|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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 ( talk • contribs)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) (22:40, May 27, 2007
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)
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)
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)
"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))
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
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)
Does anyone know if there is going to be a movie of this eventually, as with Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code? Molly moon 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)
Something is really wrong, because I've SEEN this film! At least 3 years ago in fact. It was aired on TV. I was disappointed because the villain's final scene, where in the book he is eaten by the dark as he descend's into damnation, was cinematically underplayed. Am I from some parallel universe???
2601:89:C600:E521:C046:95B9:A47E:2CF9 (
talk)
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
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)
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)
The book is out now, hopeing a rewrite soon :-) 210.84.56.186 ( talk) 08:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 06:42, September 21, 2009
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
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)
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. Reywas92 Talk 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
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? -- El on ka 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
"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 ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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? -- El on ka 17:02, 30 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. -- El on ka 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
This page now deleted. Graemedavis ( talk) 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- El on ka 15:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Lost Symbol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)