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.
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.
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.
You can't spell failure without FAI
John, it never goes away. :-) You should try Martin Cruz Smith, now that you're all grown up :-P
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks