Talk:Deception Point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article needs an infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Lots of chapters in the code solution

I have not read the book, but the code solution implies that the 576 pages thick book contains 130 chapters. That's a bunch. --Richard.lofberg 09:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Dan Brown's chapters are always very short. This book has 133 chapters, a prologue and an epilogue. --FlorianK 10:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

the book was very clever but i read angels and demons right after and i came to the conclusion that dan brown books have the same plot. --- Indeed they have (I have not read Digital Fortress, though).

[edit] Code?

I may be mistaken, but what code is this article talking about. I don't recall coming across any such code in the book, atleast not as an integral plot in the story. Could someone clarify? --Bluerain 14:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In my edition there is a sequence of numbers after the main text.--J-Star 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article sounded as if it was an integral part of the story. Anyways, sorry, my bad. --Bluerain 08:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Submarine explosion

The Hellfire has a total weight of ~100 lbs. Considering that the helicopter had already spent a few (2 ?); that only part of the weight is made of fuel and warhead (materials which can contribute to the explosion); and that the sea floor is already subject to extreme stress by huge quantities of lava. What's the chance that a relatively small explosion could cause a rupture ?

[edit] Nagging is getting out of control

Uhm... is it a Wikipedia sport to nag as much as possible on Dan Brown? Wood chippers?! Come on...

--J-Star 09:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, some people just find the need to bash him for some odd reason..--SoxFanNH 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me is that the author adds his characteristic paragraph at the beginning of the book purporting all of the details and technologies described within to be absolutely real and accurately described, and then proceeds to lose his credibility with fantastical blendings of fact, fiction, and pseudo-science. I generally enjoy his novels and am willing to suspend disbelief to enjoy the novel, but Brown invites this sort of critisism and nit-picking by virtue of claiming complete accuracy in his writing, when some simple research and removing that silly accuracy disclaimer would keep people from picking apart his novels. For example, Clive Cussler writes the same variety of tecno-action thrillers as Deception Point, but presents his novels as truly being what they are, fantastical blendings of fact and fiction, not precisely researched and accurate as Brown [falsely] does. mhunter 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions or facts?

I believe this article is more about personal opinions (and a grudge against Dan Brown?) than it is about facts, and could use a re-write to a more neutral tone.

[edit] Non-existing technology

Does this qualification comes from a top-notch nanotech scientist? If so, quote him/her, else, be careful when making this kind of assumptions. Because it isn't publicly known, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

About the "underwater rifle", this article states: "However it cannot be as powerful as the author claims." Why, is your word is better than his? Just to point out: where are the facts?

On the ice ammunitions: The article says "ice is unsuitable as ammunition". Not true. I use hard pieces of ice with a fling, it provides excelent ammo with devastating effects (if my aiming was a bit better). =) Also, the reasoning behind the conclusion is that "it has been disproved by the Discovery Channel program MythBusters". Don't know you, but I don't really think the experiments made in a TV show are a great source of scientific knowledge. Although this can be mentioned in the article, it can hardly be used as fact.

      • I'd like someone to examine and comment on the DNA analyzer used to check Rachel's DNA at the NRO which claimed to be able to accurately determine that it was her in 4 seconds. I'm not an expert, but having done some molecular biology, this seems way to quick a turn around. Comments? Thanks, Matt ***
      • I have to agree, even though Mythbusters is very fun to watch their conclusions aren't what one can call scientific proof. -va.va


Totally needs a rewrite, I am sick of this Dan Brown bashing on Wiki, it needs to STOP. His books are FICTIONAL and need to be discussed as so. Stop trying to poke holes in a fictional book...--SoxFanNH 22:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A fictional book that claims that all mentioned technology exists. Which is not true. If we made just a footnote that the claim is not true without any explaination there would be people demanding sources/explaination, so I think this is the right solution. -mrbartjens 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some things in the novel is based on expiriments that are in their infancy, but some things , such as ice bullets, are true. Ice bullets are coated with a substance that allows the bullet to not melt when being shot out of a gun, as for the mythbusters show. It shows that we can't shoot ice out of a regular gun, the military doesn't have to use gunpowder (ie. magnetic artillery guns) [anhvuti]

Not sure magnetic guns answer the mail but as the point of the ice weapons was to concuss and not to kill a weapon very similar to a paintball gun (using compressed air) is inside the realm of possibility. --Sircolin 19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been checking out military jet articles on Wikipedia alot recently, no mach 2 F-14 exists, but is it possible Brown was possibly referring to the F-16XL ? Scratch that, the F-14A+ is actually listed as having supercruise ability.

[edit] Mariana Trench

Am I the only one who thinks the section on Mariana Trench is really poorly written? Citing Wikipedia? Using off-site hyperlinks to an on-site article? Could someone please rewrite that? VolatileChemical 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not. I've re-written it to remove the internal quote/ref. It now has an external source, and wikilinks to Marianas Trench. Kuru talk 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OH-58 Kiowa helicopter

Please don't let anymore Dan Brown fans try and inject this book as any sort of reference to popular culture in the aircraft article. What figures prominently in the book is not an OH-58 of any type, despite Mr. Brown's use of the nomenclature. (Born2flie 04:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] MythBusters?

Okay, I'm sorry if I sound like I was paid to say this by Dan Brown, but citing MythBusters as pretty much conclusive evidence doesn't seem right to me. Fun show, yeah, but conclusive scientific evidence? Not really. It's kind of like putting a political poll up on a website and saying the results are an accurate representation of what the world believed politicly. WBHoenig 01:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bathynomous giganteus

It is not correct to state that Browns spelling of the animal as Bathynomous Giganteus instead of Bathynomus Giganteus is a mistake. The spelling reflects a difference in English language usage worldwide. A quick google on B. Giganteus will turn up many articles and entries spelt with and without the O. --Brideshead 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Technologies

I am putting the full disputed technologies section back up, because it is mostly accurate and relevant. Some argue that it isn't accurate, because everything technological in the book is possible. However, that's not what Dan Brown said, he said "All technologies described in this novel exist". Technology is the implementation of scientific concepts. So in order for a technology to exist, it can't just be possible, it has to,...exist. So the flying microbot right off the bat makes the statement incorrect, because although we have small flying robots, and wireless recharging technology, we don't have any technology that can make it that small and unified. Same with the other technologies. There has to be at least one concrete example the same as it was in the book in order for that tech to 'exist' --Jake11 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)