Major Peter Peterson is no second-rate spy. He’s top of the line – the fact that he’s still alive is his proof. So, when Colonel Lunz asks him to deliver a coded message and twins, Sarina and Michael, to Yugoslavia, Peterson knows that no petty operation is underfoot. He and his partners, Alex and George, must be wary. Very wary…When they arrive at the Columbus, their transportation from Italy to Yugoslavia, Peterson finds it already loaded with several other passengers. Two at least are spies, and the other four look like second rate assassins…What is the message that Peterson is to deliver? And why are Sarina and Michael valuable enough to Colonel Lunz to employ a top agent like Peterson to guard them?Discussion. Peter Peterson is a hard-as-nails guy – he’s not as disillusioned as colleague Phillip Calvert, but he’s not a man to be caught napping. He is often harsh with his enemies (forget his enemies – he's tough on his allies!) and doesn’t mind breaking bones to get his point across. He draws the line at torture, but doesn’t mind bullying, bluffing, and bravado-ing his way through situations. He’s a man who fights for himself, not for principles.Now for the actual story. I like war stories. I like spy stories. But I like to know what’s going on. In both When Eight Bells Toll and Partisans, I felt like I had no clue what was happening. Now, I understand that espionage is supposed to be tricky – that’s what it IS. Tricking. But I like to have a baseline to work from. I like to know, definitely know that one person is or isn’t on the side he says he’s on. From there, I can work with deception and double crossing. But with Alistair MacLean, one doesn’t know if anyone’s what they claim to be - including the protagonist. The cast of characters constantly shifts in and out of shadows. By the end of the story, I had lost track of how many times characters had changed sides.I’m not giving up on MacLean yet, because on some strange level, I enjoy him. I’m just hoping his more famous works – The Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare – are less confusing. Having watched both the movies might help. : )Conclusion. Like I said, engaging on a strange level, but also very confusing.Visit The Blithering Bookster to read more reviews!http://blitheringbookster.com/home/ca...
This book may come as a disappointment to those readers yearning for a blood-soaked action read--is a single person killed in the entire book? (references to the past not included)--and didn't quite have the knuckle-whitening effect I'd expected from AMcL's other books. Despite this "fault", and the extreme confusion the reader may experience as she attempts to parse out the plot (what plot?) the banter between the characters--especially when George is involved--made the book both readable and even interesting.
Do You like book Partisans (1984)?
I vaguely remember having read somewhere that MacLean's later works were a pale shadow of his earlier stuff. This one definitely fell within that description. Set in Bosnia in Second World War Yugoslavia, the author had returned to the landscape of the rather good Force 10 from Navarone, but not that quality of writing. From the naming of characters - a supposedly Yugoslav group of commandos led by Major Peter Petersen with his henchmen George and Alex who sound much more like a bunch of northern Europeans - to the dreadfully plodding plot and the utterly cliched characterisation, this just plumbed the depths from start to finish. Avoid like the plague and instead try out his early works which may possibly be a bit dated, but are full of engaging characters and thumping good plots.
—Ian
