SSG: Spy/Spec-Ops Group discussion

I am a great fan of the style book that Frederick Forsyth writes, a mix of perhaps dozens of stories taking place that come together as the book builds the final climax. I find so many authors tell a story, with at best, a side story or two. Forsyth forms layer upon layer of strategy and intrigue into each character and story within each character. Question is? Who else writes like him? Ken Folliet to some degree for example, Le Carre to a small degree. Cussler does to a degree, but to me his actions scenes cause me to gloss over. Doesn't have to be one who only writes thriller, spy books, and be anyone. List 'em if you think they qualify....I won't list all the authors I read so that I spoil the response's....

Excellent question. Its a valid observation to make about his work.

I myself am hard put to name any author who writes in the exact same style. Perhaps Lawrence Sanders? (his 'First Deadly Sin' is listed below and certainly displays these great Forsyth-like qualities).

Some one-off books similar to what you describe:
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three
The Fifth Horseman
The First Deadly Sin
Black Sunday
Red Storm Rising
Len Deighton's Game, Set, Match
Marathon Man & Brothers
The Butcher's Theater

Feliks wrote: "Excellent question. Its a valid observation to make about his work.

I myself am hard put to name any author who writes in the exact same style. Perhaps Lawrence Sanders? (his 'First Deadly Sin' is..."

thanks for the list.....I've read a couple of those, but perhaps have forgotten the style, ie. Red Storm Rising as it was some time ago that I read it, ie last Clancy read was some time ago. Also a reader of J. Kellerman's Alex Delaware books, and just rate them average, will have to check out the Butcher's Theater.

Will surely read a few of these as several sound quite interesting. Thanks again for the CB.

There are these chaps who fit the criteria you set down. Multiple plot lines which come together at the climax along with a decent sized cast of characters who have their own agendas to accomplish.

Have you read the Milo Weaver series by Olen Steinhauer?
The first one is entitled "The Tourist".

Samuel wrote: "


There are these chaps who fit the criteria you set down. Multiple plot lines which come together at the climax along with..."

Samuel wrote: "


There are these chaps who fit the criteria you set down. Multiple plot lines which come together at the climax along with..."

Taylor yes,.....the other chap, not yet. Thx for the tip...

I always though the defining aspect of Forsyth's style was the research he did and the sting in the tail endings that he utilized for his work. Like The Dogs Of War. Bittersweet on the final page, but so satisfying.

Not to mention a solid does of moral reality. No idealism. Just cold hard facts about how the world really works.

You're accurate in pinning down his style

I find Brad Taylor as like to Frederick Forsyth as a cat is to a cow, the only close thing being 4 legs. Nothing close from my reading of One Rough Man....so bad I quit at about 40% of the book.

I see.

That's a firmly-stated opinion for sure. The kind I like best. Strong dislike is always interesting.

Dave, care to expand on your remark? I for one will give you the benefit-of-any-doubt. Sacred Cows can be gored in this group if it benefits learning...

David wrote: "I find Brad Taylor as like to Frederick Forsyth as a cat is to a cow, the only close thing being 4 legs. Nothing close from my reading of One Rough Man....so bad I quit at about 40% of the book."

Seen your review. I respectfully disagree with it. One Rough Man wasn't terrible. Merely average in my opinion. First time author trying to find his feet and all that. He improves in the sequels. But never mind, lets leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Anyway, here is a book I'm sure you will be wanting to snap up ASAP. Written by Forsyth himself.....
http://www.amazon.com/Outsider-My-Lif...

Samuel wrote: "David wrote: "I find Brad Taylor as like to Frederick Forsyth as a cat is to a cow, the only close thing being 4 legs. Nothing close from my reading of One Rough Man....so bad I quit at about 40%..."

Have seen the FF book upcoming. Might be interesting. I have four other taylor books on my shelf and will try one more, if not better, in the trash.

Feliks wrote: "That's a firmly-stated opinion for sure. The kind I like best. Strong dislike is always interesting.

Dave, care to expand on your remark? I for one will give you the benefit-of-any-doubt. Sacred C..."

For one, I find the first person use of "I" to be so high schoolish. two, any author that I read that I never have to consult a dictionary falls short. Third, this story to me was way short of belief. For one to hop on a plane, with someone just met, to go off on a possible death trap, just does not appear logical, the story just lacks reality. Overall, I find his prose to be poor. I was bored reading the book for lack of description illustration and story. It is rare that I quit reading a book this far into it. However, many seem to like him, I am not one so far, perhaps a second chance will prove me wrong.

Heck, I keep giving Le Carre more, a love hate thing with him. Reading Little Drummer Girl at present, even found a first edition on this one (by accident).

I read authors at my apex and come down. As long as I have better, in my opinion of course, authors that I have barely scratched their list of books and I view them better than say, Brad Taylor for example, then not only will I not read more of his books, I find reasons not to read his books. And for me, Taylor just does not measure up, for me. too many better ones to read, so why bother. I usually try several new authors a month to read, so my list of authors I like, gives me a long list to tackle, and Brad Taylor just failed to make that list. Heck, why him when I like the other Brad better and haven't read all of his, then there's Le Carre, Deighton, Burke, Baldacci, Forsyth, Folliet, Turow,etc. etc.......

I get what you're saying...

Feliks wrote: "I get what you're saying..."
In the other discussion regarding Le Carre, I continue to read him, just figured out that his style is "different" and requires one to read differently....ie, slowly, absorb each word, each thought, each description, if not, than one is lost quickly. Little Drummer Girl is interesting, only about 30% in, and wondering what the "deal" is. At times it seems slow and way too much detail, and then all of a sudden a different tact is taken and the story adds another dimension of depth. After this, I will likely go back and reread Tinker (saw the Netflix movie after first read).....thinking sometimes I live in the past!!!!

Graham Greene, Somerset Maugham, David Cornwell. Frederick Forsyth. What do they have in common? Englishmen. Writers. Spies.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment...

Slightly hyperbolic criticism from The Independent (which is expected considering their general political stance). Forsyth isn't the first journalist who was cultivated as an asset, nor is he the last.
Last line of this article is also hilariously overblown. He didn't "sell his soul". He was doing a highly dangerous side-job for no money.
The reward the SIS gave him just happened to be information and vetting for his novels. A fair trade.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/med...

To be fair, I will say that he has written several works I find sub-par:

Fourth Protocol
Fist of God

One which was well done but still mediocre in its way:
Devil's Alternative

His later books (Deceiver, Negotiator, Icon, Afghan) I'm frankly not interested in at all. Not even enough to explore. They all seem dry and trite in aim/objective. Perhaps he has outlived his own genre. Maybe he should write historical fiction? I'd go for that.

I'm effin sick of friggin 'Afghanistan' themed thriller fiction, by the way. Bores me stiff. I just cannot give a damn about anything that takes place in that useless region. Maybe that's it.

I did enjoy his short stories, 'No Comeback' and 'The Shepherd'.

Anyway so FF has 11 books of which I find three/four of which, place him in the top rank. Strictly going by ratio of good-to-bad, that's not actually very formidable, is it? Yet, I'd never take him out of that top tier.

Just saying. Take a good hard look. Has he fallen off, or no? Ken Follett has a better ratio.

Feliks wrote: "To be fair, I will say that he has written several works I find sub-par:

Fourth Protocol
Fist of God

One which was well done but still mediocre in its way:
Devil's Alternative

His later books (D..."

The only time he tried to write something different, "The Phantom Of Manhattan" (sequel to some musical), it blew up in his face. Although your idea that he should take a crack at historical fiction ( like his first book) is interesting and could be what he needs since he's got no more subjects left to conquer as he admitted in a recent interview he conducted.
Recapture the old magic which made him a sensation and all that.

He hasn't outlived his own genre. It's his writing style. Tastes might have changed. Maybe the thing which defined him, his work reading like a journalist's insider account of the world behind the curtain has come to back to bite him hard. (And perhaps the readers these days want more character development, something which has always been Forsyth's greatest weakness as a writer).
But it is what it is. It works. And he still puts work and time into his books. Research trips to Guinea Bissau (during its civil war) and Somalia in his old age. No internet. Just solid legwork from the last surviving pioneer of the "well researched thriller".

Compared to say, someone like Jack Higgins who dials in all of his novels these days, that's commendable.


(Interview where he talks about some things, like the new book he's releasing this month and what he wants to do in the future)
http://www.thebookseller.com/insight/...

Feliks wrote: "To be fair, I will say that he has written several works I find sub-par:

Fourth Protocol
Fist of God

One which was well done but still mediocre in its way:
Devil's Alternative

His later books (D..."

Can you elaborate on your opinion of The Devil's Alternative? Just curious about what you consider its flaws. Thanks.

I was rather playing devil's advocate in my last post; and your rebuttal was well formed, in return.

Sure I can talk about my reaction to TDA. Happy to. It had good points and bad, as I said. Perhaps in a few minutes when my morning's tasks are cleared..stand by..

Okay here's the deal on Forsyth as far as I can discern.

When FF started writing thrillers, he climbed to the top of a very diverse and challenging arena. Its not for nothing that I consider the 60s-70s the best era for thrillers (you can see why, in my GR review of 'Jackal', here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Basically, it was the best because of variety. Those halcyon days were chock full of fine, wonderful, competitive, thriller authors. Plots were creative, as a rule. There were interesting thrillers set on trains, planes; gripping undersea thrillers, zesty combat thrillers, all sorts of styles were in vogue.

But FF quickly outstripped everyone because he was innovative in a way that no one else had quite the mastery of, all at once. His strengths were: (1)authenticity, (2) pacing, [and especially] (3) detail. He was meticulous and painstaking in this last regard. It's his forte.

But he also had a knack which I don't usually dwell on (not until this post) and that is character. The extra 'magic' of his first few books was his choice of character elements. They were not bland or generic. His protagonists were interesting 'even if they were doing nothing'. Then, when they were engaged in any kind of action at all, they were spine-tingling.

Peter in 'Odessa File' is a German reporter in Hamburg trying to crack a conspiracy. Okay, on the surface this sounds like a generic dull protagonist--but he isn't. The reason we care about him is that he has flair and gusto and he is way out on a limb; he's meddling with a worldwide neo-Nazi group who could swat him like a fly. So--more than we had any right to presume--we wind up rooting for him. A win for Forsyth here. [I'm citing these titles in non-chronological order, I know--it's to make my point clearer]

'Day of the Jackal'--FF's big, rich, gold strike; and its no mystery why. Instead of even coming anywhere close to falling into the 'dull protagonist' trap--he turns the genre on its head by giving us the villain first, and the good guy second. We root for the evil, efficient, charismatic and remorseless 'Charles Calthrop' all the way. Stroke of brilliance.

'Dogs of War'--another deft sidestepping of 'dull hero' story model. Shannon is as unsavory as Calthrop. He kills people for money. He's a rogue and an adventurer, dangerous, slick, edgy. The plot is audacious as well: mercenary-assisted revolt. A book can hardly fail with these elements. Certainly in the hands of Africa-savvy FF, it could not fail. No further explanation needed.

But after this point in Forsyth's bibliography--even though his writing skill has not fallen off--I see him beginning to make less-than-ideal character choices. Case in point: I can't recall one interesting thing about the protagonist of 'Fourth Protocol' or 'Devil's Alternative'. Or any of his other later efforts.

That right there, says it all. The fact that I can't even remember their names. Forsyth has lost his nimbleness in the basic ingredient-mixing which goes into his stories. The attention-to-detail is still there, the plots are still decent enough; but he hasn't kept up his inventiveness with characters.

I'll provide some specific , TDA-comments shortly but this is the context in which I see that book landing. There's no specific issue with that novel which hasn't plagued all his novels since.

And this is why I say maybe he is in a sort of a rut, or the genre has passed him by; or maybe the world has passed him by (gotten more trite, more predictable, more violent--so that even he can't generate any fresh, exciting characters for us). There's not enough for him to draw from, perhaps. Maybe even the great Frederick Forsyth can't do much with a world that is all computers or SEAL teams or ex-SEAL teams and where even little kids play first-person-shooter games via their XBOX.

Yes, Jack Higgins 'dials in' his stories but that's Higgins. Forsyth should never be in that bad a state. He's more conscientious than Higgins and yet they share the same predicament, in a way.

Meanwhile--at the other end of the spectrum--too many other authors have emulated Forsth's original verve. So really, Forsyth needs to re-invent himself. Forsyth needs to re-discover the magic he formerly had, that gift of 'showing us something we could never imagine for ourselves'. It won't be easy to do. We're in a media jaded era now where the daily headlines are more disturbing than anything we might find in any standard fiction.

As promised: specific issues with Forsyth's 6th book, (his 5th thriller) 'The Devil's Alternative'

As explained above, it just falls flat with me primarily for reasons of character, that's the first problem. There's no feeling of 'rooting' for anyone in the story. No feeling of 'high stakes'. The characters are not just unlikeable, they're uninteresting. In my above post, I show why this is so vital.

Plot: also lacking in lustre. TDA has a few scenes which are well-done; but nothing at all amazing in the planning of the hostage plot which the bad guys undertake.

And as the story progresses, the baddies go through a lot of the all-too-familiar motions found in dozens of other plots found in dozens of other thriller novels. Obstacles are uneventful; and there is no 'battle of wits' between a protag vs an antag as we saw in 'Jackal'.

Pacing: was fine. I can't imagine Forsyth ever mishandling his pacing. No complaints there.

Detail/authenticity:
Mostly irrelevant in this case. Its a very simple story with no complicated maneuvering or technology.

The plot takes place in a somewhat unusual locale--a hijacked oil tanker--but the novelty of this quickly dissipates. Its very 'static'. Moreover, everything is too fully explicated--nothing is 'mysterious' in this story. The nuts&bolts are ones we're all well familiar with. Hand grenades and submachine guns. So there is little to 'wow' the imagination. Its just far too prosaic a story to dazzle; the "foreseeable outcomes" are easily grasped as the read progresses. (The one element of awesomeness is the brief appearance of an SR-71).

What this story really needed was something berserk, like a freakish storm-at-sea or something, a hurricane or a waterspout to upset the maritime standoff with a wildcard element. But it just doesn't have it.

Overall reaction: no matter how competently written, this book's concept simply adds nothing to Forsyth's legend; contributes nothing to his reputation for 'zing' at the story finale; demonstrates none of his usual skill at 'inter-weaving storylines'.

I simply wouldn't ever bother to re-read TDS (though I've re-read his first two a few times apiece).

Feliks wrote: "As promised: specific issues with Forsyth's 6th book, (his 5th thriller) 'The Devil's Alternative'

As explained above, it just falls flat with me primarily for reasons of character, that's the fir..."

Okay. So from a technical standpoint, you think he didn't utilize his writing ability to its true extent with TDA.

Maybe you're right. The political shenanigans weren't original. The usual faction fights between moderates and extremists was rather unoriginal, along with the twist ending which wasn't the author's most fun (unlike The Dogs Of War which was highly bittersweet yet very satisfying). But I thought he subverted many of the expectations which go with a hostage taking scene. No casualties among the tanker crew. The shot hostage turns out to be alive. The SBS doesn't storm the tanker and kill Mr Drake and his gang because he's managed to lock down all potential access methods. The whole plot is nearly successful and only gets destroyed at the getaway stage. Rarely do you see a terrorist incident in a thriller novel go down that route these days.

Perhaps you're right about the world passing a man like him by. He's one of the last elder statesmen of thriller writing. A younger generation aren't familiar/appreciative of what he wrote and pioneered because of the legion of other authors like Clancy and Flynn doing what he did and following in his very large footsteps (albeit with superior marketing).

As for your point on characters, it's very interesting. Thank you for giving me a new perspective to look at them from. It's made me reevaluate my original opinions about them.

Until now, I never thought his work was about characterization. Perhaps it was due to him taking a minimalist route with them. Which except for one other writer, is rare amongst most 21st century authors who strive to flesh out their characters.

With Forsyth, the reader only needs to know what is relevant about his anti-heroes, namely that they're good at what they do, eliminating the majority of fluff about personal lives and whatever the hell they do when not on the job.

Which compared to most thriller writers these days might be disconcerting to some readers who might see men like Calthrop as "not fleshed out"....and completely miss the point. As you've pointed out with his original three main characters, there is much more to them than meets the eye.

Samuel wrote: "But I thought he subverted many of the expectations which go with a hostage taking scene...."

I thought he simply didn't get as 'audacious' as he did in previous novels. Right from the get-go. The premise itself, only had a few ways in which it might work itself out. Okay, so he chose one narrative scenario--even if it was the least likely of the ones we might have assumed--and articulated it out for the reader. But it still wasn't "leap-out-of-one's-seat" stuff.

There are other hostage stories--the ones, say which form the catechism--form the cliche--form the tropes of the hostage tale; and yes even if they're admittedly more 'linear', they nonetheless offer more real excitement. 'Raid on Entebbe' perhaps--I'd sure as heck re-read that instead of TDA. Even though hostages get killed in that one, right? Is that over-used, is it too workmanlike to have in a thriller these days? Do today's crop of SEAL writers always tell their hostage yarns in that same way? May be, (I wouldn't know). But the Entebbe saga is hella riveting, no matter if it has been copycatted too often. TDA is more of a subdued, plodding, lugubriously-told novel. Not enough wildcards. Not enough, "wtf?-factor".

Samuel wrote: "Perhaps you're right about the world passing a man like him by. He's one of the last elder statesmen of thriller writing. A younger generation aren't familiar/appreciative of what he wrote and pioneered because of the legion of other authors like Clancy and Flynn doing what he did (albeit with superior marketing). ..."

Fun discussing this with you Samuel.

Your point here--my reply is to direct you back to my 'Jackal' review where I mention what I think are the fundamentals of a great thriller. I recall saying something like,

'exciting thrillers emerge when...
1)the audience is not technologically hip,
2) when any disasters always happens to other people in other countries
3) When life is generally boring, dull, and uneventful,
4) When exotic landscapes can present novelty in a book's setting'

All this has been overturned in recent years. We live constantly on the edge of our seats; twelve-yr-old boys are computer programmers, and there are no more exotic lands left to dazzle us (thanks to the internet).

So yes, it could very well be that Forsyth is still writing for a different era. A saner era. Who could blame him?

Feliks wrote: "Samuel wrote: "But I thought he subverted many of the expectations which go with a hostage taking scene...."

I thought he simply didn't get as 'audacious' as he did in previous novels. Right from..."

Fair enough.
Regarding hostage takings in the post-9/11 era, yeah, unlike TDA which made an effort to subvert many of the plot devices, they almost always go step by step. Hostages are killed when the first demand isn't met. The rescue team finds a way in. The hostage takers get killed before they can even try and escape.Throw in some curveballs which are overcome or don't prove detrimental in between the segments and there you have it.

I've only seen one good one in a recent counter-terrorist thriller and the only reason why that was interesting was because of the sheer scale of the operation the terrorists were conducting (taking every single world leader hostage in a Dubai conference center). Not to mention the author made an effort to explore the ramifications of such a scenario and didn't hold back (third man to die is POTUS, for starters and among the final casualties is the Brazilian government)

Feliks wrote: "Samuel wrote: "Perhaps you're right about the world passing a man like him by. He's one of the last elder statesmen of thriller writing. A younger generation aren't familiar/appreciative of what h..."

Maybe. As he said in that recent interview, he's tackled just about all the subjects he wants to in his writing. Not many worlds left to conquer, especially in the times we live in.

Really, you can almost look at it this way: FF's great, first three fictional protagonists are all anti-heroes or nonconformists singularly alone with their purpose in life; and in these three novels all of them are facing extraordinary, enormous odds--the whole of normal societal routine and dogma set against them.

Each of them are blindly trying to upset an established regimen or topple some status quo.

Shannon wants to lead a guerrilla revolt; Peter wants to expose a world-wide conspiracy, and Calthrop wants to overturn a great European power.

In my opinion that is the magic Forsyth needs to recapture. One man opposing a world. This quality of ...audacity?