Amph The Bourne Trilogy

Nope, I'm not talking about the movies starring Matt Damon (which I actually enjoyed, even though I have yet to see Ultimatum). No, I'm talking about the books from which the movies are based. My question is, who here has read them? And are they worth the read? Are they as good as the movies? Better? Or is it a case of the movies surpassing the source material?

 

I've read . . . I think the first two books. Maybe three. It was back in high school. Anyway, they plot's fine, but it's not exceptional (and it's not the same as in the movies). But the prose is not good. Not terrible, but not good. Pedestrian, stiff, boring. I'd recommend you find better thrillers to invest in, unless you're getting them from the library or you're really interested in the Bourne character and universe and think interest in the storyline would overcome the mediocre writing. I'd say it's definitely a case of the movies surpassing the books, as seldom as it happens.

 

I think I tried reading the first book and gave up. I haven't seen the films.

 

I respectfully disagree with Havac.

Certainly the later Bourne books are crappy, particularly as they are "ghost written" by Robert Ludlum, but the first 3 books are pretty solid.

The prose isn't outstanding but it's a popcorn thriller, meant to be read while you're sipping on a cocktail on a beach in Mexico.

The books are a fair bit different from the films, and they really get into Bourne's other skills - languages, disguises, strategy, misdirection - in a way that the films can't because of time restrictions.

It's worth at least picking up The Bourne Identity, I'm sure you can find it used for a couple of bucks.

 

I agree with all the stuff Garth said. I really liked the movies, but the plot of the books is much easier to understand, and the whole trilogy is COMPLETELY different. And better, IMO.