Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

According to the press reviews, this looked like my kind of book: a scholarly, erudite, well-written thriller. At the moment, I'm trying desperately to make it to page 150, constantly irritated by inconsistencies and downright idiocies. Here are a few examples. 1. The opening scenes take place during an April snowfall. While this is not improbable, it's described as the first snowfall of the year. Give me a break, no snow in New Jersey during January, February, or March? 2. Arcangelo Corelli is referred to as "a slightly obscure Italian composer". As a musician, I found this a strange statement coming from the mouth of a character supposedly named after Corelli, who is not obscure in the least. 3. Another character is portrayed simultaneously as suffering from a heart murmur and as being an athlete and football player. Not impossible, but a potential contradiction which demands some explanation, such as "Despite his heart condition . . . " 4. In one of the events taking place in the 15th century, an "illiterate pickpocket" is hired to break into a residence and copy some documents. How someone illiterate could copy anything written is beyond belief. And these are just a few. Even without such inanities, the book is poorly written. It sounds just like what it is, the product of a couple of pretentious Ivy League undergrads. What I don't get is the enthusiastic reception it got from the critics. Did they actually read this nonsense?