Caldwell Books

The book is set on the Princeton campus during the weekend of Good Friday, 1999. The story involves four Princeton seniors, friends and roommates, getting ready for graduation: Tom, Paul, Charlie and Gil. Two of the students, Tom and Paul, are trying to solve the mystery contained within an extremely rare, beautifully decorated and very mysterious (real) book-- the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili"---Julia Sneden

Dull, Drab and Awful

This was a good idea for a book, but it was very poorly written. The effect of this unfortunate combination is a boring book not worth the trouble of reading. I wish that I would have done what others reviews did and stopped after 50 pages.

There are insipid chase scenes devoid of suspense; feigned scholarly discussions that are lacking insight or purpose and a pointless central mystery plot with no hint of cleverness. The characters are shallow, dull, uninteresting, boring, lifeless and just plain drab and awful. While in some professions these attributes might be considered an asset; in a modern mystery novel they are in fact a real detriment. None of the principal players are at all interesting. The four main characters are not at all likeable and I couldn't sympathize with any of them on any level. Count yourself as lucky if you have none of these manikins for friends.

The historic references to the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" are the only bright spots in this pathetic waste of a book. The reader will have to force himself through a sluggish plot with boring characters and a slow pace to learn a little about this renaissance love story. There is a modern translation of the original book in question. I wish that I would have read the modern English translation of the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" (see: Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of Love in a Dream) and never heard of "The Rule of Four".

I have the feeling that "The Rule of Four" is for an early adolescent audience while the serious books are left for the grown-ups.

On the positive side, the cover of the book is a very pretty shade of red.

This is a waste of paper. I can't recommend this book to anyone.

This was a good idea for a book, but it was poorly written. The effect of this unfortunate combination is a boring book not worth the trouble of reading. I wish that I'd have stopped after 50 pages.

There are insipid chase scenes devoid of suspense; feigned scholarly discussions that are lacking insight or purpose and a pointless central mystery plot with no hint of cleverness. The characters are shallow, dull, uninteresting, boring, lifeless and just plain drab and awful. While in some professions these attributes are an asset, in a modern mystery novel they are in fact a real detriment. None of the principals are at all interesting. The four main characters are not likeable and I couldn't sympathize with any of them on any level. Count yourself as lucky if you have none of these manikins for friends.

The historic references to the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" are the only bright spots in this pathetic waste of a book. The reader will have to force himself through a sluggish plot with boring characters and a slow pace to learn a little about this renaissance love story. There is a modern translation of the original book in question. I wish that I would have read the modern English translation of the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" (see: Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of Love in a Dream) and never heard of "The Rule of Four". I have the feeling that "The Rule of Four" is for an early adolescent audience while the serious books are left for the grown-ups.

Dull, Drab and Awful

This was a good idea for a book, but it was very poorly written. The effect of this unfortunate combination is a boring book not worth the trouble of reading. I wish that I would have done what others reviews did and stopped after 50 pages.

There are insipid chase scenes devoid of suspense; feigned scholarly discussions that are lacking insight or purpose and a pointless central mystery plot with no hint of cleverness. The characters are shallow, dull, uninteresting, boring, lifeless and just plain drab and awful. While in some professions these attributes might be considered an asset; in a modern mystery novel they are in fact a real detriment. None of the principal players are at all interesting. The four main characters are not at all likeable and I couldn't sympathize with any of them on any level. Count yourself as lucky if you have none of these manikins for friends.

The historic references to the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" are the only bright spots in this pathetic waste of a book. The reader will have to force himself through a sluggish plot with boring characters and a slow pace to learn a little about this renaissance love story. There is a modern translation of the original book in question. I wish that I would have read the modern English translation of the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" (see Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of Love in a Dream) and never heard of "The Rule of Four".

I have the feeling that "The Rule of Four" is for an early adolescent audience while the serious books are left for the grown-ups.

There was no positive side to the book. Avoid it like you would avoid a fender bender.

This was a good idea for a book, but it was poorly written. The effect of this unfortunate combination is a boring book not worth the trouble of reading. I wish that I'd have stopped after 50 pages.

There are insipid chase scenes devoid of suspense; feigned scholarly discussions that are lacking insight or purpose and a pointless central mystery plot with no hint of cleverness. The characters are shallow, dull, uninteresting, boring, lifeless and just plain drab and awful. While in some professions these attributes are an asset, in a modern mystery novel they are in fact a real detriment. None of the principals are at all interesting. The four main characters are not likeable and I couldn't sympathize with any of them on any level. Count yourself as lucky if you have none of these manikins for friends.

The historic references to the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" are the only bright spots in this pathetic waste of a book. The reader will have to force himself through a sluggish plot with boring characters and a slow pace to learn a little about this renaissance love story. There is a modern translation of the original book in question. I wish that I would have read the modern English translation of the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" (see: Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of Love in a Dream) and never heard of "The Rule of Four".

I have the feeling that "The Rule of Four" is for an early adolescent audience while the serious books are left for the grown-ups.

Dull, Drab and Awful

This was a good idea for a book, but it was very poorly written. The effect of this unfortunate combination is a boring book not worth the trouble of reading. I wish that I would have done what others reviews did and stopped after 50 pages.

There are insipid chase scenes devoid of suspense; feigned scholarly discussions that are lacking insight or purpose and a pointless central mystery plot with no hint of cleverness. The characters are shallow, dull, uninteresting, boring, lifeless and just plain drab and awful. While in some professions these attributes might be considered an asset; in a modern mystery novel they are in fact a real detriment. None of the principal players are at all interesting. The four main characters are not at all likeable and I couldn't sympathize with any of them on any level. Count yourself as lucky if you have none of these manikins for friends.

The historic references to the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" are the only bright spots in this pathetic waste of a book. The reader will have to force himself through a sluggish plot with boring characters and a slow pace to learn a little about this renaissance love story. There is a modern translation of the original book in question. I wish that I would have read the modern English translation of the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" (see: Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of Love in a Dream) and never heard of "The Rule of Four".

I have the feeling that "The Rule of Four" is for an early adolescent audience while the serious books are left for the grown-ups.

On the positive side, the cover of the book is a very pretty shade of red.

This was a good idea for a book, but it was very poorly written. The effect of this unfortunate combination is a boring book not worth the trouble of reading. I wish that I would have done what others reviews did and stopped after 50 pages.

There are insipid chase scenes devoid of suspense; feigned scholarly discussions that are lacking insight or purpose and a pointless central mystery plot with no hint of cleverness. The characters are shallow, dull, uninteresting, boring, lifeless and just plain drab and awful. While in some professions these attributes might be considered an asset; in a modern mystery novel they are in fact a real detriment. None of the principal players are at all interesting. The four main characters are not at all likeable and I couldn't sympathize with any of them on any level. Count yourself as lucky if you have none of these manikins for friends.

The historic references to the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" are the only bright spots in this pathetic waste of a book. The reader will have to force himself through a sluggish plot with boring characters and a slow pace to learn a little about this renaissance love story. There is a modern translation of the original book in question. I wish that I would have read the modern English translation of the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" (see: Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of Love in a Dream) and never heard of "The Rule of Four".

I have the feeling that "The Rule of Four" is for an early adolescent audience while the serious books are left for the grown-ups.

Save your money, save your time.

On the positive side, the cover of the book is a very pretty shade of red.

Dull, Drab and Awful

This was a good idea for a book that was poorly written. The effect of this unfortunate combination is a boring book not worth the trouble of reading. I wish that I would have done what others reviews did and stopped after 50 pages.

There are insipid chase scenes devoid of suspense; feigned scholarly discussions that are lacking insight or purpose and a pointless central mystery plot with no hint of cleverness. The characters are shallow, dull, uninteresting, boring, lifeless and just plain drab and awful. While in some professions these attributes might be considered an asset; in a modern mystery novel they are in fact a real detriment. None of the principal players are at all interesting. The four main characters are not at all likeable and I couldn't sympathize with any of them on any level. Count yourself as lucky if you have none of these boring manikins for friends.

The historic references to the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" are the only bright spots in this pathetic waste of a book. The reader will have to force himself through a sluggish plot with boring characters and a slow pace to learn a little about this renaissance love story. There is a modern translation of the original book in question. I wish that I would have read the modern English translation of the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" (see: Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of Love in a Dream) and never heard of "The Rule of Four".

I have the feeling that "The Rule of Four" is for an early adolescent audience while the serious books are left for the grown-ups.

On the positive side, the cover of the book is a very pretty shade of red.

Pass on this dog.

This was a good idea for a book, but it was poorly written. The effect of this unfortunate combination is a boring book not worth the trouble of reading. I wish that I'd have stopped after 50 pages.

There are insipid chase scenes devoid of suspense; feigned scholarly discussions that are lacking insight or purpose and a pointless central mystery plot with no hint of cleverness. The characters are shallow, dull, uninteresting, boring, lifeless and just plain drab and awful. While in some professions these attributes are an asset, in a modern mystery novel they are in fact a real detriment. None of the principals are at all interesting. The four main characters are not likeable and I couldn't sympathize with any of them on any level. Count yourself as lucky if you have none of these manikins for friends.

The historic references to the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" are the only bright spots in this pathetic waste of a book. The reader will have to force himself through a sluggish plot with boring characters and a slow pace to learn a little about this renaissance love story. There is a modern translation of the original book in question. I wish that I would have read the modern English translation of the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" (see: Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of Love in a Dream) and never heard of "The Rule of Four".

I have the feeling that "The Rule of Four" is for an early adolescent audience while the serious books are left for the grown-ups.

I won't be quite as scathing as the previous reviewer, but I can't recommend TIME NO LONGER either. The story starts out deliciously campy-in pre-WWII Germany, Karl's adopted Jewish brother, Eric, is killed escaping from the Nazis that Karl's jealous twin, Kurt, sent after him. Eric leaves behind a number of African artifacts brought back from a recent trip-including a shrunken head, and what just might be...a voodoo doll. Karl, wishing to avenge Eric's death, takes up these artifacts to use them against Kurt.

I have to admit that after such a truly bizarre beginning, I thought the book might turn out to be a guilty pleasure. But, no such luck. After the over-the-top melodrama at the beginning of the book, the story immediately drops away, and Caldwell launches into a dull, dull diatribe on the loss of innocence or something. Painfully difficult to finish.

Angelo Saint was described as the prototypical psychopath, that is, "born without a soul." An overindulged only child, Angelo has his devoted mother wrapped around his finger while his more practical father Mark, looks on with horrified wonder from the sidelines. Angelo intensely detests his maternal Aunt Alice, who recognizes his social disorder from the start.

Although this is not a diagnostic book, I did feel the description of a psychopath was quite poor. The time sequence is off. For example, the book opens in 1957 with the then 4-year-old Angelo and closes with an epilogue set at the end of 1964. In Chapter 5, the boy's Aunt Alice tells Mark, the boy's father about a pupil named Kennie she had whose father killed his wife with their son as a witness two years prior to her teaching him. Since that was in 1959, how could the father have killed his wife two years prior and then been executed prior to killing her? In Chapter 10, Kennie's father was reported to have killed his wife on June 5, 1959 and was executed on January 5, 1959. How can his death predate his crime and conviction?

At the opening of the story, Angelo, then 4, expresses deep rage at Alice and this rage is manifested in bouts of wetting accidents. He then attacks Alice by smashing the contents of her purse; he destroyed her sunglasses; used her handerkerchief as toilet paper and flushed some of her money down the toilet. His loving, but foolish mother Katherine condones his actions by insisting it was just a childish prank. Mark, however, punishes Angelo.

Over the years, Angelo's cruelties become more subtle and clever. At 6, he discreetly kills a pet dog (which Alice discovers when she visits her sister's family at their summer place in 1959); he frightens away the birds and woodland creatures, viewing them as "weak enemies," and he nearly kills Alice by pushing her over a cliff. Luckily, she is saved, but does not testify against her nephew.

Alice has a crush on Mark which comes as no surprise. (Can't you just hear 1959's "Theme from a Summer Place" playing in the background?) During that summer of 1959, she tells him about a pupil she has who is Angelo's overdrawn literary opposite. Kennie, the orphan whom Alice endorses has been placed with a couple after the boy's father killed his wife in 1959. Alice tells Mark that the boy became an orphan two years earlier, which meant Kennie would have been orphaned in 1957.

Angelo is described as physically large for his age, stunning in appearance and mentally gifted. Despite his natural endowments, he is rather primitive and immature, still given to uncontrollable outbursts of rage and physical attacks on Katherine.

At 10, Angelo has perfected the dark art of subtle cruelty. He nearly poisons a housekeeper because she senses he is not the "Angel Saint" (as Katherine calls him) after all; he hounds a classmate out of his prestigious prep school (yes, Kennie which should surprise no one); he pit people against one another and broke a teacher's arm "accidentally" during a school football game. He uses charm to get out of every difficulty and has all, but these few, whom he has hurt fooled.

Angelo thinks of how easy it is to fool "weak women," and the thought of being sent to a military boarding school per Mark's suggestion is abhorrent to him because "strong men" would make him toe the line. Overindulged and fed with a sense of entitlement, Angelo is incredibly immature. He does not appear to be sophisticated and relies on childish guile to charm people.

When Katherine becomes pregnant with a second child in 1963, she senses that it is wise not to tell Angelo. He pesters her for information about why she is going to the doctor and once he discovers her secret, kills the unborn child, Katherine and later perishes. Even his death is bizarre -- he trips down a flight of steps only to land on his head on the marble floor below. Katherine later dies in the hospital, confiding to Alice that she really knew what an evil son she truly had.

The cliches that bothered me was the boy's name, Angelo Saint. This is obviously a contradiction of his character, which was truly evil. As bad as the misaligned time sequence was, I also disliked the obvious coincidences, like Angelo and Kennie (Alice's protege) ending up as classmates and Mark later meeting Kennie with Alice.

There were some unrealistic parts to the story, such as Angelo being able to gain access to Kennie's records and copy them for the class to read. I also didn't buy an employment agency for maid service giving Mark the address of the family where one of his former maids was working. What about confidentiality? That doesn't sound ethical or realistic. I also didn't like it when the maid lied to Mark about checking on a roast. It was a very weak and transparent dodge.

The time misalignment was bad enough, but I really didn't like the sexist comments, e.g. "he screamed like a girl." I also didn't like the way Katherine's second pregnancy was criticized because of her age. Alice was a little too straitlaced and overdrawn and, at times, seemed insincere. She mouthed inanities, such as "Mark's clever hand." Since when is a hand clever? I also didn't like it when she said "don't laugh" after she complained to Mark about inadequacies in the education field. Mark was NOT laughing - he was listening to her and taking her diatribe seriously!

Katherine was overly effusive in her expressions and was singularly foolish. Mark and his friend, Dr. Whiteside were the only real sympathetic characters save for Angelo's victims.

This book seemed quite sexist even by 1965 standards.