So this book prompted me to write my first review...

[Lachlan]

I don't know why, but Map of Bones seemed to strike a cord in me that I wanted to address in writing. I'd welcome anyone to respond and agree/disagree with my opinion.

Here's the review:

I had read James Rollins' Ice Hunt before this and thought it was excellent. The pace was fast, the story was gripping, the characters were interesting and relatable. So, I came to the SIGMA series expecting much the same...

I've now read the first two books of the series, and can't help feeling a bit disappointed. I don't have the same feelings of disdain for Dan Brown as others, but I think Rollins is trying a bit too hard to emulate his success, but with a bit less elegance in concept and execution.

In the Dan Brown novels, Robert Langdon – though very smart and intellectual – is also relatable, a trait important in the protagonist of a thriller because the reader needs to feel a certain amount of empathy and concern for the character's well-being. In this series so far, Rollins characters are not relatable at all. They either have bizarre names (e.g. Painter Crowe, Grayson Pierce), are super-intelligent yet willing to accept nonsense, are seemingly invulnerable to fear or danger and have spent their entire life in the military, i.e. outside of the civilian world. These attributes combine for a perfect storm of audience apathy for their struggles.

The novel also seems to lack focus. The plot is something that is just dragged along with the action rather than in unison with it. We never really understand the stakes of the Guild's plans, or why they are pursuing them anyway. The technological aspect seems rushed, incoherent and ill-explained. Usually I'm able to suspend my disbelief with this sort of genre, but, for whatever reason, I found myself being critical and/or cynical of some of the leaps that Rollins seems to justify as possible in his author's note.

As opposed to the disparity of the heroes, the main antagonist in Map of Bones, Raoul, seemed like a cardboard cutout of a Dan Brown villain. A pawn in the grand scheme of things, Raoul is a physically imposing and morally depraved guy with a superiority complex. That same description could safely describe each of Dan Brown villains in the books of his I have read, and is a large part of why his books – despite their often genuinely interesting concepts – became quite boring and repetitive.

Also, the character of Uncle Vigor, the Monsignor, is one of the most insufferable I have read in all of fiction (view spoiler)[to the point where I quite liked when he got shot in the gut (hide spoiler)]. His dialog read like something copied and pasted from wikipedia as he spouted off BS about Moses, the Magi and the Ancient Wonders. Number 1: I'm not interested and don't believe in all this hocus-pocus stuff seemingly taken as fact by the purportedly genius characters and number 2: Rollins lazily seemed to designate all of this explanation to the dialog of one character, and this seemed like the characters sole reason for existence.

Overall, I enjoyed the action sequences, and generally think Rollins is a good writer fundamentally, but this book was quite frustrating and I'd give it 2.5/5, but I'm generous so gave it 3 stars instead of 2.