Sign in with Facebook
Duckie's Reviews > The Bourne Identity
The Bourne Identity (Jason Bourne, #1)
by
by
I don't remember how this ended because I had to buy myself a Jack-and-Coke to get through the last chapter. Ludlum belongs in a very small, elite group of authors who don't know what words mean. To illustrate this, here are some passages from the book followed by the first image that came to mind when I read them:
"'If I scream, Monsieur?' The powdered mask was cracked with lines of venom now, the bright red lipstick defining the snarl of an aging, cornered rodent."
"Himself. The chameleon. The charade had worked...He had done such things before, experienced the feeling of a similar accomplishment before. He was a man running through an unfamiliar jungle, yet somehow instinctively knowing his way, sure of where the traps were and how to avoid them. The chameleon was an expert."
Aaaand this last one was basically my face the whole time I was reading this:
"'If I scream, Monsieur?' The powdered mask was cracked with lines of venom now, the bright red lipstick defining the snarl of an aging, cornered rodent."
"Himself. The chameleon. The charade had worked...He had done such things before, experienced the feeling of a similar accomplishment before. He was a man running through an unfamiliar jungle, yet somehow instinctively knowing his way, sure of where the traps were and how to avoid them. The chameleon was an expert."
Aaaand this last one was basically my face the whole time I was reading this:
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
The Bourne Identity.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
April 13, 2010
– Shelved
Started Reading
December 16, 2011
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-31 of 31 (31 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kelly
(new)
Dec 24, 2011 06:29PM
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
reply
|
flag
So, like a four cylinder engine firing on only one cylinder? You are quickly approaching the league of Mick LaSalle in your critiques. I can only hope Julia Roberts gets a major role in one of the sequels just so I can read your review. Very funny and informative - well done!
Nena wrote: "Although I can't see the first photo you have up there, the second and third are hilarious especially the third. So this makes me want to read this book even more so I can debate with you or agree..."Thanks! I'll try and fix the photo again. It's the second time I've had to fix it - I think whatever websites I'm copying the photo from eventually move or go offline, and then I have to find it again.
Duckie wrote: "Nena wrote: "Although I can't see the first photo you have up there, the second and third are hilarious especially the third. So this makes me want to read this book even more so I can debate with..."OK, it's been fixed. All the pictures should be visible now. :-)
for some reason this came up again in my inbox - I am glad as I got to laugh again at the quality of your critique and humor - both excellent. I had a very hard time reading and understanding Ludlum's novels when I read a few in the 80's - I had lots of time to read as I was up much of the evening with screaming kids :-p Anyway, my best friend who is very bright and well read loved Ludlum's books, especially his earlier ones and I just didn't get it ... thanks to Duckie, I now do. Keep 'em coming Duckie - look out Mick LaSalle!
Nena wrote: "LOL too funny. You are right about this guy not knowing the meaning of words. I hate when authors put words on paper for the sake of filling up an empty sheet instead of putting the effort into th..."I don't mind authors being a bit wordy as long as they're using the words properly, but with Ludlum it was like "That's not what that means...that's not what that means...that's not what that means! Did you not take the SAT?" It drives me crazy when authors misuse fairly common words because that's the sort of thing that should be caught by the third or fourth draft, at the latest. In a larger sense, it also annoys me because I'm paying them for their work, so I'm basically paying them to know how to use English properly and when they don't, I feel like I'm being shafted. With this book my only consolation was that I bought it in a foreign country, of, shall we say, dubious legal provenance, and since the guy who sold it to me off his two-wheeled wooden cart didn't speak English I'm guessing the author may not have received the royalties from that particular purchase. So the only thing I wasted here was time (and about $2.50US).
Sadly enough, Ludlum is not the only author I've encountered who was worthy of a review in pictures. If you enjoyed this one, please feel free to browse the other illustrated entries in my biblio-bile shelf:
Scarlet: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Red Riding Hood: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
A Companion to Wolves: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... (this one was actually well-written, I just had major problems with other issues in the book)
:-)
As much as I enjoyed this book, I'm not going to argue that it's well-written.
Thank you! I've only recently started this and your review confirms my experience - I shan't waste my time any further.
While I have not read the whole book, I think that what I have read is very well written. The two paragraphs you supplied above are well written to. Robert Ludlum is a very good writer in my opinion.
you had me at the rodent with a vicious streak a mile wide.
I agree. While reading, I'm spending a lot of time re-reading sentences and thinking "huh?"
I read 鈥淭he Bourne Identity鈥� in 1981, when I was learning English through the works of Frederick Forsyth, Ken Follett and many others (and thank goodness I didn鈥檛 restrict myself to Ludlum: now English wouldn鈥檛 be my second language, for sure, the first being Italian, by the way). Anyway, okay, the 鈥淐ain is for Charlie...鈥� stuff made me so confused that at one point I considered switching from English to Aramaic...; okay, the man could not write to save his life; okay, the construction and choice of words were lousy and approximate; but the story was good, the plot 鈥� although irremediably ruined by the prose 鈥� was captivating and compelling鈥�
That said, I do think Ludlum is among the less talented writers in my library; unfortunately, I could get to this conclusion only years after first reading his books, due to an inadequate knowledge of the language. I usually re-read many of my books over time, especially thrillers; I never re-read Ludlum once.
AHAHAHHA your review definitely solidified my decision to not read this series. Some things just belong to the screen, and others to books
Love the killer rabbit! "Big sharp nasty teeth!" yeah, I hated this one as well. Absolutely awful prose.
Thanks. I think I remember now why I stopped reading this book a decade ago when I first picked it up. I鈥檒l stick to the movies.
This! Aptly put. There were parts in the book where I'd just drag on without following what the author's trying to say. And that's one reason I might not invest time in the rest of the books in the series.
馃槀馃槀馃槀 Ducky definitely belongs to that elite group of writers who knows what words mean and arranges them with a unique style and great humor, skillfully letting pictures complete her ideas where appropriate. Well said Ducky!
I thought he described the person in the first paragraph in a very unique way, and I applaud him for it. Sure, I had to reread it, but that was because I wasn鈥檛 ready for his description. Besides, Robert Ludlum only describes people like this on occasion in this series.
What's wrong with the first paragraph? Not saying he's a transcendent writer or anything because I kind of agree with your sentiment, but it also seems like you're giving him a very ungenerous reading
For anyone reading this, his quotes here are both misunderstood (the first quote) and taken out of context (the second quote).1. The first quote was using the metaphor of a rodent, since rats (not rabbits. Rabbits, as shown, are 100% not rodents) have gross looking red-ish pink lips, and gums, extending far back on their jaws, which makes them look like they have mangled, sinister, grins. Almost like they have lipstick on. The metaphor here being accurate.
2. The metaphor of a chameleon was used to symbolize how Bourne was needing to fool others so he would not get caught. Chameleons are an animal that can change their color in order to remain hidden in plain sight, fooling the predators around them. The metaphor here working perfectly.
Nowhere in this book are their wrongly used words.
I like this slightly more than you...but it may have been something akin to Stockholm syndrome
You don't know popular literature, lady! That that you just mentioned is art or some shit like that.
I agree with what Sarah Slough said 9 years ago.
Someone that like werewolves and vampires, is kind of hard to take seriously鈥�
For the person who suggested rabbits are not rodents, you are misinformed. The term rodent refers to animals whose teeth continue to grow and must constantly gnaw on things. Rabbits are indeed rodents.
