Released August 2008 (Broadway) * 320 pages * ISBN 13: 9780385523554
This is the type of the book that I usually love. I’ve read quite a few accounts of various espionage services (CSIS, CIA, KGB, Mossad, MI6) as well as accounts of individuals caught up in international intrigue. This is a particular favourite topic of mine, and this book should have been a slam-dunk favourite. It wasn’t.
It is not the subject, but Cowell’s approach that is off-putting. Instead of allowing events and players to demonstrate the historic aspects of the poisoning, Cowell insists on reminding the reader that it is historic — frequently. In addition to being repetitious, it leads me to conclude the exact opposite: that the incident wasn’t so historic since the events and people can’t be trusted to speak for themselves.
There are also many details included that distracted from the narrative. There is no need to include information such as the beverage consumed at an interview or the clothes an interviewee wore unless it is pertinent (it isn’t). This is particularly frustrating because there are a lot of people to keep track of in this narrative, which is hard enough without extraneous information.
Most frustrating are Cowell’s interjections as to what he imagines, with 20/20 hindsight, people are thinking or feeling at particular times in the timeline. These are things that Cowell has no way of knowing and these speculations don’t offer any insight into the events in any case.
Terminal Spy is marketed as a “page-turning narrative,” and it might have been were it not bogged down in details. If you can read around the details, there is interesting history here. I’ll be passing on my copy to the military historian of the family to see what he can make of it.
7 Comments
I remember when my son was being taught creative writing in elementary school, they emphasized adding details. I wanted to pull my hair out because I think too much detail can really bog a story down. I want plot and characters and if there’s too much detail, I find myself thinking, “get to the point already.”
Thanks for stopping by my site and entering my giveaway (and posting it here on your site!!)
Wendi
Too bad this looked interesting. Much of this is the fictionalization of nonfiction. Something I’ve ranted about on my blog quite a bit. My personal favorite are quotation marks around dialogue, unless someone was running a taper quarter at the time there’s no way it’s going to be accurate.
I slogged through In Cold Blood (which is credited with popularizing the “novelization” of nonfiction) this summer and it irked me to no end for many reasons, particularly the dialogue, as you mentioned. In the case of The Terminal Spy, I didn’t have a quarrel with the dialogue as much of it does come from interviews if I remember correctly (it’s been a while since I read this, but I was struggling with the review).
I read Delusion: The True Story of Victorian Superspy Henri Le Caron this summer and it was really well done without resorting to construction of dialogue or speculations or anything of the like. My review is here.
I also liked Delusion. I’ll add you to my blog roll as soon as I can get access to it. Apparently they’re experiencing technical difficulties.
Thanks for the blog roll add. I really appreciate it.
Ann - I like your honest opinion! Thanks for sharing.
Tag - You’re IT!!
You’ve just been tagged for the “7 Random Bookish Things Tag” at
Wendi’s Book Corner. Stop by to participate!
Wendi B.´s last blog post..7 Random Bookish Things Tag