I read it, was quite perplexed at the seeming inanity of the story, and decided to google some reviews. And I came up with so many that rave about how ‘exciting’ and ‘complex’ The Bourne Legacy was… which left me scratching my head thinking what did I miss? Thankfully, I then came upon yours.

Exactly as you put it, this was James Bond, not Jason Bourne. Even the ‘emotional’ content seemed superficial and rather obvious, instead of the psychological thrill we got from slowly peeling back and discovering Bourne’s many layers in the origial trilogy. Made even more stark by Lustbader not leaving anything to be read between the lines, his prose is overly descriptive: he interprets for the reader exactly what is going through Bourne’s mind and emotions; whereas Ludlum would just paint a memory playing out, and let the reader FEEL its emotional content.

I have a feeling many reviewers are reviewing the book as a brainless superspy action thriller, the way the movies portrayed him, rather than the way Mr Ludlum originally wrote Jason Bourne, which was to be an exercise in psychology first, with action/espionage in a supporting role.

Anyway, just felt like venting. And not gonna bother with the subsequent novels now.

Ludlum was such a good writer, I honestly look at the trio as one, big long book.

I guess I’d pick Supremacy…but I could easily be talked into the other two as well.