Dan Brown uses the same formula for all his books, and Inferno is no exception: a search for something mysterious or dangerous based on symbolism, a setting in an Italian city, a mad chase, Robert Landgon the academic who is an expert in symbology, short chapters to guarantee a page-turner etc. Inferno features Robert Landgon, who is amnesiac and finds himself chased by dangerous individuals while trying to solve a puzzle. Langdon and a few other characters try to avoid the release of a plague, supposed to kill half of humanity – nothing else! The plot is all right, I suppose, although it’s more than unlikely. The need for certain individuals to use symbols (and complex ones) to hide simple messages is annoying – it feels too much like just a silly plot for the novel. This story is not as good as The Da Vinci Code, or Angels and Demons and the formula needs to change. It’s not new, it gets boring, and you feel like you’ve read it before. I’m not saying the story is painful to read, it’s a page turner after all and it is enjoyable, but you will forget it as soon as you’ve read it. The one thing that really didn’t work for me with this book is that Brown turned it into an Italian art lesson. There’s nothing wrong with that, except the way it’s done is just ridiculous. Picture this: Langdon is chased by a large number of people who want to kill him. They’re shooting at him, he’s seen them kill people, they involve the police, and what does Langdon do? He (constantly) stops in front of pieces of art or architecture to marvel at how beautiful they are, think of the artist who’s created them, tell their story to whoever he is with, and take his time to take it all in. Plain silly if you ask me! I believe Brown’s readers need a little more respect than that.