Lets start with the cover.
At the very top there is this description: “A sea-and-submarine thriller to match Tom Clancy’s best! The fuse to World War III has been lit — and one man’s life is on the line to stop it”
There is a Soviet and an American sub facing each other, both are painted in gold beneath the exciting prose quoted above.
Then below the picture the quotes “A griping thriller complete with believable characters, bullet-splattered action, and an exceptionally clever plot”.
A quick skim of the back cover, with a smaller version of the submarine pictures and random words used are “nuclear war..maverick ex-CIA…to send the superpowers’ top submarines…heart stopping tense…ultimate thrills..naval experts”, honestly I was literally salivating as I dug this out, because my favourite single word in fiction is “submarine”, double word is “Nazi Gold” with the three word combination obviously being “Cold War Fiction”.
First page of the story sets the scene, an US submarine during the Second World War torpedoes a Japanese ship carrying gold, not Nazi gold but still filthy lucre, the book is definitely on the right heading and I’m ready for some Cold War action as the books shifts to the present day.
The next 9/10ths of the book has very little naval action, never mind submarines as it follows the ex-CIA agent as he, being the employee of a Japanese businessman tries to raise the gold laden sunken ship off the depths of the ocean and into his bank account.
People always say never judge a book by its cover, but I do enjoy buying books where there are missiles, submarines, fighter planes, the swastika, the hammer and sickle, some shifty looking spies at border crossings etc.. on them, as I know this is what I’ll get. I’m not looking for great literature, I just want the cover to reflect the story.
So back to the Ship of Gold, the book where every so often, I’m looking at the back cover summary and wondering whether the reviewers were given a plot outline rather than the book and I’m getting slowly annoyed as I continue reading.

Overall:
According to the book, who would win the cold war: The Russians as they were more likely up for a fight when the time came and would have no hesitation in attacking the West, whilst the US were under prepared. The Soviets, in Cold War fiction always seem to be on a war footing and spoiling for a fight where the Americans usually are more trying to work things out before they have a brainsnap by their president and launch the missiles.

Explosives/fight scenes etc.. : World War II sub kills a boat, hit and run ‘accident’, mid-air murder in a helicopter, snooping agents were killed, Chinese destroyer takes out a Korean pirate ship and an American rogue torpedo goes swimming.

Believability of the goodies (CIA): Jessen was a peripheral figure in the book, he activated, then tried to shut down the operation of raising the World War II from the sea, however he was the only goody in the book before he was bumped off.

Believability of the baddies (Everyone else): Harry Gunnison was the main character in the book. This was a man who looking for an easy way to make money, and to give him some moral reasons to do it by saving his sister from her thieving husband and the social stigma of being married to a thief, joined forces with a shady Japanese businessman, went to a geisha place so that he could cheat on his partner and cement his relationship with the Japanese businessman, then to fool his country and his paymasters at the CIA he struck a bargain with a Korean pirate before trying to save the world. The world was in need of saving as he was the one put the world in danger. When you save the world, usually you can hear a dramatic soundtrack and there is a timer counting down something that will go off with a big bang, or you need hand to hand combat to stop an assassin, where Harry’s way of saving the world was that he tried to get the gold, took too long, fell in the sea, was picked up by the Russians and over coffee and vodka tried to explain to them that they weren’t under attack, and that it was all one big mistake (2 and half pages). Peace then breaks out again. At the end of the book, Harry, who according to the CIA director “wants to shoot, and who the president wants to pin a medal on”. If I was the CIA director, I would use one of my fictional wet teams and make Harry “very sadly accidentally brutally cut his head off while combing his hair”.
Harry has a long suffering girlfriend Chia Min, who he cheats on, then abandons and leaves her at the mercy of the CIA as she is of secondary importance to getting the gold. She manages to escape the US, and when she becomes a captive of her uncle, the Korean pirate, Harry takes the opportunity to insult her. Once the pirate ship is at sea, she is on board when it gets harpooned by a missile from a Chinese destroyer, but being the girlfriend of Harry she unluckily survives and it appears she will be re-united with Harry the man who saved the world. Maybe the authors masochism was reflected in their writing.
Everybody else was of secondary importance and like the primary characters, none of them were believable.

In summary, this week has started with a fizzle from a book with such an exciting jacket, as it had very little submarines, and for that please suffer a small part of the pain I experienced when I read this.

Here is the amazon link, with a different cover, but still with a fantastic blurb.

Another short, but very good book by Ted Allbeury. The closest I could describe it is that it is smoothly depresses you as you read it. The simple story follows Tad Anders, the main protagonist from a couple of other books. This time, he is pensioned off out of the SIS, running a seedy nightclub in Soho and having two girlfriends on the side when he is sent to East Berlin to kidnap Vasili Pavlovich Burinski who has been killing Soviet dissidents in the West. Anders, gets betrayed and is captured by the KGB, traded, the SIS then capture Burinski and that’s the whole novel in a nutshell.

This book raises in the reader questions about belonging. Where do we fit in? What happens when we no longer belong? Is the power or direction of the group in the combined elements of the group or just in its acknowledged leaders? Is it always us against them, or are we all the same but in a different group? Are there rules on how different groups interact with each other?
When Anders is trying to heal himself after a tragedy, he gets sacrificed by his group due to its perceived rules on conduct and how it interacts with other groups, and so he seeks solace in fellow wounded non-grouped individuals where they all have no direction or purpose in life and the pain from the tragedy is not healed but instead replaced with bitterness.
Anders, now on the outer orbit of the group, is asked to carry out a task for the group, but in secret and with the clear impression that the resources of the group wont be used to support him. He almost instantly agrees as he needs to feel that he belongs. The lack of support results in him being caught, and the group appears to Anders to take its time in rescuing him as there will be loud dissenting voices from within opposing his rescue. Anders, now a bitter individual questions on how to strike back at the group, however the counter-strike he chooses is ultimately futile and expensive to himself.

Overall:
According to the book, who would win the Cold War: Draw. The rules state there is no place for individualism in the Great Game, and if a side breaks the unwritten rules, the other side will punish them in a similar way till parity and common sense is restored.
Explosives/fight scenes etc.. : Previous book referenced a gut wrenching scene and the bundling into a car of an operative.
Believability of the goodies (Tad Anders): Tad was believable as an outsider who never really belonged and that his resentment was convincing when he was dumped again by the SIS. To me, he came across as a believable character and that his actions reflected his thoughts and there was no lucky breaks for him, rather he just plodded through life and its beatings.
Believability of the baddies (SIS & KGB): This was written in a short thriller style so all other characters apart from Tad Anders were not described in too much detail. The senior staff of the KGB and the SIS in this book were a bit cliché, and portrayed equally as dirty fighters. The British were more shown as pen pushers who have been dragged into a dirty war because of the actions of the Soviets, however the author didn’t go the needless route of painting the British in a moral light.
Tads girlfriends were believable in their ignorance of the world, however yet again in fiction they were far younger than the male lead.
The East German wife of Burinski was not a fan of communism and the Russians, however it did come across as an ordinary persons viewpoint, instead of a device allowing the author to spout personal anti-communist viewpoints. On a similar vein, the Great British public in this book didn’t care about the Cold War, they were more interested in the tabloids and left the Cold War to be fought by their civil servants and I believe that reflected reality as living in Britain you didn’t have a 12ft high wall through your capital city, there was a certain romanticism towards spies and their derring-dos and I’m sure that a large portion of the English though France not Russia was the main enemy.

This book is like a lot Cold War Fiction books, especially the British authored ones, gives you the impression that the Cold War is fought by two exclusive boys clubs/groups and that the Soviets and The West do not tolerate individualism and any instances of it, will result in the joining of both forces to crush it and thus restoring the equilibrium.

In summary, a very good yet bleak short book which has doesn’t take the moral high ground.

I do love 28°C (82°F) Spring days in the garden as I can put on a hat, wear my sunnies and relax into a book with the occasional sip from a wonderfully chilled Asian beer. The only thing missing to make this a great day is the dulcet tones of the cricket commentators on the radio. So with this pleasant setting, I spent the afternoon reading Exocet by Jack Higgins. The story follows Tony Villiers, Major in the SAS (Are the SAS the most overused organisation in fiction?), who is beloved by the Queen and tasked by Brigadier Ferguson, the head of the Prime Ministers Secret Army / wet work squad, to stop the flow of the the French Exocet missiles to Argentina during the Falklands War.

I wont bother writing the usual summary, as if you read this post Day of Judgement you will get a very strong idea of the characters and storyline as Jack Higgins sticks to his trusted stereotypes and clichés. However, you deserve a better summary than this from me, and so not to be accused of unnecessary Jack Higgins bashing I will quote the front flap of the book.

“The war for the Falkland Islands was at its height. Argentian desperately needed more Exocet missles with which to attack the British fleet. To help secure them they sent to Europe Colonel Raul Montera; gallant and chivalrous hero of the war in the air in the South Atlantic. The British were equally desperate to frustrate his efforts and to the task they assigned Tony Villiers, Major in the S.A.S., tough ruthless yet obstinately honourable. To second his efforts the British Secret Service selected his beautiful wife Gabrielle; a woman who soon found herself torn between her loyalty to her country and her sailor brother and the unexpected passion which exploded between her and the Argentinian airman on whom she was set to spy. And into this maelstrom of emotion, the KGB cast its net, with a haul of death and destruction rich even by its own feaerful standards.
It is one of Jack Higgins’s most notable virtues that he creates human beings and not stereotypes. Never has this been more true than it is on Exocet. This is a novel as moving as it is exciting, as romantic as it is dramatic”.

If you have read one Higgins novel, you have read them all, so instead I shall just write about what popped into my head as I was reading.

Higgins, in this and a few other of his books, cannot hide his admiration for Margaret Thatcher. I personally never know what to think of Thatcher. She was PM during a period where Britain had to transform drastically and she made brutal choices with the attitude and policies of keeping Middle England happy and screwing the rest, especially the working classes and she opposed The Wall coming down. My parents and one sister are all members of their respective trade unions and do things which help the community, where my other sister and I are pure Thatchers children and are just in it for the money when we work. However, as I get older I do realise, I shouldn’t be selfish and I do want world peace, the elimination of poverty, human rights etc.. but I do really still want to be King of the Pile with my platinum plated Bugatti Veyron, my holiday islands which hide my evil lair, the right to give tickets to pull people over and give them tickets for bad driving, the compulsory teaching of The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead by Max Brooks in all schools, the right to choose where my taxes go etc….. Yes, I’m a right wing nutjob with a socialist conscience.
One day, I shall do a thesis on the politics of Cold War Fiction novelists and prove that most of them are right wing and revel in a sort of warrior-porn, however till I get a researcher and a ghost writer, I’ll never get round to doing it. There is a book on the politics of Jack Ryan, but is that taking it a bit too far?

Gordon Lonsdale, also popped up in the book and it made me think which well-known people today are secret agents and not who they say they are? Obama, is he a secretly a Nigerian or is that a very very cheap shot? Kevin Rudd, the Australian PM, is he the Manchurian Candidate? Gordon Brown & David Cameron, are they members of a secret organisation designed to destroy politics in the UK and bring about a dictatorial state which will be welcomed as a relief?

I do like Asian beers over any other beer when its sunny.

Overall, this book with a front cover of a cleavage with a tacky gold pendant of an eagle on a missile, is the crossover between Cold War Fiction and Barbara Taylor Bradford.

Whenever I’m sick, or laid low with a bad back after spending the day weeding, I usually read The 39 Steps or one of the many Colin Forbes novels that I have about the house. Colin Forbes is sort of my intellectual chicken soup, as his books are familiar, not much happens, the same characters and the same themes over and over again. This was especially apparent in his later works, where it was always some well connected master villain millionaire, living near marshes and the sea and their banks of fog, who had an evil plot to rule the world and only Tweed could see the danger the world was in and stop it.
This book, Cover Story, does not have Mahler, the most deadliest marksmen in Europe, or Paula Grey, instead it just features the core characters of Tweed, Howard, Monica, Newman (who as we are always told is the most recognised foreign correspondent in the world and the man behind the Kruger book), Harry and his sidekick Neild. Fergusson is there too, but in a minor role.
At the start, Newman’s wife, who he is having martial problems with, is killed by the GRU and a video of her killing is sent to him with the warning keep away from Adam Procane. Bob Newman, then flies to Helsinki, so that he can track down her killer. So who is Adam Procane? This is a cover name of a supposedly high-ranking American, who has passed on to the Soviets secrets of the Star Wars programme and now is wishing to defect at a time where the defection will bring about maximum political damage and stop Reagan from winning re-election. Four high ranking Americans arrive in Europe who fit the profile and they all go to Scandinavia where the defected is expected to make their border crossing. Tweed, the master sleuth, the greatest mind when he was at Scotland Yard, and still running his paper-thin Insurance Company has to figure out who is the traitor.
However, the GRU Baltic section, are also in the game, and they want to make the crossing of the defector (they don’t know the real identity either) as smooth as possible, so like all Forbes books, they are a mixture of evil GRU killing machines, incompetent Soviet Generals and smart-ish second in charges.

Overall:
According to the book, who would win the cold war: The West. Tweed always single-handily stops the bad guys with a cunning masterplan with a few red-herrings thrown in. At one point during the book, GRU officers wish Tweed was running their organisation becasue he is that good.
Explosives/fight scenes etc.. : Hit and reversing over car killing at the start, stiletto dustbin killing and a fall from a cliff.
Believability of the goodies and baddies: This book is written by Colin Forbes (Raymond Harold Sawkins) so obviously there is no believability. I’m slightly tired of always paying my fictional taxes so that Tweed and his gang can always stay in the best hotels and fly business class so that he can do the same trick he always does. This trick is to fly to four European capitals, meet someone and then get that someone to spread rumours or launch an investigation, which will put pressure on the bad guys. With the Internet, Tweed could stay at home, post some rumours on a site like the Drudge report or twitter – job done.
Tweed is always seen at the start as someone who is trying to unravel a great mystery, but doesn’t know where to start, before he then kicks into his top gear and one of his team will always take the opportunity to express to the reader their relief for Tweeds transformation. Tweed also hates boats, but every book he always needs to get in one and take his pills.

Forbes has on his entry in wikipedia this description “The author seems to express his own right-wing views on topics such as immigration, equality and the political climate of the UK through the character of Tweed. For example, female characters in Forbes’s novels are not portrayed in a positive light. With the exceptions of Paula Grey, Tweed’s long standing number two, and the occasional femme fatale, female characters tended to be dismissed as waitresses, receptionists or prostitutes”. Even though there is no citation, as a longtime reader of Forbes it is basically true. In this book, he takes pot-shots at France and his female operatives are refered to as girls. Tweed is quoted as saying “Women are more loyal than men if they trust you” and Ingrid, his main operative in Sweden, was praised as “A very practical girl who worked out things for herself” and “drove with an expertise a man might have envied”. I’m just glad British Intelligence support during the Cold War in the area of Scandinavia and the Kola Peninsula is handled by a girl who can think for herself and can drive well. However, Tweeds girl in Finland, right on the border with the main enemy, is a bit emotional, yet she has a determination which will see her through and Tweed implies his two Scandinavian operatives can not meet each other, as there would be a cat-fight over who loves him more which is clearly an unprofessional distraction.

In conclusion, Forbes is like chicken soup, you just have to be in the right mood.

Shadow of Shadows is two stories combined into one. The first one follows the story of the Russian defector Major Petrov and the second story is a somewhat fictional biography of George Blake.

KGB Major Anatoli Mikhailovich Petrov, when the book opens has been quite happily debriefing the British Intelligence Service of his knowledge, then suddenly for no apparent reason he starts to evade questions and appears to fear for his life. SIS agent James Lawler is brought in to befriend Petrov and get the debriefing going again. Lawler was selected as he is seen someone who has a similar personality as Petrov as Lawler has recently broken up from his drugged out girlfriend and under the law has no rights over the illegitimate child that their relationship produced, whereas Petrov left his wife and country behind and is now feeling the loneliness, however this loneliness is party assuaged by shacking up with a glamorous far younger version of his wife.
With Lawlers command of the Russian language, Petrov moves in to Lawlers apartment and the three of them, Lawler, Petrov and Siobhan the girlfriend, start to become friends, even though Petrov thinks Lawler is there to kill him. The trio go for outings which include visits to Lawlers parents and the birth of Shakespeare as familiarity breaks down the barriers and Petrov starts to enunciate the reason why he stopped debriefing, and that reason is tied to George Blake.

The George Blake biography, follows Blake’s conversion to communism, the operations and the betrayals that he did performed, such as the Berlin Tunnel, the brief hunt for him and ultimately what really happened when he escaped from prison.

Overall:
According to the book, who would win the cold war: Draw, yet again. Soviets will play hard and the British will stand up.
Explosives/fight scenes etc.. : None.
Believability of the goodies (UK): Lawler, seemed to be an ordinary bloke, spoke Russian, like all spies should, and came across as human, with human problems. He was quite believable as he was drab like the rest of us.
Petrov, like a Lawler, seemed like a normal person, led a very successful career in the KGB, but like so many fictional heroes he made a bad career choice in his personal life and this created the seeds of his disillusionment with the communist state. However, he has temporary got over the loss of his wife, with his new younger version, however the age gap has led to unmanageable differences, just like in real life.
Siobhan Nolan, like all female characters was stunningly beautiful, was with Petrov, but ultimately fell in love with flatmate Lawler, the man who needed some love reciprocated in a relationship.
George Blake was well written, and at times it was a fairly accurate portrayal of his life and there was a sub story within the Blake story about how Russian moles within the Secret Intelligence Service managed to amend his records and create a history that suited their purposes. This idea is subsequently reflected in Intrepid’s Last Case by William Stevenson, where Gouzenko declares that KGB penetration agents were very adept at disinformation campaigns within the Service and also, more importantly, able to change histories of personnel.

Believability of the baddies (Nil): There was no real baddies, the enemy appeared at the end and was quickly wrapped up, instead the Petrov story was really a lead in to allow the author to present an alternative George Blake story.

I’m aware I’ve only written a pithy review of the book, thus giving the impression that I didn’t really enjoy it, but that was far from the case. Not much happened, as in some ways it was two shortish-to-medium length stories combined into one, thus it wasn’t a long (236 pages) book. I do think Ted Allbeury is under-rated and a better author than Le Carré and this book won’t disappoint if you are needing an espionage with an alternative history fix.

For more information, please read The Stasi Files

I love Cold War fiction, but the problem is that the books in the genre stopped being published in roughly 1991. Therefore it is a real joy to come across this book, in my wife’s bookcase no less (I’ve dismissed it previously as it’s a murder novel based on the front cover quote) which was published in 2005.
This book follows the trials and tribulations of Brano Oleksy Sev, who is an agent of his States Security Service. The book opens with Brano, suffering from temporary amnesia getting woken by a policeman on a park bench in Vienna. His amnesia passes and he realises that he is a secret policeman, who firmly believes in communism and that he is being framed for a murder. He gets sent back to his un-named state, where after a murder he defects and starts to investigate a possible CIA backed plot to overthrow his country’s government.

I agree entirely with David at Permission to Kill who a few days ago wrote this:
“On a couple of occasions I have said it is far easier to write reviews of bad films, books or CDs, than it is to write about good works. But that doesn’t mean I want to write negative and mean-spirited reviews. I want to love every spy story that comes my way, and even if a project doesn’t quite reach the lofty heights that the creators intended, I’m always willing to meet it half way. As far as I am concerned, just give it your best shot – regardless of budget, time and talent. But sometimes I have to be negative.”

As I’m a hack, I can’t find the language skills to express how much I enjoyed this book, apart to say that I imagined the whole book in my head in bleak grey stills. I was genuinely interested in the protagonist, I fully believed in the characters and there was a justified ending.

According to the book, who would win the cold war: Draw. The Communists have a tight hold of Brano’s country, the Russians are always lurking in the background, and the CIA and their Christian Evangelical front aren’t powerful enough to remove them.

Explosives/fight scenes etc.. : Murder at start, murder in the middle, murder at the end, a suicide, and sprinkled throughout the book are interrogation beatings.

Believability of the goodies (Brano): Brano Sev is a die-hard communist, he fully believes in the State and accepts its methods. If Brano has to use a blowtorch to get a confession from a prisoner, he will, but he would also accept violence done to him by the State during interrogation, however I felt, very slightly, how many beatings by the State before you start to turn against it. Brano is a loner and a survivalist, not good with people but rather with secrets, he is what you imagine to be a typical quiet secret policeman.
I have been critical of authors before, who try and make out that their characters are taking the good fight to the opposition, where it was refreshing that this hero was a communist, and a real believer for once, who wasn’t interested in whether he was morally right or wrong, rather he associated communism with patriotism coupled with his own investigative nature and that’s what drove his actions. The author was right to bring in moments where this character felt isolated from the State, and instead of taking the easy way out and making the character turn against the State, Brano instead was confused and questioning why he had been forsaken.

I’m trying to write this paragraph without giving away the ending, so apologies if it seems a bit wishy-washy. George Blake, once said that he never defected, as he never belonged in the first place, and Brano is similar in many ways, as defection is for self gain (or self preservation in most cases), where to choose to return to your ideological home, like Blake (yes – he escaped form prison), is like returning from exile and it doesn’t matter if your home is wrong, it’s simply home. Brano has the same ideological spirit or justification as Blake, and like Blake, he is a quiet unassuming man going about his low level war.

Believability of the baddies (Everyone else): This book follows Brano, others do make fleeting appearances, but not really enough for them for you to get a real idea of their character, but this doesn’t take take away from the enjoyment of the book.
His girlfriend Dijana Frankovic, is probably the least believable character in the book, as you can’t imagine what a young, attractive, outgoing person sees in Brano (Brano doesn’t either, so I’m not alone there). Her character is still in very well written, apart from that flaw.
Everybody else just seems to float in and out, almost a bit grey coloured dream-like, sort of like the Strangers in Dark City (1998) and with that movie reference the author manages to write two movie reviews, by his characters of course in the book. These are:
“… Brano watched a film, an English film. It was dubbed into German and concerned an English spy who wore horn-rimmed glasses. From what he understood, the spy was in fact a thief who had been coerced into working for the queen under the threat of being returned to prison. He didn’t know if this was the filmmaker’s criticism of British intelligence services or simply narrative flavour”.
Most of the action took place in Berlin, which was part of the title; some scenes were set along the Wall. He’d seen the Wall up close enough to know these scenes were filmed in a studio, but the effect was not bad. There was a Russian general who reminded him of the Comrade Lieutenant General he’d know before his last return from Vienna – all jokes, drinks, and backslapping, which cloaked his darker intentions. In fact, some of the more opaque scenes seemed, in retrospect, to have been comic, but Brano was unable to find the humour in them at the time”.

He also watched Det Sjunde Inseglet – The Seventh Seal, by Bergman. The review was simply:
“You know, I’ve always hated this movie”.

If I had to classify this book, I would say it’s Graham Greene-ish very well written and the story just seems to flow. Mr Steinhauer, you have definitely got a new fan.

Let me share on how I read and review the books.
I will pick a book off the bookshelf, and sit down and read, it doesn’t matter if I have never read it or read it 100 plus times, the book is always treated like it has never been read before, so that it can be given a fair enough chance. Sometimes when I’m reading, I may have a glass of wine or two, sometimes I’m on tenterhooks as my daughter is having an afternoon nap, sometimes it’s a sunny Friday afternoon, my daughter is at her nans, I am stretched out on the sofa, slightly dozing reading the book with the cricket on the background. Reading to me is never a chore, it’s always pleasant and something I genuinely enjoy doing. I never take notes as that would impinge on the enjoyment of reading, rather when I write the post the next day or so, I use my recollection. This unscientific and not so efficient method, may result in my posts being based on what stood out from the book and the thoughts it generated, rather than what the book was really about. This method also accentuates what I term my Billy Connelly disease, where I start writing a post on one point in the book, then veer off on a hundred different tangents before coming back to my original point and this results in some (in truth all) of the very unstructured posts of this blog.
However, my method has let me down with this book. It was read yesterday and today when I picked it up, I didn’t have a clue what happened in it or any themes that jumped out at me. I remember bits about radios, writings left behind by old left behind operatives, the initial blackmailing of the protagonist and that’s about it. The Spy in Question for some reason, did not stay in my memory, so sadly this is my review. Tim Sebastian’s Spy Shadow is somewhere in a box, so I’ll read that in the few weeks and hopefully I can do a proper review then.

And one last thing, if you want to buy me the new Kindle, feel free, (or even better if Amazon sends me one to keep and all I have to do is a badly written review) because as much I as love browsing bookstores, it just would be cool to have.

Berlin 1963 is where this book set, just before President Kennedy is due to arrive and do his famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech. Simon Vaughan, like all Jack Higgins heroes, (and the clear prototype of Sean Dillon) is a man who put duty before honour, was let down by the establishment, not 100% British but fights for the country and its ideals, has formed a hard shell but inside emotionally weak looking for someone to bring out the good in him, misunderstood etc.. etc.. etc.. is running an escape route where East Germans, for a fee, can flee into the West. Vaughan, in his typical Jack Higgins stereotype-ness, is a hard yet honourable thief with the great ability to read people instantly, is approached by a young lady (will she break through his barriers and make him feel love again?) and asked for help to extract her father, who is a former British nuclear scientist and who with Klaus Fuchs “handed the Russians just about every atomic secret we had back in nineteen-fifty”. Vaughan, being the reader of people that he is, can see that her request is a trap, so he says no, but instead hands her to the local priest Father Sean Conlin. This Jesuit priest is a survivor of Dachau, a worldwide celebrity (cover on Time magazine) runs a free escape service called The League of the Resurrection, the Christian Underground movement – Not really honourable there Vaughan handing a trap to your supposed friend and a priest to boot too.
Father Conlin, goes over the Wall, and tries to free the old defector, however it’s a trap and he is captured. Walter Ulbricht, head of State of the DDR (East Germany), a man so evilly cold, like his hero Stalin, that he distastes central heating, and with his commissars have planned “their propaganda counter-strike from the red side of the Wall”. This plan is to make Father Conlin admit that he is a CIA operative whose sole aim is to undermine the DDR and thus embarrassing Kennedy when he comes to Berlin.
Vaughan becomes the pointy end of a rescue coalition headed by a Professor Charles Pascoe, who William Donovan “once expressed the opinion that …[Pascoe was]… the greatest mind at work in Intelligence operations on either side during the war”. The other senior members of this coalition, being funded by Kennedy, is Tuesen, Pascoes “remarkable” adversity from the Abwehr and Father Pacelli, the second in charge of the Jesuits secret intelligence service. This coalition of honourable men is faced by Harry Van Buren, a master brainwasher and Colonel Klien, DDR security chief. So will the brains trust combined with steel thwart the East Germans dastardly plan or will the evil genius in his fortified schloss triumph?

Overall:
According to the book, who would win the cold war: The West. I don’t think I’ve read a book by Jack Higgins where the righteous don’t win. In this book, the West are portrayed as having freedom and material goods, where the East is strictly controlled and even though religion is protected under the DDR Constitution, Higgins (Harry Patterson) takes every opportunity to remind the reader that you can’t have religion and be a good Party member. So a win for the West is a win for God.

Explosives/fight scenes etc.. : Not much really, the drowning of a mixed up pawn, some mental and physical torture, the killing of a good Samaritan who helped change a tyre, death of a holy man carrying a cross, one-sided fight in an inn, rescue attempt at end and the downing of a MIG without firing a shot to reach a milestone for the pilot.

Believability of the goodies (UK/German/Papal): Simon Vaughan and his devil may care attitude, who was written about at the start of this entry wasn’t believable, but who thinks any of Jack Higgins leads are?
The main players in the rescue attempt weren’t really fleshed out, rather the author chose to say how brilliant they were and that was it. Some time was spent on the monks at the farm house but not enough to make you believe that they were true characters instead of just plot devices.
The only other goody which literary effort was spent on was Father Erich Hartmann, SJ of the Catholic Secretariat in East Berlin. This priest was depicted as an brilliant scholar who was a handsome, white teethed, All American quarterback, pure of heart and spirit coupled with great physical prowess who for strong personal reasons thought that he would single-handedly restore the glories of the Catholic Church behind the Wall. The problem with this description of him by Higgins is that it leads you to believe from the start that his heroic death will happen and this will reinforce your belief in the wickedness of the communists and their system. Did this heroic death happen? Read the book and find out.

Believability of the baddies (DDR): There was only one baddie in the DDR who was described and that was Harry Van Buren. Harry’s backstory was that his father was destroyed by the witch-hunts led by McCarthy, leading him to kill himself. Harry, a major in psychology, with both his parents dead, thought he could re-instate the standing of his family by joining the Marines in Korea when that war started. After washing toilets and peeling spuds, he was called into action, where his fellow soldiers, equipment and the army in general let him down and he was thankfully captured by the Chinese. In a POW coal mine, where he was subjected to indoctrination sessions, he became, not a communist, but an expert in thought control and brainwashing. He remained and started working for the communist bloc and became their leading expert in the field. Being this super-scientist, he is in charge of breaking down Father Conlin, quickly and this means degrading and destroying the priest who only has his faith to protect him. That was as far as Higgins went in fleshing out the character apart from the instances where he could show the reader how cold and calculating this godless evil scientist was. Believable – why not, it’s always nice when the baddie is a real baddie.

When I was younger, and I had shortish plane trips from London or having to catch the Eurostar, I nearly always bought a Jack Higgins book as I could have a few drinks and pass the journey without needing to concentrate on the literature. This is why his books are always in the airports as they hit the right intellectual spot for dull travelling after a few wines and I applaud Jack Higgins for carving out a very profitable niche in airport literature, even though a part of me thinks he is still living off the success of the Eagle has Landed. Jack Higgins is to airport fiction what the Hindenburg is to zeppelins, I’m meaning word associations, not disasters.

You always know what you are getting when you get a Jack Higgins novel.

I have a confession, I’ve never liked the James Bond books that much. I’ve always thought that the writing wasn’t great, but on the other hand they weren’t good pulp fiction either, they just failed to engage me as a reader. For recurring agents, I’ve always thought Jan Gullous Tad Hamilton and Tom Clancys dynamic duo of Jack Ryan and John Clark were far better agents, and I liked how they fought nations mostly, where James Bond seemed to be more of a gun for hire. When it comes to pulp fiction, I’ve always thought Quiller was better and more realistic than Bond, however one day I will have to fly back to my parents and dust off those old Bond novels and see what the fuss is all about. Bond novels to me are on the same level as the Tweed books by Colin Forbes and Jack Higgins Sean Dillon books, enough though personally I find that both of these series seem to be cut and paste versions of previous novels in their series, same quotes, same incidents etc..
Growing up, I never had the boy-crush on Bond that many people have, I wanted to be Lucky Luke or Tintin or even a ninja, however life being what is, I’ve grown up to be Gaston Lagaffe with ninja ideas instead, so maybe it wasn’t in my DNA to be Bond but enough of Bond bashing, back to Quiller in the Sinkiang Executive.

Quiller has discreetly killed an old Soviet adversary on a packed London tube, however, he didn’t do it discreetly enough and so the Bureau, the secret British intelligence service where he works, uses this to try and press-gang him into carrying out a mission. Quiller, with his usual resentment and self doubt, grudgingly accepts this mission. This mission is to fly an advanced Soviet fighter from West Germany, penetrate Russia and photograph three suspect Soviet towns near the Chinese-Russian border. As Quiller is in the doghouse by the Bureau and clearly deemed to be expendable, the operational planners have provided no escape route once he has taken the photographs, instead he has to work it out himself. Quiller, manages to take the photographs, crash lands his plane, then he meets his old operational field director who informs Quiller that his real mission is to assassinate a local triple (Russia, China & UK) agent, as after all he could kill for personal reasons, so why not kill on orders from your government?

Overall:
According to the book, who would win the cold war: Draw, as no clues to who would win in this book.
Explosives/fight scenes etc.. : Russian commuter gets killed, some missile play, killings by drug crazed psychopath, and then final fight scene in the snow
Believability of the goodies (Quiller): Quiller is believable when it comes to his thoughts and the actions as a result of those thoughts. He clearly believes in his self preservation and that others are there simply to aid him or hinder him as he is also self-centred, but aren’t we all? He does actions that he considers distasteful with reluctance as a normal human should do, rather than the kiss-kiss-bang-bang personality of some other fictional characters. The only major flaws in Quillers believability is that he seems to be able to fly or drive anything and that he can speak multiple languages too easily. These absence of these flaws, make Len Deightons Harry Palmer, so much stronger compared to many other agents, as I imagine the secret services are staff by ordinary nobodies, instead of super-humans.
Believability of the baddies (Everyone else): This book is written in the first person, and like all the Quiller books this leads to Quiller being a fully sketched character, where the rest of the characters only described briefly with certain key characteristics without any deep analysis.

In summary, I always enjoy the Quiller books, however this one was slightly disjointed, it felt like Hall (or Trevor) wrote bits of it, had a break and then came back to write the new theatre of operations where the book was now taking place. If you find yourself like me where its pouring down, ruining your plans for the garden, open the fridge, have a beer and read a Quiller book.

To read more, please see The Stasi Files

Phillip Magee, who I think is the central character in this book, is a resigned CIA officer who has decided to publish a book listing the names of all undercover foreign based CIA Officers. However, this is actually a disinformation campaign as these officers are actually traitors, and not knowing this, various terrorist factions take the opportunity to bump them off. The problem of this disinformation campaign is that Magee is discredited, and so when he and his CIA handler report that the first cruise missile, a politically sensitive topic, which has just arrived in the UK is about to be hi-jacked, this is treated with scepticism. The cruise missile, in order for it to remain discreet, is travelling with a small protection force, so when a combination of black ops Czechs and SNLA (Scottish National Liberation Army) footsoldiers attack they manage to acquire it and make their escape. (I’m not giving the ending away as the front of the book states “A U.S. missile is hijacked by Communist agents” and the back cover gives further detail). Like all decent works of fiction, there are other sub-plots running through the book, for instance Magees handler is in love with the Czech controllers daughter, the SNLAs bid for freedom from the English oppression, the KGB and GRU being at loggerheads and penetrating their little brothers, the Czechs, to ensure they know everything that is going on….

Overall:
According to the book, who would win the cold war: Draw. Neither side covered themselves in glory, instead it showed there would be no cold war winner, rather each sides incompetence and disorganisation would nullify any advantages they may have through any other means.
Explosives/fight scenes etc.. : Traitor, mistress and chauffeur go boom, car blows up killing a doctor and his dog, Mafia breaks a finger at the races, scorned lush wife takes out Mafia hoods manhood, husband gets whacked by Mafia in cell, sheep attack furniture van, SNLA fight the Czechs, KGB agent fights Czech and a a final mop up operation.

There were no goodies or baddies in this book, rather they were all shades of grey apart from the stereotypical KGB agent who is a nasty piece of work as all Communist hitmen are. The characters weren’t really developed as really this was pulp fiction where the focus is concerned on things happening, instead of what drives the characters.

Nationalism played a part in this book and this was reflected by:
a) the removal of English colonisation of Scotland by the violent uprising of 10 men, however I always think of the Trainspotting quote whenever there is an argument for Scottish independence

Tommy: Doesn’t it make you proud to be Scottish?
Mark “Rent-boy” Renton: It’s S***E being Scottish! We’re the lowest of the low. The scum of the f*****g Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever s**t into civilisation. Some hate the English. I don’t. They’re just w*****s. We, on the other hand, are COLONISED by w*****s. Can’t even find a decent culture to be colonised BY. We’re ruled by effete a******s. It’s a S***E state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won’t make any f*****g difference!
The thing is, I would support Scotland being independent, even if it’s just to make the Scots stop blaming the English and everyone else for their troubles and instead look at themselves.

b) the removal of some Russian colonisation of Czechoslovakia by the trading of stolen US missile technology. I think sometimes in Western Cold War fiction, we forgot that senior representatives of Eastern European communist countries may have been patriotic and wishing to be independent of control from Moscow. Usually, in fiction,the common man of the street hates the communists and their oppression, and everybody else is an avid communist supporter, where this book showed that patriotism and promotion within the communist system are not mutually exclusive.

In summary, good easy book to read as you simply remove your brain and read about things getting blown up and shot at with the odd divergence into classical music and love stories.