Len Deighton Books

Another great read if you havent read the previous 4 run out and get them.

I could be wrong, but if this author did not invent the dark, disgruntled, close to disrespectful spy novel then would did? This is another in the series and is not bad. What I like with these books is you always know what you are going to get, nothing new to slow you down. I can handle that lack of creativity because the author does such a good job at telling a story. The story, spy vs. spy in Europe, is not a new one and you will not find anything really new or memorable here. Overall the book is average and if you like the category or the author you will like the book.

Itýs just another day in the espionage war in a divided Europe. The wall hasnýt come down, and itýs an unending game of ýSpy v. Spyý on both sides. At the outset of ýSpylineý British agent Bernard Samson is in hiding in a dingy section of the divided and espionage-ridden city of Berlin. Why heýs in exile isnýt exactly clear to him, even as he does have some friends, or at least some human resources on which he can rely. He feels it may have something to do with his wife, Fiona, who disappeared after going over to the Russians. Allowed to return home to his new wife, Gloria, Samson thinks his problems are behind him. Instead, he soon realizes that something is brewing, something that will send him back across the wall, to tangle with a psychotic American who kills for any side that will hire him, and to finally confront his wife.

Itýs clear that ýSpy Lineý is an entry in a larger series, one that began with ýSpy Hooký (which it immediately followed) and culminated in ýSpy Sinkerý ý the complex relationships and their continuity are obviously much larger than any single book. (The ýSpyý books themselves are also part of a much larger continuity ý one including the trilogies of Game-Set-Match, as well as ýCharityý, ýHopeý and ýFaithý, as well as the WWII epic ýWinterý). ýLineý is also dwarfed by its shortness (for the quality of its writing, itýs not a long read; also the plot covers a brief span of time) and by the loose ends it creates (Fionaýs sister insists on accompanying Bernard into The East ý with disastrous results; and how will Bernard explain everything to Gloria?) without resolving them. Deighton is less concerned with resolving problems than in artfully describing the pain they cause. Unfortunately, that makes the book seem painfully unstructured ý like an episode of a TV show. ýLineý like most of Deightonýs books, is worth reading for the quality of prose alone. However, the plot details ý which take Bernard from Berlin to London, and to Vienna, meeting stamp collectors, historians, ex-spies and freelance murderers ý seems above the book, implying that youýll have to read all the Samson books. Itýs almost like a prison sentence, and clearly one that has taken its toll on poor Samson. In short ý a good book, but only great book if youýre willing to read a dozen more.

This tale of espionage takes readers on a exciting roller-coaster ride through Europe...Bernard Samson, British Intelligence, is being accused of treason goes into hiding. However, his agency keeps a very keen eye on him. He is roped back into the spy game, and danger and mystery fill his new world.

I really liked this story and it had some really funny lines in it too. I will read some more books by this author if they are anything like this. This is about an attorney, his ex, his kid, an old girlfriend and her husband, riots, money, murder. A really interesting novel.

Len Deighton is one of my all-time favorite authors, which is why I
can't believe I hadn't found this novel sooner. He is a master of the
espionage thriller, but this one is a good old fashioned mystery. Our
hero is not a detective, though, but a lawyer. Yep, a lawyer.

I love the character of Mickey Murphy - he is so adorable! His office is
in a bad LA neighborhood, his partner is into some shady deals, his law
practice is being bought out by a multi-millionaire who also happens to
be married to Murphy's old high school sweetheart for whom he still
carries a serious torch. When his ex-wife isn't pretending she's going
to throw herself off his ledge, she's sending her astrologer round to
threaten him for more money, his son is living with a fem-nazi and his
German secretary barely speaks English. His friend the movie star wants
to buy a gun, his friend the cop suspects him of murder and his friend
the body guard keeps threatening to kill him.

The take over of his law practice is not so innocent as it seems and
there is something more going on, but Murphy is having a hard time
figuring out what the deal is. He happens to be the only honest party
involved, so chances are, he'll end up screwed. The whole thing comes to
a head as the city goes up in flames during a huge riot.

A must read!

A clumsy story by one of my favorite authors. Pitchers, quarterbacks, and point guards all lose their extraordinary skills, or at least have bad days, so why not writers? Any "Rockford Files" script gives us a better exasperated L.A. anti-hero than this Mickey Murphy stereotype. The minor characters in _Violent Ward_ are almost as cartoonish. (And what's with the title? It's pretty bad when the blurb has to try to explain it.)

Deighton's over-detailed descriptions of clothing remind me of a Nancy Drew novel. But the worst part of reading _Ward_ is the feeling I get that this is a British writer pretending he's a lifelong American. Britishisms such as "rang off" instead of hung up and "ramp" instead of driveway reinforce this irritating dent to the story's credibility.

Other critics ask, Well, what's a spy novelist to do now that the Cold War is over? Hello-oh. . . China, Iraq, Japanese industrial espionage? I'll ring off now.

What historian Ian Hawkins has done previously for the air war, he has now done for the war on the Atlantic--put together a first-rate collection of eye-witness accounts by the men who fought and risked their lives on the Atlantic in the Second World War. Mr. Hawkins is known for his riveting use of eyewitnesses to put together books that bring the Second World War to life. His greatest book, in my opinion, "Munster: Before and After", follows the Eighth Air Force on one raid to Munster, Germany. In that book, he tells the story not just from the point of view of the men in the heavy bombers, but also went to great lengths to interview Germans who lived through the attack on the ground. Mr. Hawkins brings the same kind of meticulous research and interviewing skill to his newest book. I found the new book fascinating in the insights it gives into the destroyer war. It is obvious this was a labor of love for Hawkins, whose father was lost on a destroyer during the war. First-person history has become a common and highly effective way to tell history. Ambrose did it, so did Cornelius Ryan and Gerald Astor. It gives the reader a personalized view of the great events. I believe the previous reviewer failed to grasp the concept of the importance of first-person narrative, and that is unfortunate. Mr. Hawkins does an excellent job of tying the stories together with text on the historical background. He covers the war chronologically, from its first desperate hours, to the horrifying early years when German U-Boats ruled the high seas, right through to the end. Anyone who reads this book for what it is, a painstakingly gleaned collection of eyewitness narratives on every aspect of the destroyer war, will not be disappointed. I recommend it highly.

by another name. Redundancy makes for tedium in this book. Far from being "a book which matches and complements that bestseller of the postwar years, The Cruel Sea," as the usually meticulous Len Deighton claims, the book rises to that level only when selections from that book are presented. The stories are interesting, mostly. They demonstrate, again, that England, not the United States, won the battle of the Atlantic, and they show how brave men suffered. But the book's strategy, following the career of one class of destroyers, limits its scope and pool of potential readers. Also ideosyncratic are its appendices--nautical terms, histories for ships mentioned, and obituaries of key figures. But these are welcome; I could do without verses, though, as none can be confused with poetry. It's well that the profits from the book sale will be used to restore "the sole remaining Second World War British destroyer."

I've read probably 100s of Cold War spy novels. In my opinion John Lecarre and Len Deighton are the best writers in this genre. I liked Deighton's "Spy Story" when I first read it about 20 years ago. On re-reading it I'm glad to see that it holds up very well.

The elements of the plot are all familiar: retired spy reluctantly drawn back into the game, infighting among the various intelligence agencies, opportunity for an intelligence coup or it is really a Soviet trick?, public school Brits vs hardnosed American military types, double agents & double crosses, etc. Len Deighton weaves all these near-cliches into a well-written, fast-paced, action & detection narrative.

I never thought I'd use the word nostalgia with regard to the Cold War, but that was my reaction to "Spy Story". As the opening of the Lone Ranger show used to say "Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear".

Since Marlowe was considered a spy in Britain, this book about Pat Armstrong was tempting as his identity had been stolen by someone who looked and dressed like him, Harry Palmer. Regardless of what I may seem like over the radio, or through my words, I'm just a young man trying to make his way through this world the best way he can. I'd like to think that I'm a good guy, and that I do things that are extraordinary, at times. But, over all, I'm as normal as most. The music began on the radio: Noel Coward on the piano. Not MYL but British, so could he be a spy. He wrote, You are a dear friend to me. Even though we are both miles away, and very much different in age - I think we have a special friendship, though we have never met. And we can relate to so many things that are similar. It's well known that radio people are seldom who they claim to be, using another name and identity. They are the modern version of spies. The first Politburo shake-out since the ousting of Nikita Khrushchev was announced at the end of a two-day meeting of the Central Committee. According to observers, the new line-up means the end of all hopes for the German treaty of federalization.

There is a real spy story about John Richardson who had been a US double agent in the 1930s in military intelligence. He learned about Communist insurgencies and how Lenin had created the Communist International of the show "purge" trials of the 1930s. It was called the golden age of spying from 1950 to 1960.

Len Deighton is a historian who has written several such stories about spies, counterspies, plots, and counterplots, like 'Berlin Game' and 'Funeral in Berlin.' Marx had designed his theories around the belief that Germany would be the first socialist land, and that Communism is the 'opiate of the intellectuals.' As a historian, he also wrote 'The True Story of the Battle of Britain, and 'Blood, Tears, and Folly (WWII) in 1993 which has been re-released in 2005.

Every so often, unscrupulous pacifists and their kin, bent on protecting some totalitarian government (North Vietnam) or murderous dictatorship (Saddam's Iraq), will play upon popular ignorance about the nature of war. Well-intentioned people can be turned against a necessary and good war by those who place a one-sided emphasis on the confusion, folly, and horror that are a feature of all wars.

Len Deighton's book is a good counter to that manipulation. It subtitle's itself, "An Objective Look at World War II," and for the most part that's true. Americans might like to believe that we had the best tanks in World War II. Anyone who reads Deighton will discover that, if you had to fight in a tank-to-tank encounter, you'd be better off in a Russian T-34 than in a Sherman. In similar fashion, he demolishes any illusions readers might have that Allied strategy was always as wise as we might hope or that Axis strategy was always as foolish as Hitler sometimes made it.

G. K. Chesterton warned of the dangers of this sort of ignorance. Noting that we need to stretch "our imagination to the scale of the war," avoiding the twin evils of exultation and depression, he added, "To be elated when a village is captured in the morning, and cast down again in the afternoon -- this is not to follow the course of a war. It is simply to be ignorant of the very nature of a war." Both the defenders and critics of the Iraqi war would do well to heed his advice.

Although no war as complex as WWII can be covered in a single book, this book will stretch your imagination, allowing you view war realistically for what it is and without being deceived by the distortions of either jingoists or pacifists.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II

Every so often, unscrupulous pacifists and their kin, bent on protecting some totalitarian government (North Vietnam) or murderous dictatorship (Saddam's Iraq), will play upon popular ignorance about the nature of war. Well-intentioned people can be turned against a necessary and good war by those who place a one-sided emphasis on the confusion, folly, and horror that are a feature of all wars.

Len Deighton's book is a good counter to that manipulation. It subtitle's itself, "An Objective Look at World War II," and for the most part that's true. Americans might like to believe that we had the best tanks in World War II. Anyone who reads Deighton will discover that, if you had to fight in a tank-to-tank encounter, you'd be better off in a Russian T-34 than in a Sherman. In similar fashion, he demolishes any illusions readers might have that Allied strategy was always as wise as we might hope or that Axis strategy was always as foolish as Hitler sometimes made it.

G. K. Chesterton warned of the dangers of this sort of ignorance. Noting that we need to stretch "our imagination to the scale of the war," avoiding the twin evils of exultation and depression, he added, "To be elated when a village is captured in the morning, and cast down again in the afternoon -- this is not to follow the course of a war. It is simply to be ignorant of the very nature of a war." Both the defenders and critics of the Iraqi war would do well to heed his advice.

Although no war as complex as WWII can be covered in a single book, this book will stretch your imagination, allowing you view war realistically for what it is and without being deceived by the distortions of either jingoists or pacifists.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II

Every so often, unscrupulous pacifists and their kin, bent on protecting some totalitarian government (North Vietnam) or murderous dictatorship (Saddam's Iraq), will play upon popular ignorance about the nature of war. Well-intentioned people can be turned against a necessary and good war by those who place a one-sided emphasis on the confusion, folly, and horror that are a feature of all wars.

Len Deighton's book is a good counter to that manipulation. It subtitle's itself, "An Objective Look at World War II," and for the most part that's true. Americans might like to believe that we had the best tanks in World War II. Anyone who reads Deighton will discover that, if you had to fight in a tank-to-tank encounter, you'd be better off in a Russian T-34 than in a Sherman. In similar fashion, he demolishes any illusions readers might have that Allied strategy was always as wise as we might hope or that Axis strategy was always as foolish as Hitler sometimes made it.

G. K. Chesterton warned of the dangers of this sort of ignorance. Noting that we need to stretch "our imagination to the scale of the war," avoiding the twin evils of exultation and depression, he added, "To be elated when a village is captured in the morning, and cast down again in the afternoon -- this is not to follow the course of a war. It is simply to be ignorant of the very nature of a war." Both the defenders and critics of the Iraqi war would do well to heed his advice.

Although no war as complex as WWII can be covered in a single book, this book will stretch your imagination, allowing you view war realistically for what it is and without being deceived by the distortions of either jingoists or pacifists.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II

Every so often, unscrupulous pacifists and their kin, bent on protecting some totalitarian government (North Vietnam) or murderous dictatorship (Saddam's Iraq), will play upon popular ignorance about the nature of war. Well-intentioned people can be turned against a necessary and good war by those who place a one-sided emphasis on the confusion, folly, and horror that are a feature of all wars.

Len Deighton's book is a good counter to that manipulation. It subtitle's itself, "An Objective Look at World War II," and for the most part that's true. Americans might like to believe that we had the best tanks in World War II. Anyone who reads Deighton will discover that, if you had to fight in a tank-to-tank encounter, you'd be better off in a Russian T-34 than in a Sherman. In similar fashion, he demolishes any illusions readers might have that Allied strategy was always as wise as we might hope or that Axis strategy was always as foolish as Hitler sometimes made it.

G. K. Chesterton warned of the dangers of this sort of ignorance. Noting that we need to stretch "our imagination to the scale of the war," avoiding the twin evils of exultation and depression, he added, "To be elated when a village is captured in the morning, and cast down again in the afternoon -- this is not to follow the course of a war. It is simply to be ignorant of the very nature of a war." Both the defenders and critics of the Iraqi war would do well to heed his advice.

Although no war as complex as WWII can be covered in a single book, this book will stretch your imagination, allowing you view war realistically for what it is and without being deceived by the distortions of either jingoists or pacifists.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II

Every so often, unscrupulous pacifists and their kin, bent on protecting some totalitarian government (North Vietnam) or murderous dictatorship (Saddam's Iraq), will play upon popular ignorance about the nature of war. Well-intentioned people can be turned against a necessary and good war by those who place a one-sided emphasis on the confusion, folly, and horror that are a feature of all wars.

Len Deighton's book is a good counter to that manipulation. It subtitle's itself, "An Objective Look at World War II," and for the most part that's true. Americans might like to believe that we had the best tanks in World War II. Anyone who reads Deighton will discover that, if you had to fight in a tank-to-tank encounter, you'd be better off in a Russian T-34 than in a Sherman. In similar fashion, he demolishes any illusions readers might have that Allied strategy was always as wise as we might hope or that Axis strategy was always as foolish as Hitler sometimes made it.

G. K. Chesterton warned of the dangers of this sort of ignorance. Noting that we need to stretch "our imagination to the scale of the war," avoiding the twin evils of exultation and depression, he added, "To be elated when a village is captured in the morning, and cast down again in the afternoon -- this is not to follow the course of a war. It is simply to be ignorant of the very nature of a war." Both the defenders and critics of the Iraqi war would do well to heed his advice.

Although no war as complex as WWII can be covered in a single book, this book will stretch your imagination, allowing you view war realistically for what it is and without being deceived by the distortions of either jingoists or pacifists.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II

Every so often, unscrupulous pacifists and their kin, bent on protecting some totalitarian government (North Vietnam) or murderous dictatorship (Saddam's Iraq), will play upon popular ignorance about the nature of war. Well-intentioned people can be turned against a necessary and good war by those who place a one-sided emphasis on the confusion, folly, and horror that are a feature of all wars.

Len Deighton's book is a good counter to that manipulation. It subtitle's itself, "An Objective Look at World War II," and for the most part that's true. Americans might like to believe that we had the best tanks in World War II. Anyone who reads Deighton will discover that, if you had to fight in a tank-to-tank encounter, you'd be better off in a Russian T-34 than in a Sherman. In similar fashion, he demolishes any illusions readers might have that Allied strategy was always as wise as we might hope or that Axis strategy was always as foolish as Hitler sometimes made it.

G. K. Chesterton warned of the dangers of this sort of ignorance. Noting that we need to stretch "our imagination to the scale of the war," avoiding the twin evils of exultation and depression, he added, "To be elated when a village is captured in the morning, and cast down again in the afternoon -- this is not to follow the course of a war. It is simply to be ignorant of the very nature of a war." Both the defenders and critics of the Iraqi war would do well to heed his advice.

Although no war as complex as WWII can be covered in a single book, this book will stretch your imagination, allowing you view war realistically for what it is and without being deceived by the distortions of either jingoists or pacifists.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II