I don't see what all the fuss is about this book? I bought this because it was supposed to be THE spy novel. It was praised by ex-CIA operatives and such, so I thought I'd give it a shot. My mistake. I think the reason these folks like it is because they actually can understand what's going on. Unlike the rest of us who are on the outside looking in.

I got about halfway through and then stopped. This is a very uneven read. There are parts that are engaging, but most of it meanders without any specific story. After 150 pages, I still had no idea what the main plot point of this book was. And the main character - I couldn't care less about this guy. Now, add that to the fact that about 20% of the book is blacked out because the CIA, yes, THE CIA, thought it was too sensitive, and you find yourself not only lost but trying to fill in the blanks. ( )

This is a rather slow thriller. The author tried to tart it up as being from the CIA files by having parts of the text redacted. That starts out cute, but gets to be annoying. ( )

http://lampbane.livejournal.com/501418.html

"It's not a terribly exciting book, but it's simple enough, and the problems the protagonists have (caring about the wrong people) are relatable. Also? The whole thing with Valerie Plame makes a lot more sense, since the book definitely gave me a better picture of what CIA officers do. [...]

The book bills itself as being realistic, because it's written by a former CIA officer, and the narrator is a former CIA officer writing his memoir. So there's this weird nesting thing going on, because the fictional author had to submit his manuscript to the CIA for approval, and the real author had to do the same as well. As part of the illusion of the fictional author parts of the novel have been blacked out by the CIA because they revealed too much information about operations or countries. It's really weird, because a lot of the pages will have sentences like, "I went to the _____ with ______ and then we were stopped at ______ because the ______ thought that ______ and usually ________." In some cases it's minor, like they blank out names of streets or characters or ethnic descriptions, and you just have to roll with the story (and try to figure out where they are based on other clues, like weather). It's a bit like a cloze test. You just have to use context to figure out what's going on, and be willing to accept that you're not meant to understand certain parts and be willing to toss them out." ( )

If we view An Ordinary Spy as a classic spy story, it is too choppy, too unresolved, and falls short. If we view it as a novel exploring Mark Ruttenberg’s struggle with right and wrong, and how to live a meaningful life, the redacted chunks don’t matter. So the book is not so much an entertaining story, as a meaningful read.

My complete review is on my Blog, Nate's Library, specifically at: http://nates-library.blogspot.com/2008/02/joseph-weisberg-ordinary-spy.html ( )

It is a down-to-earth spy story, like those of Le Carre or even more so, which is great. It never really takes off, however, and the censorship gimmick (large parts of the text were censored out by the author himself and by the CIA) gets old and frustrating. ( )