I just finished Bourne Identity. Might as well give my notes now or I'll forget stuff. The story is very good, and I probably would have liked it more if not for the fact that I've seen the 2002 movie and the 1988 for-tv mini series. I knew too much of the plot, the first half or so was a bit tedious. The tangled web revealed later on is very well done indeed, a classic Ludlum piece.
What struck me about this book is that his writing style is different from what I'm used to, perhaps he evolved as a writer. He will say things like "the two men were out of place in that street", as a vague way of conveying the espionage activities of Bourne. In his later books he was much more precise and detailed about these things, not just "out of place", but he would describe it more accurately. If you recall from the Hollywood production, the first movie reflects this, Bourne is sort of a vigilant guy who can spot things just a little while before others do, In the later movies he becomes so much more deliberate, his awareness at a whole other level. Perhaps this too is a reflection on the later books. That is not to say necessarily that Bourne has changed, just Ludlum describing him in a different way.
The analytical Marie is an excellent character, far stronger than the movie ones. She's so much more than just "moral support", she drives the story almost as much as he does.
The story is told top down, and I think I prefer it the other way around. The reader doesn't know everything that's going on, but he knows the big picture, vital details. I prefer Ludlum when the reader is side by side with the protagonist, knowing no more than he does, discovering the world with him.
Having read the book, I admire the choices they made with the movies. Everyone knows translating a book into a movie never works, so what they did was a very liberal sweep of storytelling devices, not even feeling committed to the plot, and sort of reconstructed a new story out of those large pieces. The fingerprint at Treadstone 71, they used that ploy to locate Bourne in Berlin in "Supremacy". Same idea, totally different story.
Have you guys been keeping up with the Van Lustbader books? Are they any good?
What struck me about this book is that his writing style is different from what I'm used to, perhaps he evolved as a writer. He will say things like "the two men were out of place in that street", as a vague way of conveying the espionage activities of Bourne. In his later books he was much more precise and detailed about these things, not just "out of place", but he would describe it more accurately. If you recall from the Hollywood production, the first movie reflects this, Bourne is sort of a vigilant guy who can spot things just a little while before others do, In the later movies he becomes so much more deliberate, his awareness at a whole other level. Perhaps this too is a reflection on the later books. That is not to say necessarily that Bourne has changed, just Ludlum describing him in a different way.
The analytical Marie is an excellent character, far stronger than the movie ones. She's so much more than just "moral support", she drives the story almost as much as he does.
The story is told top down, and I think I prefer it the other way around. The reader doesn't know everything that's going on, but he knows the big picture, vital details. I prefer Ludlum when the reader is side by side with the protagonist, knowing no more than he does, discovering the world with him.
Having read the book, I admire the choices they made with the movies. Everyone knows translating a book into a movie never works, so what they did was a very liberal sweep of storytelling devices, not even feeling committed to the plot, and sort of reconstructed a new story out of those large pieces. The fingerprint at Treadstone 71, they used that ploy to locate Bourne in Berlin in "Supremacy". Same idea, totally different story.
Have you guys been keeping up with the Van Lustbader books? Are they any good?
Buy on AliExpress.com
