I too, like many people have offered reviews, saw the film before i read the book. After being pleasantly satisfied with what hollywood had to offer i was sceptical as to what the book could offer that the film hadn't already...
It took only the first few chapters for that scepticism to wash away, much like Bourne's limp body in the opening of both book and film. This book offer's more depth, twists, morale dilemmas, teasing questions, and surprising answers than the film could ever have done, even if it were to run for abother 10 hours. I ask you, in dilluded confusion, where was Carlos in the film? The most gripping, intriguing and heartwarming elements of the story are elated from the film for absolutely no reason!
"Bourne's" history is, in itself an intruguin story of loss and dealing with it, and the knock on effect leading to the pier in Marsaille is just bewildering.
The depth and detail of which Ludlum presents for Carlos' army of old men, and the tedious encounters around the analyst's conference room in the 'mighty' USA CIA headquarters, lend a delightful and delicate intricacy to a world unknown to all that read. Every strategic decision Bourne makes, based on his training, lends a new dimension to the stereotpyically 'Muscle-bound' world, that we so readily associate (through hollywood, i presume) to a spy.
Now for my complaints, of which i only have one:
Ludlum hints at the identity of a 'certain character' to be significant and, at the very least, surprising... Why was this abandoned?
Ludlum is, without doubt, the most accomplished Spy thriller writer of this century, and The Bourne Identity is his finest work.
