The Bourne Treachery: A Book Review

by Robert Ludlum, but actually by Brian Freeman

As you might expect from a Ludlum novel written by somebody else, this book has the feel of something made on an assembly line. It has all the parts and doodads that you expect from the genre, and it does what you want it to do (in this case, be thriller), but it has no particular artistry or character. To be fair, this also means it’s lacking some of the flaws that might show up in quirkier, more idiosyncratic books.

Pacing and Action: A+

This is, I gather, the outstanding characteristic of Bourne books. The action is almost constant. Nevertheless, the author does a good job of introducing characters and explaining the setup and the stakes, so that we don’t get the phenomenon of action that we don’t know the significance of. I will say that to a certain degree, tension is inflationary, so the shock and horror isn’t quite as shocking and horrible as it would be with a slower buildup.

Tours of Foreign Cities: A

Traveling the world is one of the things we expect from the Bourne novels. Freeman does a good job of making us feel as if we are familiar with the cities where the action takes place by mentioning particular roads, parks, markets, and squares. He also does a decent job with the weather and atmospherics.

Russians Betraying Each Other: A

Also other spies betraying Bourne, and Bourne possibly betraying other people (who knows, since he lost his memory). The hypocrisy of people in espionage, as well as the messed-up kind of person that years in espionage makes you, is a major theme of this book. Speaking of which:

Character Development: B-

The book tries to do some character development with Bourne discovering his past, wishing he could get out of the espionage game, and realizing that he has been made into the kind of person who probably isn’t capable of anything else. There’s a fair amount of character development given that this is a thriller. But, the thriller distinctives limit the emotional impact of all this, at least for me. The pace is too fast and the writing too matter-of-fact for character development to get really emotional. Speaking of which:

Relationships between Men and Women: C-

Okay, so there is a lot of sex. Including one scene that lasts several pages. But it’s written the way a man would write it, which is to say, the emotional element is minimal. Speaking of which:

Portrayal of Women: D

Hmm, where to start?

Obviously, we are talking about spy women, so that skews the sampling. But these ladies are ruthless killers. They are also … how to put it …? Not overly concerned with monogamy. They can go from killing to kissing, or worse, in no time flat. They don’t seem to get emotionally attached as a result of sexual involvement, the way a normal woman would. They aren’t adversely affected by all the gruesome things they have to do, even as much as Bourne is.

There are two women who don’t appear to be nymphos, but they are both cool as cucumbers. One only cares about science, one about spycraft. You know, like most women you meet.

Also, spy goddess is petite and very athletic, but also has “deep curves.” I dunno. Deep curves (such as wide hips) affect the way a person runs, tumbles, throws, etc. I went through most of the book picturing her as wiry and boyish, and then all of a sudden the author threw these curves at me. Also, their hair is always loose. Not very practical, ladies.

I’m not even trying to be feminist here. I just find these women hella unrealistic and unrelatable, which in turn makes the “romance” (such as it is) tepid.

Russians Talking: F-

This was the thing that annoyed me the most, because it messed with the verisimilitude even more than the Bond-style spy women. Many of the characters in this book are expatriate Russians. Many of them need to monologue to explain their positions. All of them talk exactly like an American explaining something in a business seminar. Listen, Russian sentence structure, word choice, and so on, is very distinctive, even when they are speaking English. It should not have been hard to watch a few movies where this was well done, and then imitate it in this book. If you are going to research foreign cities and bring them to life, why not make the dialogue believable too? I think I would have enjoyed this book a lot more if the Russians had sounded like Russians. And it would have supported the theme. Make them sound like Russians!

7 thoughts on “The Bourne Treachery: A Book Review

  1. When talk Russian you got to sound bold. Russia is a cold and harsh place so you has to be cold and harsh when you speak.

    I actually had someone come up to me and say I look Russian. While I’m unsure about that, I know I’m part Polish.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Jennifer Mugrage's avatar Jennifer Mugrage

      Yes, and they tend to skip articles like “a” and “the,” and the word order is a little different.  
      If you are part Polish, you are probably also part Russian.

      Like

      1. When beginning and end a sentence they tend put emphasize the first and last word. There a Russian Youtuber I follow called Setarko. He does videos on the Russian conspiracy iceberg and history of the Soviet Union from a Russian perspective, which is interesting.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Jennifer Mugrage's avatar Jennifer Mugrage

      None. I’ve just seen the movies. I read this one because my teenaged son had read it, and I wanted to see what he was reading. He liked this so much that he tried to check other Ludlum books out of the library, but they did not have any Bourne books there.

      I don’t know what kind of action would be required to satisfy you, but in this book, nearly every scene ends with the characters having to fight, or run, for their lives. So maybe you would like this one.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment