently in the article. It lists the locations in the book, but provides absolutely nothing about the major events at the National Cathedral, Library of Congress, SMSC, etc, or even about the pyramid, which drives the entire story. The last four paragraphs go into too much detail about the conclusion, and the first four are just an amalgamation listing places and objects mentioned, not a useful summary.
Right, this shouldn't be a "Plot-only description," but it should actually have the major points of the plot. It's not actually length I want, just the book's events (which take some length). I'm not asking for trivial detail, just a step-by-step representation of what actually happens. Rather than debating lenth, the entire thing needs to just be rewritten; it's absolutely terrible now. I can try do it but I'm not really great with writing new prose. Reywas92Talk 22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I quit. Why are Brown's other novels allowed to have lengthy plot sections and not this one? I'm giving up on this article; too many suspicious edits attempting to keep the plot a secret, a situation worthy perhaps of a Brown novel itself. Here is my last plot-expanding edit on Sep 29 '09. Hey, Elonka, I notice you are mentioned by your full real-life name and quoted on page 7 in a publication currently in Books-A-Million titled Solomon's Key: Understand the Secrets of Ancient Symbols and Their Meaning, with an above the title blurb: "Companion Guide to the Lost Symbol (Dan Brown's New Novel)." Looks unofficial, but more will come. How many other editors are here with a direct or indirect connection to the book. I'm outta here, folks. You Brownies can what you want. Thanks. :) 5Q5 (talk)
I am mentioned where?? I checked Books-a-Million and saw this book,[3] but if I'm quoted there, it's news to me! What do they have me saying? --Elonka 18:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Page 7, far right column, 86 words about or quoting you on the Kryptos sculpture. "According to Elonka . . . " 5Q5 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks! Can you tell who the author of the book is? There's no information at the Books-a-Million page. --Elonka 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of development section[edit]

I see that someone has tagged the Development section as needing expansion. However, to my knowledge, there just aren't that many sources that could be used for expanding this section. So since expansion doesn't really appear to be an option, should we merge this section with another? Or just remove the tag? --Elonka 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

His other two books do not have Development sections. I say remove the tag and merge or retitle the section. The only info that seems important is the publishing date and largest first printing in Random House's history. The other lines could go. 5Q5 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

copyright[edit]

Interestingly for the first time there is the following paragraph in the copyright section:

This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, organizations, places, events, and incidents either are the product of the authors imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is entirely coincidental.

What a difference to the old days, when Brown trumpeted:

FACT: The Priory of Sion — a European secret society founded in 1099 — is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci. The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification". Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million World Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City. All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. Cheers, --84.190.11.192 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The first quote you stated is in vitrually every fictional book nowadays, so I don't see what's so controversial about that. Also the page immediately prior to the Prologue of The Lost Symbol is pretty similar to the second section that you have quoted, so I don't see much of a change there. Most importantly, what does any of this have to do with the article itself? blackngold29 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
First quote - boy, but they weren't in the other dan brown books (please check yourself if you don't believe me). And second: The discussion page is supposed to be the forum to put together bits and pieces of info that probably will get more important in the near future and maybe make their way into the article. is that so hard 2c? cheers, --84.190.15.75 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually the discussion page is not supposed to be a forum. We can't add anything related to this discussion to the article without a reliable source which directly brings up this point, while also specifically referencing The Lost Symbol. So is there something here we can actually add to the article? blackngold29 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
what about the fact that for the first time the publishing house felt obliged to add this fictitiousness-paragraph whereas in the past they did let Brown write about the correctness and factuality of every single detail in the books - all that based on the broad discussion of the factual inaccuracies in all of his books? but don't worry, I will wait and see, if there's a reliable external source for that before adding something to the article! --84.190.14.117 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to add to this discussion that in the portuguese translation there isn't any paragraph about ur first quote. Only the usual Fact thing that he uses in his books. So im guessing that "this books is a work of fiction ..." thing only appears in english books81.84.190.173 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington Monument as the highest point in D.C.[edit]

"Brown claims the Washington Monument is the highest point in the city. This is false: the tower of the National Cathedral is the highest point. The Monument is the tallest building - 555 feet - but the Cathedral, which is just over 300 feet tall, is built on Mount St Albans, a 400 foot tall hill."

I believe what Brown wrote was that there was a kind of city ordinance prohibiting any structure over 555 feet in height being built. An ordinance that controls the actual highest point in the city when counting elevation is a silly notion, and not one I think Brown was asserting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indil (talkcontribs) 07:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a few of these "factual inaccuracies" are stretching the term a bit. If you take a look at the National Geographic article currently cited in that section it states, "It's long been suggested that powerful Freemasons embedded Masonic symbols in the Washington, D.C., street plan... The Lost Symbol is expected to prominently feature "Masonic mapping"" Not only does The Lost Symbol not do that, it actually does the opposite by stating if you look for it in other cities you can find the same symbols—the book is actually debunking it. What does that say for the reliability of the rest of the article? As The Lost Symbol is a work of fiction it could say "Everything in this book is true", that doesn't change the fact that it can say anything because it's a work of fiction. blackngold29 15:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The hightes point in the city (= DC) is Hughes Memorial Tower --84.190.33.161 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The height of buildings in Wash.,DC is restricted by the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910 and that has again nothing to do with the Washington Monument. --84.190.33.161 (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

plot vs. spoiler[edit]

i think it's really childish to revert every time a decent, complete description of the plot is online, argueing that there might be spoilers for readers. come on! is this a kindergarten or what? wp is supposed to be an encyclopedia, even though so many collaborators haven't understood that yet. it's a pity. in an encyclopedia there necessarily has to be a complete description of the book. otherwise it's some sort of advertisement for the book. is that what you want, you reverters? --84.190.40.237 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Shape of this Article[edit]

I'm starting by declaring an interest - I've written a book on Dan Brown's Lost Symbol (published tomorrow). I'm probably disqualified from editing the article myself. As a result I've spent a month thinking about this book. Points which seem relevant to this article:

  • My plot summary is 853 words, and I worked hard to get it that short. The Lost Symbol is a long book which is plot intensive. I think this sort of length is the minimum for a plot overview. Anything shorter will be commenting on just a selection of plot events (probably the start and the end) and therefore be an interpretation and distortion of the plot by the person who has written it. The concept of a plot summary in 300-500 words for this book is a non-starter - I don't think it can be done without such severe distortions that it is simply wrong. If 500 is seen as a maximum then far better delete the plot summary - it just can't be done in this few words without introducing errors.
  • Characterisation in this book is not an important element. Characters are flat and don't develop (both the author's intention). There are not many characters for a book of this length - certainly very few who have more than a walk on part. I don't see the point of a list of their names in this Wikipedia article. Maybe there could be a discussion of the main ones - but surely delete the list.
  • The initial critical reception was in my view of shockingly poor quality as newspapers competed to produce reviews in an unrealistically short times. Most (in my view) demonstrate just a skim of the book or reading of just the first few chapters and seem to have been at least partly written before the book was published. This Wikipedia needs to convey that these early reviews are impressions.
  • Surely something is needed on the themes of this book. Three big ones are the Masons, the CIA and Mystical Christianity. The pre-publication speculation was all around the Masons and the CIA and Mystical Christainity have to an extent been left out of much published comment.

The suggestion therefore is: add a proper plot summary, delete characters list (maybe comment on main ones), note that the reception is an initial impression, add a section on themes. Graemedavis (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What you may wish to do is provide a rewrite of the article in your userspace, for example at User:Graemedavis/Draft. That way you can write the article the way that you think it should be written, but are not running afoul of conflict of interest policies. Once your rewrite is complete, you can link to it from the talkpage here, and if other editors agree with your changes, things can be copied over. Which still doesn't mean anything will be in stone, but it's a way to proceed. --Elonka 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
that's a thought, thanks. Graemedavis (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Length of plot section[edit]

This was already discussed briefly in an above section, but I wanted to create a separate section, to ensure that consensus is clear on this, as there appears to be edit-warring about the matter.

Wikipedia guidelines state that plot sections on articles should be kept relatively brief. "Brief" can vary depending on context, but in general the plot section should not be the longest section of the article. In the case of this article on The Lost Symbol, the plot section should be around 300 to 500 words. We have (or had) such a section in this version,[4] at 530 words, but one or more anonymous editors on shifting IPs keep reverting to a longer version, with over 1100 words.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The longer plot summary is also jarring to look at, since it includes so many bolded names.

If it were just one anon doing the reverting, we could block them, but since the IPs keep shifting, it is my recommendation that we request semi-protection of the article for awhile (2 weeks?). Semi-protection would still allow established editors to continue working on the article, but would prevent edit-warring by anonymous editors. Before requesting this though, I wanted to check consensus here. Are other editors in agreement that the shorter plot summary[13] is the way to go? --Elonka 17:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that quite a few anons are insistent on keeping the long plot summary. If bold names is your concern, I woould suggeest unbolding them. But in my opinion, 500 words is too short to properly communicate a plot. I would suggest a summary of 700-800 words, but that's just what I think. The long summary could certainly use some trimming down, but not so much that it just gives a brief description. Reminds me of the little blurbs on the back of novels on plot. I won't be editing this article myself, as I have decided not to in the wake of the edit-war. Just giving my opnion on the matter. (Iuio (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

To gain more opinions, so as to help gauge consensus on this matter, I have posted links to this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum and Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary. --Elonka 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to go too far into this as the established policies say what needs saying. Certainly the real world element on this or any novel should take precedence. My view is that the longer version of this one is "too much". However the single paragraph plot summary style is also too little. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I Don't understand the whole fuzz - the long plot description is perfectly okay with me. It's informative, it gives me an insight in structure, plot and characters, and I definitely do not think that it's too long. and wp:rules say, that plot descriptions can be as long as they have to be, depending on the subject. So I would really appreciate if we were to stop this discussion that is leading nowhere. cheers --84.190.5.240 (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer long plot summaries, but I could adapt to a shorter one, provided it has important plot points. I like the longer summary, but it could stand to be trimmed down a paragraph or two. I just think that the short one is unacceptable, since it's just not informative. The Wikipedia guidelines state that plot summaries are meant to help people who have read the book remember what they have read. That meants including how characters got from Point A to Point B. I don't like the short summary as it doesn't fit with that criteria, as well as missing out on several plot points. In addition, I would suggest not putting in the short plot summary if an anon reverts it to the long one again, just until this problem is resolved, so as to prevent further edit-warring. (Iuio (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
  • Just jumping in to clarify that the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary cited above is not a Wikipedia guideline and does not represent established policy. It is an essay representing the editorial point of view of some number of Wikipedians and should be used as a tool toward creating consensus, not as a tool toward edit warring or other disputation. --Dystopos (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A Published Plot Summary and Other Info[edit]

As suggested by a poster above I've placed some information from my book on The Lost Symbol on my personal draft page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Graemedavis/Draft The book is "The Lost Symbol - Found: Unauthorized Analysis of Dan Brown's Novel" and is available now on Kindle, and available in paperback format also in a day or two. I've put on my personal draft page a plot summary (in 853 words) which might contribute to the discussion on this talk page. I've also posted the introductory paragraphs from my book (which are already on-line in promotional material). If it is of use for this article I can provide other material. Graemedavis (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I've added a couple of paragraphs on critical reception, particularly criticising the newspaper critics who appear to have rushed into print after an ill-considred skim of "The Lost Symbol". Graemedavis (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection I've taken down the critical reception section. I've left the introduction (which is public domain anyway) and the plot summary which is offered for discussion in relation to the plot summary debate on this page (or indeed as an alternative, complete plot summary). Graemedavis (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This page now deleted. Graemedavis (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Bestseller list[edit]

I would just like to note that this book is no longer the no. 1 bestseller. It has passed down to number 2.

The ref. link is outdated. The new one (where you can see that it's on no. 2 is : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/books/bestseller/besthardfiction.html?ref=books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.9.82 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Codes on Cover[edit]

I think someone should try and create a section for the nice number of code hidden by Brown on the cover of The Lost Symbol. I've seen many other books where the Wikiedia page does this, and this book certainly deserves one. 74.215.173.84 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Characters[edit]

I'm thinking Nuñez, the security guard at Washington Capitol should be added into the list of characters. Lwines97 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

He's a minor character of no importance. Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nola Kaye[edit]

I have added the Nola Kaye character to the list of characters, along with the namesake for the character, Elonka Dunin, which is, well, me. I've also added a few third-party sources which verify the information.[14] Since it's about myself, per WP:COI, I wanted to declare the information here on the talkpage, and invite other editors to review the information. --Elonka 15:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that The Lost Symbol (film) be merged into The Lost Symbol. I think that the content in the film article can easily be explained in the context of the book article, and the book article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of the film article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 94.5.197.230 (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That ignores the fact that as the film moves forward and is eventually completed and released, this will no longer be the case. A good illustration of this are the articles The Da Vinci Code (film) and Angels & Demons (film), which both posses content that is distinct from the articles on the books on which those films were based. By the time the release of the film version of The Lost Symbol is imminent, it too will likely bear a closer resemblance to the aforementioned film articles. Just be patient. Nightscream (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It just seems a bit premature. The film doesn't have a script yet, and has lost the director. It's in a worse state than when this page was created, so it seems unlikely that it will be released in the next couple of years, if ever. Anyway, everything in the film article is covered in the book article, so for now it doesn't seem worth having an extra page. 94.5.197.230 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. It's standard practice to have different articles for book and film. If the film were a "maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't," I could see merging, but it's pretty clear that it's actively in production, so a separate article is appropriate. --Elonka 17:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - They are two different artistic endevours. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Most films made from novels often cut swaths of material so as not to overload the film. Now granted, "The Lost Symbol" as a read was about as close to a script version as any book I've ever seen but I still think it'd be better to maintain the separate entries.  Natty10000 | Natter  20:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Lost Symbol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)