speesh's reviews
416 reviews

I have read a fair few books about the 1066 era now and I was beginning to think I’d maybe seen pretty much all there was to see in terms of how the story could be looked at. Stupid me. I was wrong. ‘1066 What Fates Impose’ has pretty much now set the Gold Standard for Norman Conquest fiction, just as Marc Morris’ ’The Norman Conquest’ has done for non-fiction of the period. In fact, I was drawn to compare the two a few times while underway, with ‘What Fates Impose’ coming out of it very well indeed. Both books have scope, sureness, readability and also a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek-ability (Face it, you got to enjoy a novel that can find place for lines (about Harald Hardrada) like “The old Viking warrior never felt comfortable in churches unless he was robbing them.”). It is also clear (to me) that G.K. has drawn many of the same conclusions as Marc Morris and also writes in a similar way that in its understatement, makes it easily understandable and accessible.

It’s hard not to take sides on the 1066 period - for an Englishman, anyway - and this book, while presenting scenarios for what happened, on both sides, doesn’t end up sitting on the fence either. Clearly its sympathies are with the English. William is a Bastard, literally and figuratively, Harold is a reasonably normal chap (in his youth, at least), thrust into history’s spotlight. He was tricked, the English were unlucky, William was ungracious while knowing he was riding his luck, he got what was coming in the end.

The book has a good, flowing style, full of understated period detail that doesn’t get all prissy, know-it-all, or ‘in your face’ and thereby obscuring the story. It is written in a calm, precise, knowledgable and authoritative way that gave me total confidence that, based on what evidence there is, it could well have happened like this, if the people behaved in this way, for these reasons. In fact, I could go as far as to say it did occur to me that it read as though you have happened upon a translation of a particularly well-kept diary from someone (somehow) close to all the action and all the participants. There were a couple of ‘bumps’ but they were very minor and absolutely nothing to get in the way of the enjoyment as a whole. I won’t pick them out as they may not be bumps for you.

The story proper starts in 1045, though there is an opening chapter that is well worth going back to, after you’ve finished. It works wonderfully well as both a scene-setter and a scene closer. Actually, is there any point in repeating the story? The bare bones you probably ‘know’ already. There are as many versions of what might have happened as there are people writing them. The story here is thusly; the relatively newly formed country of England is coming off the back of wins and defeat at the hands of Vikings and assorted other invaders, and hopefully coming into a period of calm and peace. What it actually gets is internal rivalries based on the pre-English country states - what are essentially birth-pangs and old rivalries that are hard to forget. What England really needs, is a strong king with a son ready to take over in the fullness of time. What it gets is a king they can support, but one that doesn’t, cannot, or at the very least is unable to, produce an heir who will be of age when he passes on. A vacuum of sorts is created almost by accident. There are various contenders and pretenders, with varying degrees of eligibility - depending on where you stand, of course. What is surprising to realise about this period - and I’m pretty sure it went on over here in Denmark at the time as well - is that the King was effectively elected. Of course, the son of the previous King stood the best chance, but in the case of no close heir, the vote went to the Witan, a pre-democratic periodic gathering of the good and the great. Those with the land and money and the armies to back it up, anyway. On the other side of the Channel, unable to understand how anyone but the King and his family could be King…is Duke William, head of a minor province, called Normandy. He’s not had it easy either, doubtful parentage, the constant threat of assassination while growing up and then having to hold on to power through sheer force of will. By being the biggest, baddest most ruthless of the whole pack. To say his claim to the throne of England, is doubtful, is actually to imbue it with more authority than it actually has. So, what then transpires, is the stuff of legend and has kept historians, writers and seamstresses in business pretty much ever since.

From there on - and based solely on the reading I have done - the book follows the events as they are known to us. And by ‘known’, I’d say it really should be read often as speculation, based on what is perhaps the least unlikely scenario. The ’true histories’ of the period are ’true’ to the facts as paid for by the person behind the writer of the history. It seems like a history was never written without an angle, an axe to grind, a point to make. ‘Facts’ were made to fit where they were wanted to be fitted. I get the idea that nowadays, we consider it a ‘fact’ if conclusions can be drawn from the repeated use of similar descriptions of events, that therefore they must have, most probably, happened - in some form of other. Or where archaeology, or probability based on archaeology, can maybe back them up. There you go. While ‘What Fates Impose’ is not meant to be an actual history of the period, I can imagine objections to it from any academics out there could perhaps hinge on the portrayal of how Harold came to pledge allegiance to William and thereby support William’s claim that Edward promised him the throne. You’re either going to like it or you’re not. But you cannot deny it works with the background of the characters and situations set up in the book. But I’ve no doubt that some - often self-proclaimed (I’ve come across them) - ‘experts’ will take exception and maybe overlook the book as a whole. They'd be doing themselves a great disfavour.

G.K., has created believable, realistic, human characters from some of history’s most iconic figures. It is good to have Godwin Sr., and Harold’s background filled out, for instance. Only ‘Shieldwall’ by Justin Hill (of the books I’ve read on 1066 so far) does something similar with the Godwin family. That Harold had plenty of children and two ‘wives’, for instance, was something I hadn’t realised. He’s drawn as a fairly normal young man, one we’d recognise and like, if we met him on the street today. For instance, he meets a pretty girl, falls in love, wants to spend the rest of his life with her. But because he becomes King, there are other demands, other priorities that cannot be avoided. Harold grows up and develops into a true king as the book progresses. From wild, though sensible and caring at heart, to be a proper statesman and envoy. HE has kingly qualities, that’s for sure. Oh, what we lost at Hastings…

William is very different. The way he portrayed in the book, reading between the lines, seems due to his trying to make amends, to compensate, for the feelings of inadequacy he must have felt because of the lowliness - and doubtful parentage - of his birth. He has something to prove and feels he can only do it by any means possible, fair or unfair, lawful or unlawful. He knows what he’s doing, can’t help himself and knows he’ll come to regret it.

Throughout the book, there builds a feeling of a far greater loss being imminent. Greater than ‘just’ the English warriors being beaten on that October day at Senlac Hill. Again, like Marc Morris does at the start of ’The Norman Conquest’, G.K., hits us with a couple of very telling facts. Here, they are about the situation before and after the invasion. In 1066, England had a population of about two million. One hundred years later, the population was halved. No famine, no plague. Just William and "Norman civilisation.” Many times during the reading of the book, I got the strong sense - intentional or unintentional - that he feels a way of life, a tradition, a history and a bright future, was about to be wiped out. Not just half the population, something more.

Events unfold, bridges are crossed and then burned behind them and an unstoppable historical ball is set rolling. There are times when it seems like the least worst option, for William at least, is to press on with the whole sorry mess. So we move inexorably towards 1066 and October 14th and the battle. Even though I’ve read many books now, which detail the weeks and days leading up to and including the battle, even though we wouldn’t be who we are today without having been the Normans first - I’ve never had a feeling of encroaching dread like I did while reading the final third of this book. I think it says so much about the quality of the preceding passages and the quality of the writing and presentation of those last few days and hours, that it’s like while I know what happened and it can’t (obviously) be any other way, I still hoped, I still thought ‘we’ and Harold might just do it. The victory was there. The victory was there for us to lose. And we did. Our luck just wasn’t in that day. It could have been so different. The tension, is stomach clenching. I’m reading the words and another part of my brain is shouting to the English characters “go on, GO ON!” I know it can’t be any other way, but still…might it? He dangles victory in front of Harold, it’s there for him to take, if only…And it’s gone. As it surely must have been. It really held me tight in its spell and have me hoping that THIS time Harold would win. That William would get the humiliation - and horrendously painful - death he’s got coming. Harold seems to have done everything right, except be finally lucky. I didn’t want to read on. I wanted to stop there and imagine what could have been…

'What Fates Impose’ really is Historical Fiction par excellence. It’s going take a good book, a very good book indeed, to beat this re-telling of the 1066 story. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book and I recommend it without hesitation.

Try as I might - and I tried - I could not get a fix on this one. I couldn’t see to figure out what he wanted to, or was was trying to do, with the book. In the end - and after reading the historical afterword and the back - it seemed most likely that he just wanted to find out about the incident and write down his notes. For himself. Putting his name on it - and it helps if the name you can put on it is ‘Bernard Cornwell’ of course - and selling it was a bonus.

But that doesn’t help us readers, does it?

It is about an incident in the American Revolutionary war - against the British, if your history isn’t up to it. The British are building a fort at a place called (back then) ‘Majabigwaduce.’ Nowadays it’s called Castine. Though that didn’t place it any more for me. In fact, the name Majabigwaduce provided a block on me getting a fix on the book right from the start. Being unable - in your head - to pronounce the place where all the action takes place, is not helpful for, even prevents, creating a bond of any sorts while reading. And a daft name at that. Were it me, I’d have kept with the name it has now and explained the change in the notes.

As far as I could gather, it was after the actual revolution, and while there was still some doubt as to where it would go. The attack on the fort set up by the British, was the US’s greatest loss of shipping in wartime, until Pearl Harbour. Or something like that. Many a reputation ruined, some created. The person who comes out of the whole situation - and the book - worst, is Paul Revere. There seems very little point to him at all. Apart from being picked up by an early version US marketing machine, that is. The British are doomed to lose the war, but they win the battle here. Mainly because the US forces are so incompetant. More than they are anyway.

And I never did property figure out who was on which side. Who were ‘rebels’ who were ‘loyalists’ as both sides seemed to use the terms about themselves. 'The Fort’ skated around looking for a purpose in the first half. Kind of found something to hook onto when the actual attack on the fort began. But then lost its way again. Flashes of ok-ness, but nothing more from then on in. He’s written better.

A strange one. Not entirely an unpleasant experience, but nothing more than that. Though, as I remember the first three in the Warrior of Rome series as being pretty good, it is a bit of a let down.

The cover claims it ‘“Blazes with searing scholarship” (The Times). Well hardly. There’s scholarship, yes - and god knows there’s plenty of it. But nothing approaching a blaze. A warm glow, maybe.

We’re I to be churlish, I might describe it as ‘boring.' It’s not that I want non-stop action, in my Hist Fic, but some would be interesting. Something happening would be nice. Ballista, the hero of the Warrior of Rome books, has been sent on a trip by some Roman Emperor or other, to somewhere or other far away. He has a whole load of people with him, from soldiers, to old friends, to young boys and homosexuals (though that could cover any of them back then it seems) to eunuchs and courtiers. Think that got them all. They’re off over the Steppes in what is now Russia, going north, I think. Quite why, I never really did figure out. Maybe to negotiate with someone or other out there, to do Emperor-type business anyway. Ballista is travelling in the direction of ‘home.’ His home, where he is originally from in the north. The others, the more urbane of his party, are clearly out of their depth. They’re a long way away from where they’re from and where they’d prefer to be.

What we get here is pretty much a ‘what we did on our holidays crossing the Steppe and the people we pre-judged on the way.’ A character in the book describes the party as; “This strange caravan plodding across the Steppe.” Plodding is right. Me, I’d describe it (so far) as just a long-winded trip through Harry’s research on the tales and legends of Ancient Greek philosophers, storytellers, his library shelves. Northern World section. It sure is clear Dr. Harry Sidebottom has, in the break between (the last one) and ‘Wolves’, been reading his book(s) of Ancient Greek Legends. And he really, really wants us to know what he’s found out. So, far from being in the slightest concerned about a possible ancient serial killer in their midst, his characters spend the long evenings around the campfire on the desolate Steppe, swapping lines from Greek, Roman poetry and philosophy and phrenology and mathematics (possibly). As you would. All riveting stuff - if you’re one of Harry Sidebottom’s history professor colleagues. It has to be said, it isn't easy to keep track of who's who with the tribes mentioned. Which tribe’s side we’re on, who we’re looking out for, who we’re passing through the territory of and who were here over the last three hundred years. That sort of thing. There are so many mentioned that after the first three or four and I’ve not heard anything that is sticking, my brain just hears ‘blah, blah, blah, please stop and get on with the story, will you?’ You see, when he talks about all the other tribes, sometimes, as when they’re gathering for battle, it’s pretty much pointless. The names mean absolutely nothing to us. Us who aren’t ancient history professors. He might as well have made the names up. He did, for all I know. There are no names that even sound familiar to act as a point of reference, as it were. So why do it, if not for the reader's enjoyment? Because I sure as fuck ain't gonna call him out if he mentions a tribe that I know either didn't exist in that area, or did, but not at that time. Because I don't know. And I'm not likely to remember, should I read in another book that a tribe lived there at that time, that contradicts what he says. And who is to say it's not HS who is right, the other book, wrong. I don't know. And I don't really care. As long as I get to know 'all the tribes of the Steppe pledged allegiance,' I'm happy enough. I'm really not that bothered to have them named, as I don't know if they're right or not. Who does? Other professors? And one often gets the feeling that this (and previous volumes) were actually written for them. Other professors.

Yeah, there was something about a killer stalking them, but we don’t come across the ‘why’ in the bits of the book it’s ok to describe to you here. It could have been a decent idea. It could have built up to be a ‘Deliverance,’ or ‘Southern Comfort’ or even ‘Predator,’ set 2000 years earlier - an unseen stalker picks off the party one by one. Could have had have them worrying about the who and the why and the when. The story turning tense and them turning on each other trying to find out who it was. But no. It has no meaning to us the reader either, as the characters killed either have no influence on the story development, or are plainly the uninteresting ones, so - meh! They get on with their meandering over the Steppe, their discussions of the local tribes’ customs and the killer in their midst is forgotten, until the end. Which is ok, the killer coming back into the story towards the end, but not ok, when he and the theme has disappeared, had no influence whatsoever on the story in betwween.

To be brutally fair, actually, once the caravan gets ambushed - as you know it must - the story warms up and begins to take on a new identity. From about the two thirds mark and to the end, it is actually quite good. Actually, in a similar way to the last one as I remember, I warmed to this one. Too late really, but I did warm. But then…The end. And that’s pretty much how it does end. Just stops. Of course you know it must end soon, as there are only a few pages left, but so suddenly and not even with a ’to be continued.’ I had to go back and see if I hadn’t missed something. I hadn’t.

Sidebottom has quite a sparse style, his writing. Often just enough to convey what he wants. You can tell he’s an academic though, not a natural novel writer. So, if you’re looking for an all-out, blood soaked, sword and sandals riot, like Anthony Riches’ Empire series, then this isn’t it. Though there are a couple of occasions where the body count rises and characters are killed off by more violent means than boredom - and, remember, something of a rarity for a Roman book; not a single, or double, eyebrow raised through the whole of the book. See Anthony R.: it can be done!

He seems unlucky, that Joe Hilton. Two books in and two psychopathic serial murderers on his ass. Funny how the super-mad killers seem to be making a bee-line for Joe Hunter. How unlucky is that?! Ah, yes, but this one is actually a contract killer, or Contract Killer, I never know if these things should have caps or not. I suppose you ain’t gonna set it on your CV, or look it up as a job description in the newspaper, so maybe not, but anyway…

Joe Hunter is now seemingly established in the good ol’ US of A, down Florida way and seems to have joined his ex-Special Forces friend ‘Rink’ in running a Detective agency. Which, as the author himself hoped I would find by reading on (I don’t mess about, me!) kind of explains where he’s getting his money from these days. Though handing your fee back to the person buying your services ain’t gonna be good for business in the long run. We’ll see.

Cut the crap: I thoroughly enjoyed this one once I left my ego at the door and got on with enjoying it. There are surprises and there is invention and it goes, mostly, where you want it to and there’s enough here to have me on the old interwebings ordering the next one in the series before I’ve finished. Always a good sign. For the author. Maybe not for my bank balance or my long-term health if the wife finds out…Oh well, you only live once.

What I thought sometimes underway, was maybe Matt writes seeing the film of the story in his head while writing? The two books so far have all the elements that would make good films. Lose Joe’s northern accent maybe. But then, there’s a thing. I’m hoping that further stories might play up his English-ness a little more. It is mentioned once (I think it was just the once) and that was by Hunter himself. I’d have thought it was a reasonably exploit-worth angle, his British sound and attitude, northern attitude at that.

This time, Hunter takes on a job to find and rescue a young girl from a bully. Not at school or anything, but in one of Miami’s richest quarters and from one of Miami’s richest/most powerful families. Only, things aren’t all what they seem of course and Hunter isn’t the only one wanting to have words with the afore-mentioned family. There’s also someone called ‘Dantalion’, who was bullied at school and has been taking revenge - and lots of money - for it ever since. Now, ‘Dantalion’ wasn’t the name on his birth certificate, but is a persona he’s given himself - based on (apparently) a fallen Angel of the same name. The modern Dantalion wants to emulate the biblical one and that necessitates the killing of many people. Many, many people.

Of course, Joe Hunter isn’t a revenge killer. Oh no. Or an assassin of those who need assassinating. "I never saw myself as an assassin; still don't. I saw the death we doled out as a necessary evil.” But, the thorny question of who decides if someone has reached the necessary level of evil, Joe or The Law, HAS got to rear its ugly head. Many times (too many times, if you ask me - I’m sure it can be done in more subtle ways) in the book, Hunter reminds us that he is only doing good, only dealing out hurt to those who really deserve having it dealt to. We are asked by him to join him, we are shown by the actions of the others, that he must be right, that we must agree with him. But…and there has to be a but, who IS he to decide? Of course, the books wouldn’t be near so exciting if he just Batman-style left the bad guys handcuffed to a lamp-post, but sometimes…It is an interesting dilemma this - the outside the law vigilante vs the ‘problem solver.’ And so far, while walking a very careful (sometimes feeling a little too overtly careful) Matt Hilton has dealt with the dilemma very well. He realises it might be seen as a problem for his readers, often having Hunter express aims or desires in such a way that you both aren’t confused by where he sees himself and you are more than likely to go along with him/the character. There’s no doubting, you do sometimes wish Hilton would unleash Hunter from his self imposed restraints, but he has to keep the character on the right side of this being ‘revenge porn’ and making sure we are crystal clear over who is the real bad guy here. However… there are, uncomfortable, similarities between Hunter and his nemesis Dantalion. I’m not sure if they’re intentional, but I noticed a couple anyway. For instance, Dantalion doesn’t shoot Jorgenson while he’s running away, because Dantalion wants to look him in the eyes when he kills him. Clearly the mark of a mad, psychotic killer who must be stopped at all costs, inside or outside the law. Then, Hunter says, a couple of pages later; “…things had got very personal between us and I’d only be happy if I was looking into the bastard’s face when I killed him. Using my SIG meant I’d be able to see the whites of his eyes.” Clearly the mark of a totally alright, stand-up kind of, doing the right thing, a hero…

The early style of switching back and forth one chapter on Hunter, one on the villain, can be a little tiresome, unneccesary even. There are only two strands to the story at that point, maybe there needs to be more, a third location. It is more mechanical than intuitive. Needs some work, that area. When the two meet and the action becomes ‘one’, then the flow is much better and the book zings along.

What I really liked was, whilst reading, I’d get to a point where the non-reading part of my brain (it is a thing, that) would be shouting “well, why didn’t he do THAT?! Why doesn’t he (for example) just stamp on the brakes and come up behind him?! Why do they always try to out run a more powerful car IN A STRAIGHT LINE?!” Then, a paragraph or so later, he DOES all I’ve been thinking. I’m then nodding (still mentally, you understand) and thinking “He’ll do, this Joe Hunter. Good lad.” So, not predictable, but going where you’d want it, where he should and making me out to be the fool. I like that. Though I still think answering and having a reasonably sensible conversation on your mobile phone while your tear-arsing after the deadliest killer ever, stretches it a little.

I like that Hunter is beginning to be more aware of what he is in danger of being seen as, and therefore Hilton of what he has created. To be honest, it would still work and the stories still be very popular if he just went after and killed the bad guys straight off. But for us bleeding-heart liberals, we need some kind of sign of awareness of the moral dimension and dilemma involved. Perhaps fortuitously for those untroubled by such fumblings, Hunter still gets the job done with great style and gusto. And that can also be said of the book(s) so far (I’m a bit behind I’ve only read the first two as yet). They are thrillers, they thrill. They are action books, there's plenty of action. But there's also something else. I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but I'm going to enjoy reading more to find out. Maybe that's it - they're enjoyable. Maybe I should stop trying to over analyse, relax and enjoy the ride. Yes, I'll do that.

I was hoping for a bit more action this time out. I kind of got it. This time though, we’re fighting a desperate rear-guard action while the pagan hordes are rampaging through Harry Sidebottom’s Roman history books for the year 264. Northern section. The northern pagans are clearly made of sterner stuff than their soft southern counterparts and there’s a lot less musing on phrenology, ancient Greek philosophy (probably) and writing of “Sir, sir! Please sir, tell him!” notes back to The Emperor. Not that you would know if the Roman Post Office worked and T. Emperor got to read the notes, as I can’t remember said notes figuring in the stories at all after the eunuch writing them had written them… Anyway that loose end aside - we are now travelling through the lands of The North. Up through what is now Germany, to the coast, over to what is now Denmark. What it was called then, he tells us, but even having lived here for ten years, the names, I can pretty much stake my reputation as a gentleman and a scholar on - I’ve never come across. If I wasn’t looking at the map at the front, he could be talking about areas on the Moon, for all I’d know. All the tribes they go past or meet on their journey, or even are in the same timezone as, we get names, chapter and verse on. Unfortunately, in the end and in what were probably battles vital to the story, I got lost amid all the obscure ancient tribes and Roman Romans. I pretty much also forgot who was fighting who and where. Not a good sign.

That leads to what has has bugged me with the whole series really, so many Latin words. Yeah ok, we’re dealing with the Romans and they spoke Latin. Problem is, we don’t. We are reading, he is writing here, in English. I criticised previous books for dropping in Latin words, two or three a time in sentences and then having to explain them, in the same sentence, as breaking up the action into irritation. Here, or in the last two in the ‘Warrior of Rome’ series anyway, he’s just been using the Latin words for just about everything. No explanation I can see. Clearly, we’re supposed to have learned by now. Only, the dog ate my homework, sir! Like writing half the book in a foreign language (!). Becomes meaningless. Comes between me and enjoying the story. I’m not praising ignorance here, but Ben Kane and Robert Fabbri and Douglas Jackson manage to write perfectly good, best-selling, historically accurate, Roman period books without feeling the need to do the same. And I’d hazard a guess their books sell more than HS’s. What do all the Latin words mean? No idea. Are they the right ones for the position, for the period? No idea. Has he made them up? Who knows…actually, maybe he has made them up. Or, they are real Latin words, just don’t mean (Roman Army ranks, etc) what we, in the context of their use in the book, think they do. Probably there are dusty old Latin professors creasing themselves with laughter. As the meaningless to us Latin words actually translate to some hilarious scholarly ‘my dog’s got no nose…’ Latin joke. Could be? Who knows?

Ballista, the main character from all the previous 'Warrior of Rome' novels, is still on his mission from (one of) the Roman Emperor(s) to ’somewhere’ up on the northern edge of the empire. Maybe to seal an alliance with them to, if not help Rome, then not helping the Empire’s enemies. Maybe. Ballista seems all along to have been selected for this job because where he will eventually travel to, is where he is originally from. He travels through many lands and deals with many different tribes and customs on his way to an eventual homecoming. Though he comes home to not exactly a warm welcome. It seems that neither the family or the enemies he left behind, are particularly thrilled to see him, but then he doesn’t seem exactly thrilled to be ‘home’ either.

Style wise, Harry goes for brevity. Too much. Too little. Maybe thinking he’s adding weight and atmosphere, but really he manages to leaves out the feeling and involvement. Just hard edges remaining. Doesn’t engage. Then, he mentions ‘iron and rust’ so many times, in this (and the last one), he’s probably guilty of product placement of some sort. What with ‘Iron & Rust’ being the title of his next ’searing scholarship’ book, you see? I’m guessing this is some sort of commentary on the Roman Empire being - at that point - on the road to ruin, but again, as Ballista has had little to nothing to do with anything Roman in the last two books, it is also pretty much meaningless and isn’t developed in any real sense above being stuck in there several times.

And then it ended. Just finished. Two epilogues (no less), but still no getting away from it, it just ended. What about the guy who was unmasked as the serial killer stalking them on their holidays in ancient Russia last time out? They ended that one poised just nicely - on reflection and comparison with this one - to go single-minded off in pursuit of him in this one. But no. A couple of mentions tops, but no bearing on story direction. As the next Sidebottom, ‘Iron and Rust,’ seems to be a different aspect of Roman history and is set, or at least starts, before the ‘Warrior’ books, in 235 and has nothing to do with Ballista or any kind of resolution of this/his story…very odd thing to do. Maybe HS just got bored, ran out of boring books on ancient tribal names and one day said “no more!” “Well, finish this one off and get on with something else” said the publisher. And that he seems to have done. Buy the first four and leave it there.

When it comes to believing in conspiracy theories, the Kennedy Assassination is the respectable conspiracy. The one it is ok to believe was a conspiracy without people immediately having an image of you sat at your computer in a tin-foil hat when you tell them. Some ‘conspiracies’ (9/11, Moon landings, etc) ARE only believed by tin-foil hat with a propellor on top-wearing nincompoops blind and deaf idiots…but that John F. Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, is beyond question. The only question is ‘by whom?’ Forget Oswald. It is first unlikely he was at the window with a gun, if he was, he certainly wasn’t the ‘lone gunman’ of the Warren Commission’s whitewash, though he was probably not actually aware he had had an accomplice - you’re not gonna keep a ‘patsy’ in the loop, now are you?

One has to face one of the few undisputed facts in the whole JFK assassination case - it wasn’t suicide. I mean, the fact is that we will never find out what really happened that day, the 22nd November, 1963. About the only other fact on which most people interested in the case can agree, is that he died in the car in Dealy Plaza, or on the way to the hospital (he didn’t die at the hospital, as is sometimes claimed, as half his skull was blown out by the shots in the square, you try it). ’Shots’ yeah, but how many? From where? By whom? Anything other than he was killed in Dallas, 22 November 1963, is disputed. And often.

Think about it: If someone came tomorrow and said “I did it and this is how I did it and why,” no one would believe them. Or, for everyone who did, there’d be ten who could ‘prove' - most likely in print - why it couldn’t have been so. There is film of the shooting, of bullets hitting Kennedy. That is disputed. Not that it doesn’t show Kennedy being hit by bullets, but for everyone who says it shows Kennedy being hit with bullets from (at least) two different directions, there are an equal number who say it does not. There is an (audio only) recording of the whole incident. Yet for every ‘expert’ who says you can hear four shots (the minimum number to be agreed upon for there to have been a conspiracy), there are an equal number of experts who say you can hear no such thing. The people in the square, on the day, who swore blind that they heard shots coming from the direction of the grassy knoll, heard no such thing say experts (usually experts who weren’t there at the time, or have run tests subsequently - which obviously cannot replicate the conditions of the time). The people in the square on the day who heard and saw smoke from shots from the grassy knoll and ran there to investigate, were wrong or fooled, by mass hysteria I have even read. And ’The Umbrella Man’…don’t even go there. There are people who saw two figures just prior to the shooting up near the offending window of the Texas School Book Depository, where Lee Harvy Oswald worked. Unfortunately, not at the window where the boxes piled and three bullet casings were found. There were people who ’saw’ Oswald there, when there are also people who saw him several floors below in the canteen at the same time. The parade was delayed in arriving at the plaza. Something an assassin would not have known, so would have had to have been in place at or before the originally predicted time. Yet there are people who saw Oswald at that time, just before it or just after. In a condition which would not have suggested he just fired three shots (or was on his way to fire them) and dashed away and down stairs to be in the canteen having a drink. And, three shots? Why? Because three bullet casings were found? Yes…but…the casings were found in a neat little arrangement, not gathered up as an assassin not wanting to be caught might have been reasonablyexpected to have done. And only three. No other bullets or ammunition if you like, for the gun were found. Ever. Not at the site or at Oswald’s property. The cases they found didn’t have his fingerprints on them, which might be considered unusual when loading a bolt-action gun. Which it is highly unlikely could have been fired three times in the timeframe with the accuracy credited to it. It IS possible, but not by Oswald, at that time. His palm print was ‘found’ on the gun stock. Much later. After it had been reported there wasn’t a print and in a position which wouldn’t suggest it was a print from someone who held the gun in a manner by it could be fired. He took three bullets, fired three bullets and hit the President three times…nope, maybe twice. Something somewhere up in that old attic I call a brain there, also tells me something like I’ve even seen a theory that the real target that day, wasn’t Kennedy, but Connally. I won’t go on.

‘Not In Your Lifetime’ was, as I suspected on reading, a book I read previously (1980) as ‘Conspiracy.’ It is - he says at the start - significantly updated and rewritten. Almost a new book. Up-dated with (his) new ‘evidence’ (interviews and document combing) and a change the title. It is now a quote from Chief Justice Earl Warren, when asked if all the Commission’s investigation’s evidence would ever be made public, who said “Yes, there will come a time. But it might not be in your lifetime. I am not referring to anything especially, but there may be some things that would involve security. This would be preserved but not made public.” That would suggest first there is more evidence still to come out. Summers makes much of this, but not in an overt way. He doesn’t want it to appear that his book isn’t complete, after all. More in a way to suggest that his research has led him to find what is most likely the evidence still to come out. Though he - naturally - hedges his bets on this front. It is unlikely there is still a ’smoking gun’ to come, it’s more likely, you ask me, to be information which would show what a right Royal lash-up the USA Secret (and non-secret) Services made of the whole sorry mess, before and after. That despite Oswald being under such close, documented security, by any number of agencies, he - and his undoubted accomplices - managed to sneak, undetected, past, fooling them all? Unless THAT is why they want to cover their asses? It’s more likely kept hidden (if not already ‘accidentally’ destroyed) for those reasons. Even now. Most of the principle figures are dead and the world has turned, but being shown up to be idiotic, inefficient blundering fools can still hurt reputations.

Summers does organise a huge amount of evidence and conjecture superbly well into a very easily understandable story/timeline. The main area of interest in NIYL, is the section dealing with the day itself. Something the other ‘definitive’ book I’ve read recently, 'A Farewell To Justice,’ has very little to say about. To be fair, Joan Mellen’s aims are elsewhere, concerned with the CIA and FBI involvement, along with Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald’s links to both the afore-mentioned and each other. I did think, given the near perfection of the Mellen book it was more than a little churlish of Summers to almost dismiss her efforts - I’d put money on that he had her in mind when he wrote, “It is hugely improbable that any US agency - or top leadership of an agency- had any part in the assassination." Something, from my reading of her book any way, Mellen proved without a shadow of a doubt. Though, the ‘or’ could be important in the quote above. I also think he makes a mistake when, early on, he points out that “What the polls have consistently shown is that millions do not believe what the official inquiry that followed the assassination, the Warren Commission, told them happened…74 percent of those Americans polled in a January 2013 study believed…that there had been a conspiracy… 74 percent of respondents, according to the same poll, believed that there had been “an official cover-up to keep the public from learning the truth about the assassination” The vast majority, 77 percent, thought the full truth would never be known.” Oh really, Mike Brearley? And the public are all experts with expert knowledge of the case? Nope. Basing a premise on that the great American unwashed think it must be so, isn’t a good way to go. Maybe that the next question the same group were asked, “Did God create the world an all of us inside seven days?” which got a higher poll reading, got edited out. That’s from me, for the cheap Mellen shot.

However, while dismissing CIA links (as above), we get “…renegade anti-Castro forces within the CIA or used by it, sought to assassinate President Kennedy and by manipulation of Oswald, and through true or false facts that could be pinned on him, lay the blame on Castro. That done, they would have surmised, the United States would be almost bound to retaliate by invading and toppling the Cuban communist regime.” And he gets closer to one of the most shocking areas of the Joan Mellen book, in that Robert Kennedy didn’t actually want the murder investigated. The Warren Commission was to squash the whole investigation. Summers uses a quote from Gore Vidal, saying “Castro had told her (Lisa Howard) of the efforts by the CIA against him, and it upset her to think that the Kennedy’s had been talking peace while they were also out to do him in. I think all this is why Bobby never really wanted Jack’s assassination investigated. Because they more they dug up, the more quickly they would ask whether Castro had done it to forestall the Kennedy’s. And the Kennedy’s would come to be regarded as American Borgias.” The Warren Commission wasn’t set up to investigate, but to bury. As Mellen suggests.

And…not one mention of the main pivot of the Garrison investigation (still the only court charge brought concerning the assassination), Clay Shaw. The whole Garrison aspect should have been given more space here, I felt.

Anyway, why do people think there was a conspiracy - and therefore not a lone, motiveless gunman and, therefore, we were lied to and, therefore, there was a cover-up? Poll people today, 2014, NSA, Snowden, et al behind them and of course you’ll get an answer in the affirmative. Back then, pre-computers, pre-Internet, pre-hacking, was surely different? However, it was seen as suspicious even then, as the book says; “…because President John F. Kennedy was killed during the Cold War, at a time when nuclear war seemed a real and constant threat; and in part too, because November 1963 signalled an end to the cozy security of the previous decade, the waning of public trust in authority." The Warren Report was set up with the aim of putting a lid on the conspiracy theories and was supposed to sweep them aside in finding that one man, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, murdered President Kennedy. But, while on Snowden, Summers mentions the release of documents on the assassination in 1977, noting that the authorities admitted that “'up to 10% of the (Kennedy) file will not be released.'" Then even after the 1992 JFK Records Act there were still some documents withheld, by the FBI amongst other security agencies. Seems clear that their need to avoid scrutiny now, is as valid - for them - as it was then. It makes me wonder why in all the Edward Snowden leaks, nothing has come out about the assassination. I haven't followed the whole Snowdon business in any way even remotely close to closely, so may have misunderstood what info he had access to and leaked. But still…nothing? It can’t have all been ‘rutinely’ or 'accidentally' destroyed, can it?

As I’ve said above, given the thoroughness of Joan Mellen’s book, it is, in a way, hard to see what Summers’ point with re-writing this book was. As I can't think that he came down particularly hard on one theory or another. I think you can probably get out of it what you want. Mellen's book 'Farewell To Justice's aim was to show that there was a conspiracy and that the CIA, in one form or another, were behind it. By changing the name of his book, from ‘Conspiracy’ to the comparatively nondescript ‘not in your lifetime’ and bearing in mind his comments on any possible CIA involvement, it’s as if he is afraid of coming down on one side or the other, for fear of cutting himself off, driving up a blind alley, going out on a limb - and later being proved wrong. If convincing evidence for something else, comes to light. The phrase “not in your lifetime” is used as a means of indicating that either not all the evidence has been made public, or evidence, convincing evidence for one theory or other, is still to come to light. So, he's saying 'these are all the theories - in slightly more than outline form, you make your own mind up, but it could all change if something new turns up at sometime when 'National Security' is not deemed to be in danger from its publication." What Summers himself thinks, I felt was a little hard to determine. If I had to put your money on it, I'd say The Mafia.

The best part of the book, though there are several excellent sections dotted throughout, to be fair, is the look at what happened on the day, at the time and the involvement of the Mafia in the whole thing. He looks at the actual event from all sides and answers all the questions he knows people have raised, for each step of the way. If nothing else, this is worth the admission fee. If you read this on its own, you’d be in no doubt of a conspiracy. My only problem was, I felt Summers then sidestepped the questions he needed to answer after the excellent beginning. It could just be me though, read it and decide for yourself. Me? Oswald was set up to look pro-Castro, by anti-Castro operatives, backed and helped by Mafia figures and deliberately not hindered by elements of the CIA. He was set up to be there on the day and appear guilty, but the killing was actually carried out by (at least) two others.

I've read a tremendous amount of books about November 22, 1963. There are very few books I’d recommend, though this (along with 'Farewell to Justice’ of course), is now going to be one of them.

I think if you’re going to start reading Alan Furst novels (and if you haven’t, why not?), you could do no better than start here. Though, as this is so good, maybe it would be better to start elsewhere and save this pleasure? Hard to decide how to recommend it best. It really is a summation of all his strengths, all his subtitles. The perfect place to start, the perfect place to carry on from.

A deceptively simple story - all the best are - and American movie star, Frederic Stahl agrees, at his studio’s prompting, to make a movie. In Paris. In 1939. Of course, we know now that that probably wasn’t the best idea the studio, or he, ever had, but it was back then. Though, and as you might have guessed from the spelling of his name, Stahl isn’t your typical American movie star. If there is, or was, such a thing. Anyway, Stahl is a movie star in America now, but began his life in Vienna, born into ‘intelligentsia,’ though at the age of 17 he ran away to sea. A ship took him to America, then his looks took him to Hollywood. Hollywood sent him to Paris to make a movie. He is 'hot property' in more ways than one, as he soon finds out. Not just to the party, wining and dining, cocktail and cafe-society, but also to the intelligence agencies. On both sides of the yet to be declared, but every one knows is coming, conflict. You can’t say ‘war’ because no one - with the possible exception of Berlin - knew if there’d be a war or not. Obviously, everyone (with the exception of Berlin) hoped it wouldn’t come to that, but the sense of it being the last dance for the Parisian society, the foreboding, the hidden - and not so hidden - threat of a mighty power finding it will not, and probably cannot, be opposed, is handled to perfection by Furst. Stahl, is knowingly or unknowingly more and more entwined by forces he knows he doesn’t and shouldn’t want to be entwined by. As a film star, his value to the Nazis is immense, they can justify their regime by using him. They invite him to Berlin, to a film competition. He knows he shouldn’t go. But he also knows that while it is just an invitation, it’s one he can't refuse. There will be 'consequences.'. However, by being used by the Nazis, he finds he is then making himself valuable to the American intelligence services. He can, as a still neutral American, go pretty much where he likes in Europe. As an American with a European past, he finds out different. All Stahl wants to do, is revisit the Parisian haunts of his youth, be wined, dined and partied by the hight society he once stood on the outside of, finish the film - and get his end away with the wardrobe mistress.

As an aside, if you’ve read any David Downing - if not, why not?! - you’ll recognise some of the places Stahl visits while in Berlin. At around the same time as the John Russell books too. I half expected them to bump into each other at the Adlon bar!

This is the perfect showcase for all Alan Fursts talents. The complete Furst. By turns slow, reflective, ordinary, tense, erotic and passionate. Light, dark and sometimes dangerous. And more. I’d have to put it way out in front the best Furst I’ve read so far. It has everything all his other novels have in parts, distilled in total. Beautifully well written, perfectly paced. Perfection on the page. Nothing less.

A surprisingly agile and flexible tale, spanning the globe - several times. Involving the Mexican drug cartels, the Chinese, the Israelis and, of course, Jason Bourne caught in the middle, just trying to mind his own business, Well, obviously not minding his own business - though he does seem at times to have caught a tiger by the tail and knows he really should let go. Anyway, that’s what I’ve liked about EvL’s Bourne, he’s made Bourne almost self aware. Though, maybe with the films in mind, ‘Bourne’ is never physically described, however there is enough of his mental turmoil is described, or hinted at, to make him an always interesting continuing creation.

‘Retribution,’ is perhaps not quite in ‘can’t put it down’ territory, but it's not far off. I liked the Chinese element, I thought that worked very well indeed. The Mexican, not quite so. Mexican drug cartels are all a bit ten-a-penny. Yes, they’re nasty, they do unspeakable things, but I’ve got no frame of reference for them, outside films and they’ve been done before. The Mossad angle is always interesting. There’s almost an old-world charm to Mossad. Coming from the ‘Old World’ as they did and all. Ruthless and relentless. Always above all other intelligence agencies. Many stories are going nowhere until the Mossad angle is brought in to solve a loop-hole, or just to be worse, more relentless than anyone else on the scene. Though one has to suspect Mossad and Rebekah in particular, are in the new Bourne tales as a homage to Van Lustbader’s fave rave ‘Ziva,’ the ex-Mossad agent from TV’s ‘Navy CIS.’ The programme which, as everyone but EvL knows, is bollocks. Plot: Someone, Navy-related, dies. No one can figure it out. Gibbs shouts at people. They figure it out. Using programmes on their computers that find everything out, but the like of which you’ve never seen, used or seen being used in real life. Gibbs says nothing more. To anyone. Maybe he says ‘Abby!!’ to get her to find out the un-find-out-able quicker. Gibbs’ lines take half an hour to learn. The whole series. Next week. Gibbs gets angry. People solve even quicker…and so on. Mind-numbing rubbish.

It’s perhaps not quite as break-neck as others have been, but not worse for that. There’s still the feeling that Robert Ludlum himself, would have done it slightly different - not necessarily better, just different. But Bourne is now totally Eric’s and it’s not right to keep comparing back to the books Ludlum worked on. There are some holes, some minor irritations - people still have to ‘punch’ numbers into phones, to indicate or stress the urgency, or their anger. As we all, even international terrorists, assassins and fugitives have touch-screen smartphones, shouldn't that be 'tapped'? Doesn't carry the urgency, the drive, sense of life and death purpose though. But something else than “punched" eh? There are a couple of other irritations along the way. It could be because I read an American version, helicopters are constantly referred to as ‘helo’s. There’s a dotted line under it as I type it here. I’m guessing that is edited/laughed out of the UK version. Then, people still only deal with emotions of 100% or nothing. No one is maybe, slightly, possibly affected by something or someone. Rebekah, for instance, has her affect on Bourne “Without his fully knowing it, Rebekah had pierced his Bourne armor, penetrating to the core of him.” Calling somewhere in your body a ‘core’ only ever appears in US or US-wannabe, novels. Typical American overstatement. Why not 'had penetrated deeply'? As, I’m sure, a British writer would have put it. And, what must have seemed really good when first typed in - “Such black thoughts were not typical of his psyche, which had been hardened in crucible after crucible until he had been quite nothing could affect him for long, or even at all.” I have no idea what I’m supposed to think about that.

Some of his analogies, similes and/or comparisons can be a bit hit and miss (“Maricruz bit off each word as though it were the head of a fish."), but he does also show he is a master of the 'less is more effective' principle that marks a top-notch thriller writer.
P318/9: ""What? This is my wife we're talking about. Who would dare - ?"
"He's waiting for you." Kai pointed to an enormous armored limousine. "There."
"I don't have time for this Kai."
“Make time, Jidan.""
Perfect.

You will have to at least consider taking a believability pill a couple of times underway. That Bourne can, with make-up no matter how skilfully applied, look Chinese enough (on his father’s side is the excuse) and with no identification other than 'there's been a change of plan,' convince the Chinese ambassador to Mexico, when returning in an official jet to the Party conference, that he is first the new chauffeur, then a bodyguard who needs to be not only on the plane as well, but the ambassador's bodyguard while attending the aforementioned conference, really is pushing the believability envelope to the limit. Nor does it raise any (Chinese) eyebrows when Bourne as chauffeur, chats, in perfect street Russian, to the agent the plane picks up in Moscow. Still, I've read similar in other books. And not all in Bourne books. But then, the Bourne books are more based in reality than your average James Bond film, so that's ok.

I think, if there is a message amongst the deception, double-crossing and death, it is along the lines of when secret services become too powerful and hide themselves even from their own governments and people, they become corrupt. They believe they can get away with whatever they want to get away with. They deliberately forget whose security they are keeping secure. The People's, or their own. See the CIA before, during and after Kennedy. Mossad can be compared with the Chinese security agencies. Both believe they are invulnerable and thus are vulnerable to individuals working for their own agenda.

A good one - now for the next...

In Miami. Year, unknown. Now? Police called to a double murder. Mother and young daughter? Looks like murderer has just rung the detective. If it is the murderer, he knows what is happening. And what will happen. He tells them to contact an ‘Ethan.' A bounty hunter, currently in Chicago. He’s sent to the crime scene. Then taken on-board the investigation, which becomes the province of the US secret people - and they know someone can see into the future and, well, it all goes downhill from there.

Well, not quite ‘from there’ there’s more. What if I tell you, that someone who is the son of a scientist involved in the development of the US atom bomb or something, seems now to be a fund-raising conservationist involved helping after natural disasters and has, oh dear god…harnessed a black hole in an undersea lab…I know… Mix in some Bermuda Triangle stuff, some race against time stuff and the non-appearance of James Bond and we’re good to go.

It isn’t quite in Clive Cussler territory. There’s no one called ‘Dirk’ for instance. However, consider, if you will: “I want to find and retrieve it before the damned media start swimming around like hyenas looking for corpses.” Swimming Hyenas? Bong! “…a realization thundered through the field of her awareness." Bong!! “…all you've done is stand on his coat tails." Bong!!! Then, if you’ve read other reviews by me, you’ll know my scepticism about people - normal people - ever talking about their ’soul.’ They don’t. Outside cheap thrillers and Deep Purple live albums. But now we have a guy whose fiancé's disappearance "...had left in its wake a chilling vacuum in his soul..." Is that something you'd tell a mate? Would you take that to the doctor? Would a friend, acquaintance, or even a passing stranger, say that to you? Bong!!!! Off the scale!!!

I admit missed how they deactivated the black hole in the end, if they did. I can’t quite think why I missed it - either I looked out the window at that point, or he didn’t actually write how they got shot of it amongst all the bangs and water and whathaveyou. You knew it was all gonna end either with him dying in a huge explosion which also destroys all his ‘work,’ or being led away in handcuffs, muttering about it having ‘worked, if not for you meddling kids.’ But, in the final reckoning, there’s no getting away from the fact that the good guys escape after being in the same room as/dragged into a black hole! Not a theory I’d like to’ve run past Carl Sagan.

As Dean can’t, or isn’t a good enough writer to, work the time-travel mechanics in to the story naturally, he has the characters being lectured to, disguised as a conversation, by an expert at Cape Kennedy, or whatever it’s called. You’ve seen it before in Dan Brown books, in other middling thrillers; “Hold on, I don’t understand..." “It's really very simple..." (then 5 minutes/5 paragraphs uninterrupted talk on how speed of light etc works). “So, let me see if I've got this right..." (Regurgitate in slightly different form what just been told, adding a couple of things previously seen on Nat Geo channel). “That’s incredibly astute of you…” (as is said here to establish someone’s 'astute' credibilities, which will clearly come in handy later on in book for devising ingenious/unlikely way out of impossible situation) and on with Physics, Module 1 - explanation, question and answer session for 10 pages. Forgetting that at the start of the section and a general theme for the story is “HURRY! WE HAVEN'T GOT MUCH TIME!!!" “Yes, but I’m gonna assume all the readers are incapable of taking in anything other than a straight-forward, easy to digest, plain as the nose on your face, assume our readers are idiots, explanation.” Over several pages. Like when the runaway scientist only has, by his own admission, minutes to live, he embarks on a thirteen-week correspondence course in advanced quantum physics. What he is actually doing, apart from irritating me, is surgically removing any tension. Why don’t writers called ‘Dan’ or 'Dean' or their editors, see this?

It is books like this that remind me why I like books simpler (on the surface). Books where problems are set up and solved by the characters figuring it out based on their knowledge and character, rather than money having been thrown at it before or after. I’d rather have an old geezer trying to work out why a chalk mark on a wall is where it is, than a yacht big enough to land a helicopter on and a private army dressed in identical jumpsuits.

In a nutshell, a mixture of Denzel Washington’s ‘Deja Vu’, that future crime film with Tom Cruise and the James Bond one with the world media-mogul person, ‘Carver’ was it? Shaken, not stirred, into pure bollocks.

I could be wrong, but I think this just might be the best Bourne, at least since Ludlum, erm…’didn’t achieve his wellness potential' shall we say. It’s one of the few, maybe Ludlum’s own first three apart, that I’d certainly read again. Of course, some of the surprise would be missing, knowing what happens, but maybe a second reading would help me appreciate even more, the mastery of (especially) the final phase this book. There’s no way I can give it less than 5 stars. It deserves more, but there you go, them’s the rules.

The action takes place largely in the Middle East and the middle eastern area. Bourne has actually been there a while. After finishing up the last story, he has been replacing his funds, by hiring himself out as what is referred to here, as a ‘Blacksmith.’ I’ve never heard of this before, but the book assures us that it is someone who hires themselves out to impersonate people in places where that other person would really rather, for whatever reason, not be. And he's done really rather nicely, money-wise, thank you very much. So, that is why he finds himself at a top-secret meeting in Doha, impersonating a Syrian minister. He's also passing on what he has learned at this meeting, to the current love of his life, Sarah, who just so happens to work for and be the daughter of, the head of Mossad. An unfortunate combination, should the Arab leaders who surround him find out, obviously. As the book starts and as Bourne, finds ‘himself’ in the middle of a hail of bullets, you can see the attraction of using a ‘blacksmith’ if maybe not quite see the attraction of being one.

The plot from then one, is…well, it’s complicated. But in essence, Bourne’s old Treadstone colleague Soroya Moore and her husband and child, are kidnapped by Bourne’s (latest) enemy, the terrorist leader, ‘El Ghadan.’ EG, uses Soroya and family, to blackmail Bourne into taking on the task of killing the President of the USA at a forthcoming conference in Singapore. There’s a lot, lot more involved of course. Old enemies and relationships surface, other people have other agendas and Bourne has to try and pick his way through. He doesn’t seem to have a plan, but the genius of his plan is, that he doesn’t seem to have one.

What Bourne really doesn’t have, is trust. That’s what is lacking on both sides. The US Administration, or the ‘dirty’ part of it anyway, who set up a ‘Bourne,’ don’t trust him now he’s not under their control. Don’t trust what they themselves have created. They clearly never expected him to become sentient. And Bourne, after 11 books filled with the US administration trying to kill him, doesn’t trust them. Still, Bourne doesn’t really trust anyone. He’s learned the hard way. He doesn’t trust some, intentionally and because those he has trusted, even if they haven’t subsequently let him down, have more often than not died as a result of contact with and trust from, him. He’s learned not to trust anyone, to spare them from the dangers he faces. “Bitterness squeezed Bourne’s heart. It was a fact, hard but true, that everyone who had ever mattered to him had been either exposed to mortal danger or killed.” In essence, what causes the doubts, regret and any uncertainty, in the post-Treadstone Bourne.

The problem with making these sort of thrillers so up-to-date, is that they’re consequently so quickly out-of-date. However, being set in the Middle East, or having that main plot revolving around their hatred for each other down there - it isn’t going to risk being dated any time soon. ‘Not in your lifetime,’ as Chief Justice Earl Warren once said about something else. EvL though, is probably if not bang up to date on US thinking about the Middle East, at least anticipating, based on past history/fuck ups, future policy - should the lunatics take over the asylum at the next US Election. Think p189 and some in the back corridors of the US administration are thinking ‘intervention in Syria’ “We’re all but out of Iraq and we’ll soon be leaving Afghanistan. We have six hundred and fifty Billion Dollars’ worth of high-tech weaponry at our disposal. It’s high time we used it against a target that truly must be crushed.” Can’t argue with that. Maybe Syria have the WMD?

If I had to criticise one tiny little thing, it would be the name the International Terrorist El Ghadan has chosen for his terrorist group. When translated into English, it is ’The Tomorrow Brigade.’ That is a bit weak, I think. Maybe they should have stuck with referring to it as (whatever is) the Arabic version. Might sound a bit more menacing, a little less, well…like a group of ’hippies.’

But what made the book, what made all the previous pieces fit, was the end. The end third maybe. Multi-layered, complex, surprising, shocking, fitting, satisfying. Thought-provoking. Worth the admission price, for me. I never saw it coming (but then, neither did Bourne, to be fair to me). Why? I’m not Arabic. I didn’t see it coming, but I see how he did it. I was lulled, due to my being European, into thinking ‘this, then this, then that.’ I was wrong. EvL was 100% right. Wow! Cannot WAIT for the next one! Isn’t that how it should be?

And yes, I did spot that the two US women just so happen to share EvL’s taste in TV shows and music.