I finished The Rule of Four this morning. Didn’t like the book overly, but the last 15 pages or so appealed to me in a way (sappy ol’ me… ;) ).

The interesting part is: there are two mysteries in this book. I wasn’t overly interested in either of them. The first one – the one connected to a book and Renaissance didn’t work for me simply becaue it didn’t follow the old rule for writing mysteries: the reader must have all the clues the hero does for solving the mystery. Well, I’d say most of today’s readers don’t speak dead languages and aren’t experts on Renaissance texts and the like… No way I could solve any of Paul’s ‘riddles’. No way I could even try. That’s probably why it didn’t hold my interest for long. There were some interesting facts, but that’s all.

The second mystery -the contemporary one – wasn’t overly mysterious, that’s all.

Some parts of the book didn’t ring quite true for me – the college atmosphere didn’t, for some reason. Maybe I expected too much. Maybe I expected another ‘Secret History’ (by Donna Tartt).

What I did like was the relationship the four friends have. That WAS interesting (although it didn’t get quite so interesting until before the end). It seems to me that friendship is the only thing the authors REALLY know something about from personal experience and, as it usually happens, it’s the part that worked best for me.

I’m not sorry I read the book, but am not overly happy either.