Digital Fortress

Thanks to this early work of Dan Brown, I now wonder if [b:Angels and Demons 960 Angels and Demons (Robert Langdon, #1) Dan Brown http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1303390735s/960.jpg 3338963] and [b:The Da Vinci Code 968 The Da Vinci Code (Robert Langdon, #2) Dan Brown http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1303252999s/968.jpg 2982101] were also poorly researched. I hope not, since I rather enjoyed them. Given that this book deals with a domain I'm familiar with, and reading some of the other 5-star reviews, I'm beginning to think the other books probably had lots of factual errors and inaccuracies.The premise was rather interesting - an unbreakable code - too bad it was carried along by a lack of research and unrealistic characters. Couldn't empathise at all - a handsome school teacher who turned out to be incredibly resourceful (and incredibly stupid at times) plus a sexy and beautiful IQ 170 crytographer who didn't really act like she had that much IQ.The poor research wasn't limited to cryptography and computer programming (can't be bothered to list them individually); it was eyeball-rolling if you know what Kanji is, and just how silly it was to use the term “Asian dialect”. The attempt at “techie-speak” during the finale was literally cringing. It was a struggle to finish the finale. Well, not just that - the finale itself was pretty bad - too drawn out. That vis-rep thing? I shake my head.Anyway, I don't recommend this book at all. If you like Angels & Demons or the Da Vinci Code, stick with those. If you didn't like those two, don't even bother with this.