I bought the thing expecting it to be terrible. I would have been disappointed if it had been anything better than bad. But The Lost Symbol wasn't terrible or even bad. It was the most infuriatingly awful book I've ever read. Bar none.

I could complain about how annoying it is that Robert Langdon has an almost pathological need to lecture, even while he's being chased by bad guys with guns. Or I could bitch about the fact that Brown apparently thinks that associating a name with one or two quirks is the same thing as creating characters. Robert Langdon is claustrophobic and has a Mickey Mouse watch. Peter Solomon wants to keep his secrets at all costs. Katherine Solomon puts her hair behind her ears when she's nervous. Every time we read about Katherine Solomon, she's putting her hair behind her ears, as if Brown wants us to think "This character is so fleshed out, I feel like I know her. For example, I know that she's nervous right now because she always tucks her hair behind her ears when she's nervous. Wow, Dan Brown sure can write." What the fuck? Does Katherine Solomon never just have to get her fucking hair out of her eyes?

OK, right, I could bitch about all of that. But that's all secondary and, besides, that's exactly what you should expect when you pick up a Dan Brown book. No, this post is so that I can bitch about this book's plot. This plot is so nonsensical that I honestly cannot imagine how it actually got written, edited, and released in this form. Let me walk you through the plot of this fucking book. Spoilers follow, show you want to read this thing for yourself for whatever reason.

Peter Solomon is a billionaire Freemason. He's also Robert Langdon's father figure and mentor. Why haven't we heard about him before in any of the other Robert Langdon books? Who cares. Move on. Oh, right, Peter Solomon. Peter had a son, Zachary. Zachary was a huge fuck up. When he was eighteen, Peter insisted on giving him a choice: Zach could either take his inheritance, which apparently consisted of a nearly inexhaustible amount of money, or a small stone pyramid. For reals. Zach, being a fuck up but not an idiot, takes the money. He uses the money to buy yachts and hookers and blow. He eventually ends up in a European prison. Peter goes to the prison, where the warden offers to release Zach in exchange for a bribe. Peter refuses to pay the bribe and leaves. One of the prisoners overhears this conversation and hatches a plan. Days later, a body that is apparently Zach's turns up, everyone believes he's dead, and everyone goes on with their lives.

Until one day when Peter and his family are at their secluded supermansion. A masked figure breaks into the house and demands that Peter hand over the small stone pyramid. Peter refuses, so the masked figure kills Peter's wife and flees. Peter chases the intruder, shoots him, and watches as he falls off a cliff into a frozen river. The body's never found, but everyone just assumes he died.

Later, Robert Langdon goes to Washington, D.C. Through a series of stupid events, he ends up with the small stone pyramid. He discovers that the pyramid is the key to unraveling the mystery of a legendary Masonic treasure. According to the legend, the treasure is hidden somewhere in Washington, and it is something that can turn a mortal man into a god. Literally. Throughout his adventures, various figures--including Peter Solomon--make it clear to Robert Langdon that the pyramid and the secret it leads to cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands because, if it did, it would lead to unimaginably bad consequences for everything and everyone and everything. The secret is Just. That. Powerful.

We discover that the masked man that broke into Peter's house is Mal'akh, a crazy guy who really wants to become a god. He kidnaps Peter and tortures him in order to find out about the pyramid. When that's not enough, he kidnaps Peter's sister, Katherine, and tortures her, telling Peter that he'll stop when he reveals the secret of the pyramid. At no point does Peter even consider giving up the secret. It's Just. That. Important.

Eventually, we find out that Mal'akh and Zach are one and the same (fucking surprise surprise). Mal'akh's plan fails. Everything is cool. But Peter decides that Robert Landon deserves to know the truth about the Masonic treasure, so he blindfolds him, takes him to where it's hidden, unblindfolds him, and then tells him that they're at the Washington Monument. Then he tells him that the super-secret, super-powerful Masonic treasure is a copy of the Bible hidden inside the subterranean cornerstone of the Washington Monument. The Bible is sealed inside the cornerstone, which is itself buried under the monument, meaning that it is completely inaccessible. And it is literally nothing more than a really old copy of the Bible. It's just a normal, old, dusty book. It doesn't have magic powers. And Peter Solomon knew this the whole time.

So let's review. A masked gunman broke into Peter Solomon's house and demanded the pyramid. Peter refused to give it up and, as a result, his wife dies. The same person then kidnaps him and tortures him in order to get to the secret the pyramid points to. Peter doesn't cooperate. The bad guy then kidnaps Peter's sister and tortures her, but still Peter refuses to give up the deep, meaningful secret of the pyramid. Peters friends tell us repeatedly throughout the book that they know with absolute certainty that Peter would rather die than risk the secret of the Masonic treasure being revealed. That's how important it is that this thing stay a secret.

And then we find out that, at each of these points, Peter has been aware that the pyramid might as well say, "Check into a hotel and look in the nightstand drawer." In fact, it might be better if you went and bought a new copy of the Bible because the one that's in the Washington Monument is sealed up so tight that no one can ever get to it.

Literally the entire plot is driven by the idea that the Masonic secret is so powerful and dangerous that it must be kept hidden at all costs. But the guy who's primarily responsible for keeping the secret knows throughout the story that the secret is neither powerful nor dangerous, yet he still insists that it be kept secret. Until the end, at which point he decides that he might as well just tell people.

That's the plot of the book. Or, rather, that is the hole around which Dan Brown attempts to build a plot.

It honestly makes me angry that talented writers can't get published while Dan Brown is out there stringing words together at random and making millions of dollars because of it.

And it makes me even angrier that I've contributed to his stack of money. Somewhere in his house is a roll of Scotch tape or something that my buying of his books paid for. I hope Dan Brown chokes on that roll of tape.

To a point.

As in writing, context is extremely important in music. In order for any particular moment of music to have any emotional resonance at all, it has to have some sort of relationship to the music before and after it. A chord can have a completely different effect depending on what chord it follows. Everything from tempo to phrasing to what key you're playing in and what tone you're using matters.

In the right context, a guitar solo can make a song. "Comfortably Numb" and "November Rain" would be decent songs without the solos, but the musical interludes--at least for me--define them and make them some of my favorites. On the other hand, though, those same solos--played in the same way, over the same chords, by the same people--wouldn't be very impressive at all if they existed only as unconnected snippets of music. In order for solos to be something other than just musical wanking, they have to be part of a cohesive whole.

Shredding sucks because it represents the elevation of a solo--even if it's ten minutes long--over the song. It's the climax without the backstory. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how impressive someone's playing is or how extensive his skills are: it's all just bullshit unless there's some reason for it. People don't generally get excited by the prospect of watching someone show off just for the sake of showing off.

I sometimes get annoyed at how wanky some fairly mainstream music is. But today I saw something that blew my mind in terms of the disparity between the talent on display and the artistic merit of the end product. Frankly, you have to see this thing to believe it:

It's insulting that he rips off a Randy Rhoads given that Ozzy's former guitarist was, in my opinion, one of the most technically proficient guitarists ever but he almost always ensured that his soloing served the song.

My birthday got under way last night at around midnight when I demanded that, because it was past midnight, chelsadilla should give me my present. She insisted that anticipation was important for some reason, and I took the position that it was August 24 and, goddammit, it was my birthday. I also threatened that if she didn't play by my rules for my birthday, i.e., it's your birthday at midnight, I wouldn't play by her rules for hers, i.e., I would tell her what I got her for her birthday three days in advance. She caved and gave me my gift. And it was awesome. There was a Superman card that played the Superman theme, a toy Mr. Pricklepants from Toy Story 3 (for NO REASON), and an iPod Touch. I'd mentioned a few times that I wanted something like an iPod, but I didn't think chelsadilla'd listened or cared. I guess I was wrong. Then chelsadilla stayed up with me while I updated the software on the iPod and loaded some music on to it. For some reason, having a wi-fi enabled MP3 player still seems sorta crazy to me.

All of this was in addition to some smoked sea salt she'd gotten me while she was in California a few weeks ago.

Chelsadilla had offered to treat me to dinner. She'd asked where I wanted to go, and I said that I've always wanted to go to The Melting Pot, but that I'd be more than happy to split the check with her there because it can be sorta expensive. She insisted that we go there and on paying herself. I wasn't entirely comfortable with the idea, but we went.

We had an appetizer cheese course, then the main course--which consisted of various meets that you cooked yourself in simmering red wine--and then a dessert course. Honestly, the main course was the least good. The cheese fondue was pretty good, and the dessert was fucking amazing. I have no idea how much chelsadilla spent, but I'm sure it was too much. I honestly don't know how The Melting Pot justifies its prices. I think half the price would be appropriate for what you get. As it stands, I don't know how often I'd go back.

At the end of dinner, chelsadilla snatched the check away and reached in to her purse and discovered, to her shock, that she didn't have her wallet. She immediately started apologizing for ruining my birthday. I told her it was ok, that I would pay and she could pay me back if she wanted. She started crying. It was kinda cute. I wasn't at all upset that she'd forgotten her wallet, but it was funny how upset she got. In the end, she left and came back to the apartment to get her wallet while I waited at the restaurant. All in all, a small price to pay for dinner and a good time.

So, yeah, my girlfriend set a high bar for birthday celebrations. I'm up to the challenge, though, and I think I can outdo her for her next birthday. I'm certainly going to try, anyway.

I just finished reading this case, and I have two observations. First, I will never, ever be able to spell "Schwarzenegger" from memory, and I think it's hilarious that the Terminator's name will be on what will almost certainly be a hugely important Supreme Court case for years and years.

Second, this is one of the most interesting District Court decisions I've read in a long time. Even setting aside the highly controversial nature of the case, there are so many strange and interesting things about it. The procedural history is worthy of a law review article itself. It involves a question of how to weigh direct democracy and protection of minority groups. The government refused to protect the amendment, so random people had to step in. Oh, and the guy who decided the case--Judge Vaughn R. Walker--is one of a tiny handful of openly gay judges in the country.

But, of course, the most interesting things about the case are the issues and the outcome. I think Judge Walker got the result right, but I think that he may have packaged the case in a way that will be difficult if not impossible for higher courts to swallow. Reading the decision makes it seem that the pro-Prop-8 people--that is, those who supported the ban on gay marriage--were borderline incompetent in the presentation of their case. I frankly have a hard time believing that the attorneys for that side were as bad as the decision makes it seem. I think that this is one thing that makes the decision an easy target for people who would want to make the case the result of judicial activism rather than a reasoned application of existing law.

Another problem, as I see it, is that Judge Vaughn spends nearly as much time discrediting the Prop 8 proponents' expert witnesses as he does actually applying the law to the facts. Judge Vaughn decides to completely disregard the testimony of David Blankenhorn. It appears to have been the correct decision given that Blankenhorn doesn't seem to have done more than recite--incorrectly, apparently--the results of various studies he played no part in. That's all fine, but I question whether it was necessary to spend so much time taking him and the other expert witness to task. I suppose Judge Vaughn felt it was necessary to make the rationale for his decision abundantly clear, but I think it makes it easier for people to portray him as a pro-gay-agenda zealot.

The judge makes several findings of fact. Essentially, he concludes that gays and lesbians have been severely discriminated against, that denying them the right to marry hurts them and society in various ways, and that sexual orientation has no impact on a person's worth or ability to be a good person or a good parent.

The plaintiffs apparently argued that Prop 8 violated their rights under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Vaughn rules that they win under each provision.

In his analysis of the due-process issue, Judge Vaughn starts from the premise that marriage is a fundamental right. He recognizes that the important question for these plaintiffs is whether the right to marry someone of the same sex is a new right or simply a necessary extension of the already-recognized right to marriage. The judge then makes what I believe to be the strongest argument in favor of protecting gay marriage by analogizing the current situation to the one presented in Loving v. Virginia.

One of the arguments advanced by opponents of interracial marriage was that black people were not being denied a right white people had because, while they couldn't marry a white person, they could still marry someone. It just had to be someone of the right skin color. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that the whole point of protecting the right to marry is the right to choose who you marry. If you're in love with a white man, it doesn't do you any good to be told that you can marry any black man you want.

Opponents of gay marriage often argue that to allow gay marriage is to redefine marriage. Judge Vaughn--correctly, in my view--disagrees and points out that the whole point of the fundamental right to marriage is the right to choose who you marry. According to his decision, denying a gay man the right to marry the man he loves is a violation of that right that cannot be undone simply by saying "But, hey, you can marry any woman you like."

Judge Vaughn goes on to strike down the gay-marriage ban on Equal Protection grounds, too. While the judge applies a rational basis analysis, he makes it clear that he thinks that strict scrutiny should apply. The judge rejects in turn every proposed rational basis for the ban, pointing out that some of them are absolutely absurd and even helpful to the plaintiffs' position. Judging by the decision, Prop-8 supporters' justifications were pretty weak. They assert, for example, that banning gay marriage would "increase[] 'the probability that each child will be raised by both a father and a mother.'" Although the ban's proponents apparently attempted to show that having a father and mother was preferable to, for example, having two fathers, the court found that the evidence overwhelmingly showed that this was not the case. More importantly, the ban's proponents apparently made no attempt to demonstrate how keeping gay people from marrying each other would increase the number of heterosexual married couples. It's as if the ban's proponents think people will just give up on being gay.

In any event, I think that most of the analysis is good, if a bit short. It'll be interesting to see what higher courts do with the case. It will also be interesting to see how the case is received.

While I think the constitutional questions posed are really interesting, though, I really care about one thing: that whoever finally resolves this issue gets it right.