Scan barcode
joestewart's review against another edition
4.0
I liked it. Excellent writing, complicated plot with plenty of twists, good collection of real people. All around pretty darn good.
tabone's review
3.0
Read this on a summer lark based on a NY Times article. It's engaging and I personally liked the straightforward writing style. But ultimately left feeling that the story was inconsequential, and kind of - Disney-ish? pop-y? - at the end.
lazygal's review against another edition
3.0
It's good to know that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as our War on Terror, have allowed the spy thriller genre to flourish. While this is not up to the level of John Le Carre's works, Bloodmoney is a decent addition, with exotic locales, double (and triple) crossings, naive dupes and "implacable" foes. While this does not appear to be part of a series, I wouldn't mind reading more about Cyril and Sophie.
ARC provided by publisher.
ARC provided by publisher.
kevindean's review
4.0
a solid read. tradecraft, international relations. yet didn't want me to reflect on the book after. still glad i've read it.
jenaje's review
3.0
Good story overall. Didn't like the writing style though. People don't actually talk like they do in this book. Every conversation was a sort of witty repartee, or very playful banter. Between everyone, no matter if they'd just met, if one was a subordinate, or any other time this type of conversation would be weird. A shame too, because the story was good.
gulshanbatra's review
5.0
Reading Bloodmoney is a veritable roller-coaster of a ride, around the world - many times over. The story is told at a clipped pace, never slowing down long enough to provide any explanations that are not truly essential to the narrative. That's what makes the story whip-smart, in my opinion.
One gets enough background from that very brief prologue, and the rest of the story is chasing the end of that serpent, trying to complete the circle. The primary premise makes for a gripping tale of deceit, double crossing, murder and revenge.
Sophie Marx is an upcoming star of the CIA, and is almost pleased to be given a chance to make her mark and prove herself. Her assignment begins when top secret CIA personnel begin getting killed all over the world, without any possible connection. This is not your usual Le Carre, nor an expose of the CIA agent's psyche. It is a story of a particular Operation that goes horribly wrong - for reasons you'll find out soon enough should have been seen as inevitable from a mile away. The tease is there, but to the G-Men it gets lost in the sleight.
Geoffrey Gertz is the ever-exuberant boss of a recently created wing of the CIA, that is so off the books even parts of the CIA don't know of its existence. But when he begins losing people, he is at a loss to explain to the powers-that-be in D.C. what's causing it, and how can he stop the bleeding.
Along the way, we meet other suitably well-sketched characters - the hedge fund manager, the Pakistani General who heads the ISI, the CIA Director who's Gertz's boss... you'd notice it is not a very long lineup. The author keeps a tight leash on the story, by not introducing characters that aren't intrinsic to the plot, and thus manages to hold on to your attention for every word and every action from these small group of actors.
All the primary characters - Sophie, Jeff, Perkins, the polite ISI Chief and the somewhat-rambunctious CIA top brass - are all etched very satisfactorily, and quite believably. For that's what one wants more than anything while reading a story that's reminiscent of the best of Bourne and Bond, rolled into one. You want to believe that something as sinister and yet as benign-looking as this can happen, in fact - most assuredly has been happening - while you've been reading this so-called story. It rings authentic. It rings chillingly spot-on. It rings ominously accurate.
The pace never lets down. The killings keep happening with clockwork efficiency. It's an inexorable force that seems to be meeting an immovable object. Of course, sooner or later something's got to give. The fact that there's no big climax, no showdown, no crackling face-off to mark the culmination of the story - makes it even more believable, and pleasing to read.
The spooks know their jobs, and they do it well. Of course, when the dust settles down, only the top brass and the lucky ones survive.
The author, David Ignatius, is a prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, and has covered the middle-east and the CIA for more than 25 years. It shows. Way up there in the pantheon of some of the best under-appreciated spy thrillers of our times.
One gets enough background from that very brief prologue, and the rest of the story is chasing the end of that serpent, trying to complete the circle. The primary premise
Spoiler
of the overlap between international espionage and international terrorism has always been nebulous at best, shadowy at least, and outright dastardly at worst. This book takes that premise, adds international money laundering - andSophie Marx is an upcoming star of the CIA, and is almost pleased to be given a chance to make her mark and prove herself. Her assignment begins when top secret CIA personnel begin getting killed all over the world, without any possible connection. This is not your usual Le Carre, nor an expose of the CIA agent's psyche. It is a story of a particular Operation that goes horribly wrong - for reasons you'll find out soon enough should have been seen as inevitable from a mile away. The tease is there, but to the G-Men it gets lost in the sleight.
Geoffrey Gertz is the ever-exuberant boss of a recently created wing of the CIA, that is so off the books even parts of the CIA don't know of its existence. But when he begins losing people, he is at a loss to explain to the powers-that-be in D.C. what's causing it, and how can he stop the bleeding.
Along the way, we meet other suitably well-sketched characters - the hedge fund manager, the Pakistani General who heads the ISI, the CIA Director who's Gertz's boss... you'd notice it is not a very long lineup. The author keeps a tight leash on the story, by not introducing characters that aren't intrinsic to the plot, and thus manages to hold on to your attention for every word and every action from these small group of actors.
All the primary characters - Sophie, Jeff, Perkins, the polite ISI Chief and the somewhat-rambunctious CIA top brass - are all etched very satisfactorily, and quite believably. For that's what one wants more than anything while reading a story that's reminiscent of the best of Bourne and Bond, rolled into one. You want to believe that something as sinister and yet as benign-looking as this can happen, in fact - most assuredly has been happening - while you've been reading this so-called story. It rings authentic. It rings chillingly spot-on. It rings ominously accurate.
The pace never lets down. The killings keep happening with clockwork efficiency. It's an inexorable force that seems to be meeting an immovable object. Of course, sooner or later something's got to give. The fact that there's no big climax, no showdown, no crackling face-off to mark the culmination of the story - makes it even more believable, and pleasing to read.
The spooks know their jobs, and they do it well. Of course, when the dust settles down, only the top brass and the lucky ones survive.
The author, David Ignatius, is a prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, and has covered the middle-east and the CIA for more than 25 years. It shows. Way up there in the pantheon of some of the best under-appreciated spy thrillers of our times.
ansate's review against another edition
4.0
I'm a big fan of David Liss's historical fiction, and this lived up to my expectations. It's told from two alternating points of view, which is sometimes hard to follow as they are not happening concurrently. Overall, I think it works well to set up the complicated plot (typical of Liss's books!) that would have seemed extremely far fetched for either character to fully understand. [return][return]I found Ethan to be the more believable of the two leads - Joan being so very bold that she seemed more a sop to giving modern audiences a strong female character than a believable woman of that era. But both have such witty dialogue that I forgive them their character flaws. [return][return]The ending does not quite sit well with me, but I am not sure why. Maybe its abruptness? I would have preferred to see a little more of what happens next. I like a bit of "happily ever after" for characters I've grown to like. [return][return]If you've enjoyed any of his previous books, or if you're interested in early American history (oh it's strange to think of western Pennsylvania as "the frontier"!) I'd definitely recommend this book.
botrap's review against another edition
3.0
Liked the espionage and plot employing Pakistan but the finale was mess and end was unsatisfying
richardwells's review against another edition
3.0
Not quite as compelling as Agents of Innocence, and a bit more romantic, this takes us into the financial chicanery of international espionage. A good read, not great.
More...