Alistair MacLean > Likes and Comments

I believe there was no greater author of action novels than him. Most of them are espionage, and great He is the master!!!!!!!

I read his books in high school. IIRC, he was always best when he stuck with WWII or Cold War stories. When he wandered away from those (such as Breakheart Pass) it wasn't always a happy ride.

He was also lucky in that most of the films made from his books turned out well, and a couple (such as Where Eagles Dare and Guns of Navarone) became classics.

Sorry to disagree, but I actually like Breakheart Pass.

Albert wrote: "Sorry to disagree, but I actually like Breakheart Pass."

This is the beauty of reading not everyone likes the same books; there is something for everyone.

However much I'd like to agree with you Albert I tend more to feel they haven't always dated well. I really like Puppet On A Chain but it is quite dated. The way to enjoy them is to remember the world before high tech spooks and just delight in his story telling.

I would encourage everyone to read this great author and read them in context. It works ok with the war stories as stated earlier it is more difficult in the world of Espionage as trade craft seems dated as there isn't anything to set it into context. E.G Quiller, Harry Palmer or James Bond (some only) The Spy Who Came in From the Cold still works for me but I can remember the Berlin wall and film brought George Smiley to a new audience recently.
Maybe that Film link Lance refers to may also give life to a novel that may otherwise quick appear dated.

MacLean's early books are quite good, but his work deteriorated rapidly due to an alcohol problem and the fact that he came to despise writing. He also refused to do any revisions or to have his work edited by the publisher, so a lot of his later books are almost unreadable. Very sad. And he came to rely on a fixed plot formula, so he was basically just writing the same story over and over in a different setting.

But those early works--what a talented guy! A natural storyteller.

If you like MacLean, you should check out Desmond Bagley, a British thriller author contemporary of Maclean who writes in the same vein. Good stuff!

I've read, and, have some of Bagley's books. Still like Mr. MacLean a little better. I do agree with the formula thing, though.

I agree--MacLean was a better writer--a natural. But Bagley is still very entertaining and his plots are good!

I read pretty well every Alistair MacLean book when I was a kid. Some are better than others, but they were always entertaining, full of action, exciting. His war stories were probably his best; HMS Ulysses is powerful and cuts at your heart strings. The Guns of Navarone, Force 10 from Navarone and Where Eagles Dare are all excellent. Puppet on a Chain was a good story and probably a better movie. I agree about his later books. I stopped reading his books after Breakheart Pass, although I did enjoy. Of late, I have found myself buying his books at my local used book stores to add to my shelves and read again. So far I've enjoyed Puppet on a Chain, The Satan Bug and HMS Ulysses. I'm looking forward to working my way through them again. Btw, if you want a list of the books he's written, I did a brief Blog about Alistair many moons ago.. http://bill-booksbooksbooks.blogspot..... Interesting thread you started, Albert.

I was introduced to Alistair MacLean, when my dad recommended his books to me. He had read a few of them translated into Bengali.
The first MacLean, I bought for me was The Last Frontier, which was way back in 1999. And by 2006 I had read and re-read, every piece of fiction he had written.
He, along with the Tintin books, was the catalyst which made me a thriller addict. There would be only a few books of his which I did not like, one of them being THE LAST FRONTIER. And the favorite would be, Breakheart Pass. (the movie, starring Charles Bronson, is also a favorite of mine).

Alistair MacLean is solely responsible for my life long addiction to thrillers. The first thriller I ever read was The Way to Dusty Death and I have been hooked ever since.

Wow, very different strokes for different folks. The Last Frontier - which I read under its U.S. title, The Secret Ways - is my favorite Alistair MacLean work (which is saying a lot).

Yes, his quality did decline later in his career, but some of his early works are terrific. I started reading them in my teens and still enjoy them many many years later. Please visit my fan site at http://AlistairMacLean.com, where I've written reviews of every MacLean novel (and of many of the films based on them).

Dave wrote: "Wow, very different strokes for different folks. The Last Frontier - which I read under its U.S. title, The Secret Ways - is my favorite Alistair MacLean work (which is saying a lot).

Yes, his qua..."

I scanned your site, Dave. You've put a lot of work into it. I liked your review of HMS Ulysses. I'll check it out some more.

I cut my teeth, so to speak , reading his works while in high school. I put Ludlum and Higgins right up there with him with respect to the spy/war genre. Follet is right up there as well.

I too, cut my "espionage" teeth on Alistair Maclean novels. I own about 95% of them (some are better than others of course), but I remember really enjoying South by Java Head and Bear Island. I also became a fan of Robert Ludlum, and Ken Follet.

Broadsword calling Danny Boy!

I've read quite a few Alistair Maclean books, but as others have said, back in the 1960s and 1970s. One that I'll never forget is Night Without End - I get cold just remembering it!

Lorraine - That's one of my favorite MacLean books, and it makes me shiver too. In fact, I chose the ice-climbing logo for my AlistairMacLean.com site because of how chillingly he describes some climates where action takes place.

Alex wrote: "Alistair MacLean is solely responsible for my life long addiction to thrillers."

Pretty much me too, although Ian Fleming may also have had something to do with it. For me it was HMS Ulysses that did it...

Mark wrote: "Alex wrote: "Alistair MacLean is solely responsible for my life long addiction to thrillers."

Pretty much me too, although Ian Fleming may also have had something to do with it. For me it was HMS ..."

Maclean's version of Ulysses showed James Joyce how it was done! :)

R.M.F wrote: "Maclean's version of Ulysses showed James Joyce how it was done! :)"

Exactly!

My favorites are Night Without End, and, The Guns of Navarone!

Brian wrote: "MacLean's early books are quite good, but his work deteriorated rapidly due to an alcohol problem and the fact that he came to despise writing..."

Well, that explains it. I liked his earlier books best -- when he still had some grip on craft and the real world -- and stopped reading after Goodbye, California, which I vaguely remember being a hard slog.

Lance wrote: "Well, that explains it. I liked his earlier books best -- when he still had some grip on craft and the real world -- and stopped reading after Goodbye, California, which I vaguely remember being a hard slog."

Yes, his quality dropped a couple of times. Starting with Bear Island and ending with The Golden Gate, he had a run of five novels that fell short of the earlier ones' quality but were still read-worthy. Then, starting with the awful Seawitch, his quality dropped to an even lower plateau; if you didn't read any of his subsequent books, you didn't miss much.

R.M.F wrote: "Broadsword calling Danny Boy!"

I'm hearing the lilting tones of Richard Burton as I read that... maybe wrongly, but that's how I remember it...

I'm hearing the lilting tones of Richard Burton as I read that... maybe wrongly, but that's how I remember it..."

Nope, you remember right. It'd sound different if it had been Eastwood that said it!

You're right, haven't seen that movie in years, but when I read the words I could hear Richard Burton's voice speaking them.

An Alistair MacLean thread! Fantastic. I grew up on that author. Here's a recent review I penned about him (just a thumbnail sketch) from another thread:

Alistair MacLean, is a name every reader of popular mass-market novels has at least heard of; even if not interested in his peculiar brand and strain of fiction. You just can't overlook a list of thriller titles as extensive as his. MacLean--a former British navy man--started his career writing WWII adventure stories. Recently, I investigated some of these to determine whether he ever was a different kind of writer than he eventually wound up being. Unfortunately, he was not. Money and fame didn't turn him lazy. His earliest works are almost exactly the same as any of his later titles. He really is one of the most programmatic authors ever. Despite the exotic settings and clever cliffhangers; his stock, he-men, crack-shot characters are almost always interchangeable in every way; his corny dialog is the same from book-to-book; if you've read any one of his novels you can skip the rest. That being said, he really did seem to be dedicated to his craft and in spite of his strange style; came up with some genuinely admirable concoctions. They've been made into classic adventure films, as we all know (The Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare). Real 'finds' are oddly sprinkled throughout his repertoire as 'one-offs' and rimshots, but if you choose wisely you can discover one, sometimes. Occasionally, you can find yourself immersed in quite a gripping scenario. My favorite is Circus.

Feliks - Thanks for sharing your interesting review of Alistair MacLean's writings.

I must disagree on one point: originally, he was "a different kind of writer than he eventually wound up being". The similarities between MacLean's earlier and later works just show that the latter were derivative of the former. He was creating original works early on, then doing little more than following a formula later. That's quite a difference.

In any case, I'm glad you did sometimes "find yourself immersed in quite a gripping scenario."

-Dave (AlistairMacLean.com)

Under the heading just sayin'. A lot of writers get formulaic in their later years, ie..., Robert Parker, and, Jack Higgins.

Thanks. Your reception of my review was very fair; and I'm open to further correction or criticism. It was only a quick thumbnail and could certainly be improved.

But this point about his 'originality': seems to me to be the most important crux, when it comes to assessing MacLean. We all know he can write--not only quality but quantity. Great scenes, great chapters, ripping set-pieces, memorable action-sequences, startling surprises--we know these are scattered all throughout his bibliography. So there's no question that he wasn't --at a certain bedrock level--phenomenally inventive and proficient. This can be admitted upfront by everyone.

While I hear you making the distinction between his 'later formula' and (let's call it) his 'early earnestness'...I'm not quite sure that it matters as far as the effect on the reader is concerned. Sure, I would grant that any writer 'just starting out' has got to have more sincerity and ambition than a writer at the jaded, tail-end-of-a-career. (By the way, I personally don't rank MacLean by his worst titles; but by his best).

At his best he was wonderful, but I suggest it was usually only when he found some way to conceal his underlying predictability. Predictability not in plot, setting, character (in that, he always shone with variety) but predictability in the dialog, psychology, conventions...the very descriptions he puts on every page, as well as the story structures and pacing.

How about this: if you handed both his first work and his twenty-fifth work to someone who is coming to him entirely 'fresh'--and you didn't inform them which of the two books came first--would there be a way for that reader to discern any writing development?

As a young reader, I came to most of his later books first; and gradually worked my way back--over the years--to the middle, to the peak of his form. Even barring the occasional slump he went through such as with 'Seawitch' (pointed out above, and which I wholly agree with) what I've found when I went back to his first few titles [this was very recently] is that most of his later faults are present there, as well as twenty years later. They're apparent no matter where among his career, you delve. Its why I state (in my sketch of him) that its always rather hit-or-miss, as a reading experience.

Purely by random chance, I found 'Golden Rendezvous' and 'Circus' gripping, mesmerizing; standout titles from his pen; and just as randomly I found 'Force 10', 'Satan Bug', and 'Black Shrike' un-appealing. But the writing style itself, was the same from book-to-book, no matter what tale he happens to be telling. I found no better enjoyment from 'HMS Ulysses', and 'South By Java Head', than anything else I've ever read from him; whereas I felt for sure that these would be worth seeking out because he wrote them while still fresh to his career. It turned out not to be the case. They were among the worst.

Does this make sense? Its his worst hindrance, that he never changed.

Thanks for expanding on your ideas and accepting my comments on your earlier post.

Please pardon me for disagreeing with you again, but I firmly believe that a savvy reader who hadn't been exposed to MacLean would see substantial differences between his early and late works.

To my eyes, a real drop in quality started around the time of Bear Island. Some characters talk the same, some nature scenes are described in similarly purple prose, etc., but each book is lacking in at least one key element. Characters become less developed and more two-dimensional (Seawitch, Athabasca); long buildups fizzle into anticlimaxes (Partisans, Floodgate, Santorini, Goodbye California); many key connections are only revealed at the end (done well in Ice Station Zebra, poorly in Bear Island and Athabasca); and so on.

Basically, in his latter years he was trying to follow his earlier formula, but he lacked either the effort or the mental focus to match his earlier achievements. As a result, many of those books read like either pretty good fan fiction or MacLean parodies that happened to be written by MacLean himself.

One man's point of view, of course, and YMMV.

P.S. I'm glad you liked Circus, and I like it better than most later MacLean, but when I read it I can't help comparing the long-anticipated fight between the two strongmen - a brief throwaway scene - with an analogous, but far more detailed and satisfying, fight between two strongmen in The Secret Ways.

Acceptable rebuttal! :p

John wrote: "I'm hearing the lilting tones of Richard Burton as I read that... maybe wrongly, but that's how I remember it..."

Nope, you remember right. It'd sound different if it had been Eastwood that said it!"

It would, wouldn't it!

Burton and Eastwood: what a dream cast. We will never see its likes again.

His war stories worked well on screen.But I didn't enjoy his writing style in books.

My favourite book of his :

South by Java Head

W wrote: "His war stories worked well on screen.But I didn't enjoy his writing style in books.

My favourite book of his :

South by Java Head"

South by Java Head was excellent. HMS Ulysses was fantastic, one of his best

I never found HMS Ulysses.

Also enjoyed the movie versions of :

Where Eagles Dare

The Guns of Navarone

W wrote: "I never found HMS Ulysses.

Also enjoyed the movie versions of :

Where Eagles Dare

[book:The Guns of Navar..."

Sorry... I meant as books, I don't think it was ever a movie.

I also meant that one as a book.

When Eight Bells Toll

Didn't enjoy it.

Really enjoyed this thread. MacLean was my favorite author for many years. He has definitely influenced my writing style! I am of the opinion that his performance as a writer definitely fell off during his later years. But those early years were great.