The Kill List, by Frederick Forsythe

spy thriller

Summary:

A terrorist known only as The Preacher radicalizes young Muslims, urging them to commit assassinations. After several high-profile deaths, the U.S. government places The Preacher on the “Kill List”. It lists criminals dangerous enough that there’s a special, highly secretive agency to hunt down and kill them. One of their best agents, known only as The Tracker, loses his father to one of the Preacher’s converts. The hunt’s on.

My thoughts:

I enjoyed this book while I read it. It’s been two weeks since. Now I’m struggling to remember the book’s plot and characters. Hmm. Normally I can remember quite a bit about a story even without my extensive notes. Is my memory weak . . . or is the book weak? Or is my memory colored by having read two terrific spy thrillers in the past week, and Forsythe’s suffers by comparison?

(The Pyongyang Option and The Fourth Courier, if you’re wondering.)

A few of the issues:

No fully developed characters.

While I was mostly clear on who’s who and what’s what, the only characters who really stood out to me were the Preacher, the Tracker, and a teenage computer genius with Asperger’s. None of them are truly unusual or well-developed as individuals; they seem more like stand-ins designed to fulfill their orchestrated roles in the plot, rather than fully-fleshed out individuals whose goals direct the story.

Of course the Tracker is brave, resourceful, curious, and loses his (barely there) wife, only to throw himself into his job. We expect that of our heroes.

Of course the Preacher is filled with rage and hatred. We expect that of our villains.

Of course the teenage computer genius has Asperger’s. We expect this. Honestly, this seems to be the main way writers use people with Autism/Asperger’s: as robots to get data/information the “normal functioning” person needs. As a means to an end. Not a person, and certainly not one to be friends with. Weird and disturbing.

These characters are adequate for the roles they play, but ultimately, they aren’t memorable. If all you’re after is plot, then fine. But I’ve read other recent spy novels that had a quick pace and fully realized characters. The two can coexist.

No map.

This is petty. But the book covers a lot of ground. Literally. It would have been very helpful to have a map of the areas covered.

Other reviewers have covered issues with the research, inconsistencies, and the handling of Islamic fundamentalism, so I won’t reiterate what they’ve said. Forsythe’s more interested in the intelligence community than the terrorist mindset.

That said, the book was fun while I read it.

The prose is basic but not dry. The plot, while heavy on action, is focused and taut. If I can’t remember it now, that’s okay. It was a nice escape after some heavier reading material.

From reading reviews, I’ve gathered that Forsythe’s previous work was stronger. Maybe I should cut the man some slack. He’s been writing spy novels since before I was born, and he’s still plugging away at it. I’ll probably check out some of his earlier work.

3 stars.

Bonus Tip for Writers from The Kill List

Don’t just tell us a fact. Use the delivery of it to convey other story-information.

There is an old saying in the covert world that if you want to keep something secret, do not try to hide it because some reptile from the press will sniff it out. Give it a harmless name and thoroughly boring job description. TOSA stands for Technical Operations Support Activity.” (The Kill List, pg. 34)

Notice how he’s combined insider knowledge about TOSA with the intelligence community’s conventional wisdom and packaged it up with a bit of attitude through deliberate, judicious word choices. Journalists are called as “reptiles”. They “sniff” out secrets. This tells us about the narrator’s view of journalists. (Incidentally, Forsythe was a journalist.)

Notice, too, how he uses the terms “harmless” and “thoroughly boring” to describe the name of the agency. The implied contrast between name and reality tells us that the agency’s activities are interesting and dangerous.

Forsythe does a similar thing later, when the Tracker talks to a cyberace–not the teenager–about the Preacher’s website.

“He transmits on a website called Hejira. That was the flight of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina.” The Tracker kept a straight face. He did not need explanations about Islam. (The Kill List, pg. 41)

While there’s nothing terribly special about the information itself, I found Forsythe’s technique interesting. Think about all that he’s combining in a few meager sentences:

Why doesn’t the Tracker need the explanations? Because he’s studied and researched it himself even before the Preacher’s appearance. (We’ve previously been shown his empathy and interest in Arab culture.) So there’s more characterization of the Tracker, a bit of background info on Islam, and a fact about the Preacher’s cyberspace “home” –all in three sentences. Not bad. Wish I could manage that!