The Satan Bug

[nuranar]

Apparently I have an audience that enjoys the so-called reviews I thought I was inflicting on my friends list.  This does flatter me, I admit. *g*  Sometimes I get really lazy and don't want to do them; writing IS an effort, particularly when I want to do a good job.  But I really need to get this one taken care of before the details and my

Comments

[jordannamorgan]

I remember taping a 1960s movie (TV movie?) based on that book years ago, when I was big on Richard Basehart. But I don't think I ever actually watched it. There's a dim possibility it's lying around somewhere in my graveyard of boxed-up tapes, but I may well have gotten rid of it.

Makes me recall my review of "The Last Man on Earth" with Vincent Price. You may remember, the plague aspect of that ostensible zombie movie is what made it unusually creepy to me.

[nuranar]

Unsurprisingly, MacLean's books were very poorly adapted by the film-making community. I read the Wiki entry for "Ice Station Zebra"; it's scarcely recognizable. The exceptions are The Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare, and MacLean actually wrote the latter first as a screenplay. What I'm trying to say is that it's likely no great loss. :p But if you ever come across it, you can put it in a someday-send-to-Ginger pile and I'll view it as a curiosity, as you say. ;)

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. Eww. *shiver*

[sakka]

Ooooh, now I know what that one is all about. I think this was the only one that my used bookstore had, but for some reason, I thought it would be about a demoniacally possessed Herbie car. (Sorry!!!)

But it sounds like another good Maclean book. He likes the name Mary doesn't he? :P I'll try to find it again and add it to my list!

[nuranar]

Ha! No, I didn't think of a Herbie, but I thought about it being either (a) a computer virus or (b) some metaphorical, philosophical infection.

He sure does! Both Mary and John. Although I'd be *extremely* surprised if the major in Where Eagles Dare was actually christened John Smith. In his profession, names really don't mean anything; why spend effort in making up a believable name when the enemy's not going to believe it anyway? :D

I don't think it shows lack of imagination on his part, though. As you know, protagonists in this type of story can rapidly develop Mary-Sueish tendencies. Whether consciously or not, I think MacLean's use of ultra-commonplace names avoids part of that stigma. Those names also show the reader that the characters are unusual because of who they are and what they can do; they don't need catchy, unusual, or perfect names. What do you think?

Another one I briefly reviewed several months ago is The Golden Rendezvous. I *really* liked that one. *hint hint*

[nuranar]

Oh, yes, you must! I'd love to get someone else hooked on these. :D

[nuranar]

Good for you! That sounds fascinating. *g*

I've delayed answering because I really don't have an answer for you. Spy stories, although acknowledged as a subgenre, seem to me to cross and blend into other subgenres very easily. For example, MacLean's books. Some of his protagonists are [eventually revealed as] intelligence agents. Some are a bit more equivocal, or less easily defined. Some are definitely not agents, not even unofficially hired. And yet except for that quibble, there is nothing else to distinguish the subgenres in his writing.

But I don't think you're asking about abstruse, technical definitions. ;) "Best" is completely subjective, too, but I can tell you about what I've read.

I've read Riddle of the Sands, which is supposed to be one of the first espionage novels. It's not terribly exciting cloak-and-dagger stuff, but it kept my interest and is worth re-reading

[suededsilk]

I was very bad and read the Wikipedia entry. Anyone who's interested, don't look, because the secret is spilled in the first full paragraph. :) (No, I wouldn't have guessed!)

I've never read anything by MacLean, but I liked the segment you posted.

[nuranar]

Argh, those make me mad! I wish they'd put spoiler warnings in. :s I just checked, though, and there's still a bit more to it than is indicated in that summary. And one statement in there isn't entirely true. :D

If you can't tell, I highly recommend him. I've rambled a couple of times about him in general; you might be interested in following the tags. Basically, I think that at his best he really is BEST - in everything from plot to characterization to wordcraft.

Back to Wikipedia: As you've found out to your cost (I'm so sorry!), stay away from the individual book entries, but do check out the article for MacLean himself. I think it gives an excellent explanation of who he was and how he wrote. The section on his writing style is extremely illuminating, and it will help you understand some things I mention in my reviews. :)