Robert Ludlum

[dahamsta]

How do Ludlum's books compare to, for example, the Bourne movies? I'm a huge fan of the fast pace of the movies, but I know this doesn't always work backwards. If they compare well, which of his books would compare best to the Bourne stuff.

I mean actual Ludlum now. I'm not a fan of modern ghost-written stuff.

[Spudulika]

I've read almost all of the Ludlum books (including the Bourne's) and the main different for Bourne is that it's set further back in time (Bourne is a Vietnam vet) and the books are very easy to read. It's a little like watching Gorky Park and reading the novel and subsequent Renko novels - you see Matt Damon as Bourne and John Hurt as Renko and as you read they are acting in your head.

Ludlum is a brilliantly descriptive writer. He sets scenes clearly and vividly. His novels all differ in different ways, though there are always little twists - The Chancellor Manuscript and the follow up, I think it's the Icarus Agenda, play well.

[John83]

Ah, Ludlum, the most prolific dead author I've ever seen. He wrote airport novels, big sprawling plots without anything especially clever in them. They're like Tom Clancy books, maybe a wee bit better written.

I've only read the first of them. The plot is broadly similar to the film, but the novel was a cold war era story, so the film had to tweak a lot of little details. It's also fairly thick - 500+ pages - which means the film had to dump a lot of material. It was a fairly entertaining read I think; but it's over a decade, and I'm not sure how discriminating I was in my reading as a teenager.

[Spudulika]

John, it never goes away. :-) You should try Martin Cruz Smith, now that you're all grown up :-P