Triplo / Triple (original 1979; edition 1980)

Classic spy vs. spy novel from the seventies. It was interesting to be reminded of a time when the Soviet Union was the 'enemy.' ( )

The story of a Mossad agent's mission to steal 200 tons of uranium for Israel so they can beat the Arabs in the race to build nuclear weapons, culminating in a high seas showdown between the intelligence agencies of Israel, Egypt, and Russia, and the Fedayeen, Triple has all (or almost all) of the elements that make so many of Ken Follett's spy thrillers such good reads, including some interesting characters and an exciting, high-stakes story. And it was a pretty good read.

But it seemed to be lacking something that much of Follett's other work has, some deeper meaning tying it all together, an integrating theme. And the characters and plot were not as good as they could have been as a result. A lot of other reviewers say that this is their favorite Follett novel after The Eye of the Needle and The Pillars of the Earth, but these three are actually my least favorite of his that I've read so far, and I think a lot of his later work is significantly better. But I'm clearly in the minority on this, so take that for what it's worth. ( )

NIL

Quite a good page turning thriller set in 1968 when an Israeli agent is trying to steal a cargo of uranium so that his country can have the atomic bomb, to guard against Egypt getting the bomb with Soviet help. The Egyptians and a Palestinian terrorist group are trying to stop the Israelis succeeding. The number of betrayals and counter-betrayals gets confusing at times. Both sides use extreme violence to get their ends, not only against each other, but against innocent bystanders who get in their way. Quite good, but not one of Follett's best. ( )

I don't want to downgrade a book just because I don't like the type of book it is (spy fiction and adventure), but what it is makes it hard to judge without bias. Ken Follett has a way of writing that irritates me because it leaves one with the feeling that one actually has a large understanding of a concept or period or event when it is really a view of one possibility. It's okay and sometimes good, but not too deep overall. Makes me wish I were reading something else. I am probably just overreacting to people who praise Follett as a great writer when really he's just okay as an adventure writer. His people aren't usually fleshed out and his plots are lacking. There's very little of the feel or taste of a location. ( )