Summary: "The Rule of Four" isn't a great thriller, nor is it a must-read, but it's entertaining and, for the first half anyway, brings to light an obscure Renaissance text. It's also nice to have a popular cultural work starring young people who are intelligent and interested in something besides the latest Paris Hilton sighting or Maxim cover. Knowing the book's milieu well myself, I took an especial interest in reading this novel. The settings are well-chosen and admirably rendered (maybe the book will spawn a "Midnight in the Garden..."-type tourist boomlet in P'ton?). Artistic license with dates and traditions is understandable, but a first snowstorm in April strains credulity (sort of like in the movie "In and Out" when the Oscar speech happens a few days before a high school graduation...in March) and reeks too much of plot-friendly convenience. I was hoping that the action would move off-campus but it doesn't. Many of the characters descend into Hackneyville. An evil professor? A status-obsessed social climber? A brooding, bookish orphan? A stern, not-to-be-messed-with, African-American mother? Some criticism of the authors or their book have focused on their Ivy League provenance and written off the authors or their creations as elitist. If they're elitist for representing or depicting the Ivy League or academic life, then every person who has ever been discerning in their consumer choices or strived for something beyond the everyday is elitist as well. Nobody willingly pays money to watch lousy ball players: they pay money to see quality. Nobody goes shopping for shoddily made clothes: people want quality. Many people pursue education beyond the legally mandated requirement (10th grade?). Are these behaviors elitist? Obviously, lots of people read books for pleasure, too, which is to some an elitist pursuit. "The Rule of Four" won't be on any elitist "best books ever written" list, and this book has faults, but its Ivy League setting and roots is not one of them.