What do you think?
Rate this book
Peter Ashton #6
Bloodmoney
From the author of the best-selling Body of Lies and The Increment: in a tragedy of revenge, the CIA falls victim to its own daring operation in the Middle East.
Someone in Pakistan is killing the members of a new CIA intelligence unit that is trying to buy peace with America's enemies. It falls to Sophie Marx, a young CIA officer with a big chip on her shoulder, to figure out who's doing the killing and why. Her starting point is Alphabet Capital, the London hedge fund that has been providing cover for this secret operation, but the investigation soon widens to include the capitals of the Middle East and the cruel hills of South Waziristan.
Sophie thinks she has the backing of her hard-nosed boss, Jeffrey Gertz, and his genial mentor at headquarters, Cyril Hoffman. In addition, she gets help from the well-mannered lieutenant general heading Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate. But the closer Sophie gets to her quarry, the more she realizes that nothing in this gallery of mirrors is quite what it seems. This is a theater of violence and retribution, in which the last act is one that Sophie could not have imagined.
David Ignatius has written a disturbing and compelling novel where the price of unchecked government is paid in blood, and peace can be bought only through betrayal.
Someone in Pakistan is killing the members of a new CIA intelligence unit that is trying to buy peace with America's enemies. It falls to Sophie Marx, a young CIA officer with a big chip on her shoulder, to figure out who's doing the killing and why. Her starting point is Alphabet Capital, the London hedge fund that has been providing cover for this secret operation, but the investigation soon widens to include the capitals of the Middle East and the cruel hills of South Waziristan.
Sophie thinks she has the backing of her hard-nosed boss, Jeffrey Gertz, and his genial mentor at headquarters, Cyril Hoffman. In addition, she gets help from the well-mannered lieutenant general heading Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate. But the closer Sophie gets to her quarry, the more she realizes that nothing in this gallery of mirrors is quite what it seems. This is a theater of violence and retribution, in which the last act is one that Sophie could not have imagined.
David Ignatius has written a disturbing and compelling novel where the price of unchecked government is paid in blood, and peace can be bought only through betrayal.
372 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
322 people are currently reading
1900 people want to read
About the author
David Ignatius
33 books724 followersDavid Ignatius, a prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, has been covering the Middle East and the CIA for more than twenty-five years. His novels include Agents of Innocence, Body of Lies, and The Increment, now in development for a major motion picture by Jerry Bruckheimer. He lives in Washington, DC.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews
January 12, 2021
It's odd that all the reviews of this book are about "the war on terror", corrupt and illegal government actions, and the primacy of money. Of course. But the most important part, to me, was the heartbreaking reason for the "murder of agents". The years of random terror and cruel slaughter caused by the drone bombings in Waziristan. Trying to exist, while never knowing if tomorrow would occur, as noisy, robot murderers fly above your villages and family compounds in the Tribal Territories between Pakistan and Afghanistan dropping death randomly, resulting in the disappearance of entire families, in uncounted civilian lives cruelly terminated.
Who is the terrorist?
Who is the terrorist?
December 13, 2017
3.5 stars
November 30, 2011
Ignatius is one of the most qualified writers of espionage thrillers, being the Washington Post's correspondent who covers the CIA and the Middle East for the last 25 years. His sources are mostly anonymous, but they have shared the secrets of intelligence trade craft with Ignatius. As a result, his novels have been the most realistic of the sordid world of intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. His "Body of Lies" was an exceptionally poignant and troubling story of how American intelligence is being gamed by foes who are sometime allies like Pakistan or Al Queda, the Taliban, or smaller sect determined to kill Americans and even fellow countrymen.
However, "Bloodmoney," which I expected to be as gripping and realistic as "Body of Lies," proved to be a bit of a disappointment. Ignatius is spot on with his description and background of his characters, American, English, Pakistani, and the many locations he visits in his story. But I had trouble with his premise, that a rogue CIA group was allowed to be created -- with an illegal funding mechanism no less -- and is allowed to send agents into harms way in Pakistan, Russia, and Turkistan where they are murdered.
He continues to build suspense throughout the book and portray the twisted world of duplicity by all concerned. But as Ignatius was reaching a climax, too many threads simply didn't work for me. The final chapters seemed to be written by a Hollywood screen writer trying to give a big bang finale suitable for your local multiplex screen. A bit disappointing when I wanted something more like John le Carre would have been able to pull off.
However, "Bloodmoney," which I expected to be as gripping and realistic as "Body of Lies," proved to be a bit of a disappointment. Ignatius is spot on with his description and background of his characters, American, English, Pakistani, and the many locations he visits in his story. But I had trouble with his premise, that a rogue CIA group was allowed to be created -- with an illegal funding mechanism no less -- and is allowed to send agents into harms way in Pakistan, Russia, and Turkistan where they are murdered.
He continues to build suspense throughout the book and portray the twisted world of duplicity by all concerned. But as Ignatius was reaching a climax, too many threads simply didn't work for me. The final chapters seemed to be written by a Hollywood screen writer trying to give a big bang finale suitable for your local multiplex screen. A bit disappointing when I wanted something more like John le Carre would have been able to pull off.
April 3, 2021
A fascinating moral tale where everything is tainted and nobody knows the truth. If the characters' arcs had been better intertwined and not so separated, I would have liked the book more.
June 2, 2013
All Flash. No Substance. I guess a beach and pina coladas would make it satisfying. Ignatius seems to have overdosed on plot-by-the-numbers and to have had no time for the details of either his characters or his plot development. Warning: there will be spoilers, I guess.
Sophie could have been a good character. Most of the others had no such chance, but nearly all of them ended up doing & saying ridiculous, stupid, out-of character things:
1. Sophie says "I can't imagine how his cover could have been blown." after her first idea is proven wrong. She lacks even enough imagination to see that there are 99 ways a spy's cover could be blown in a foreign country where he sticks out like a sore thumb. But no, she assumes the last person the spy met HAD TO BE the one who did it. He HAD to. And, when she decided he wasn't, she was flat out of ideas. Laughable.
2. The ex-I-Banker, now Chief of Staff for the PotUS is nothing but a loud-mouth. He is an empty suit who shows zero financial sophistication. He has one of the dumbest lines I have ever read. When Gertz tells him he is closing up shop, the ex-I-Banker says, "But you told me this was self-funding and self-liquidating." And, of course, Gertz replies "Yes, it is, and now we're self-liquidating." That was obvious to me, but somehow it went right over the head of this master-of-the-universe ex-I-Banker. Laughable.
3. Sabah in Brussels. After they've proven to Sabah that they have enough evidence to jail him for a long time, he agrees to help them. But then, they slap him and don't pet his dog, so he supposedly changes his mind and says something like "You nasty people. I refuse to help you." Sure. He's just going to get thrown into jail for decades because someone wasn't nice to his dog.
In addition to specific paragraphs where characters say ridiculous things, there are many parts of the story that are nothing more than an excuse to show off knowledge of some locale or piece of society. But, they are pointless either by being silly or because we know the entire sub-plot will come to not anyway.
The entire episode of Perkins' arrest was a bore. Anyone with any intelligence knew it was just going to go away. And it did. Net result: lots of wasted words. Let us count how ridiculous it was:
1. Sophie knows who A. Cronin is. Perkins knows she knows. He never mentions it. Yes, he supposedly never mentions it to protect her. But, we know she knows. We know it kills the case. We know this is all nonsense. Many pages of nonsense.
2. "Follow the money." Wouldn't there be, oh, I don't know, maybe $6 BILLION missing. Perkins never pushed that. In such cases, the M. O. would be to "follow the money". But here? $6 BILLION missing. Perkins doesn't mention it. Nobody else cares. Perkins mentions that there was a second account. But, he NEVER MENTIONS that any accountant will be able to figure out that there is $6 BILLION missing. Gee, do you think maybe a lawyer could make a case out of that?
3. He never pushes the fact that Egan, one of his "employees", was just killed in Pakistan. We were never given any reason to believe this "employee" had the experience or training to actually work at a high-powered hedge fund. But there he was. And, then there he was in Pakistan. And then there he was ... dead. Gee, do you think maybe a lawyer could make a case out of that being connected to the CIA.
The entire episode in Brussels was just kind of silly. The dog. The interrogation. The IYAAYAS. The moving "safe houses". And it was way too long. And the whole point was ... to get an email address. And to describe the dog, of course. One of the main take-aways from this novel: that guy sure loved his dog.
Sophie's entire first trip to London was silly. She was sent to London to do "Detective Work", to be the detective who figures out how Egan's cover was blown. She goes to London. She romances the boss. She plays faux hedge fund analyst. She does zero detective work in multiple chapters. Laughable.
One other thing; I understand Ignatius' desire to treat Pakistan with respect, but five to eight times he throws us off-course into contemplation of the Pashtuns as your typical "Wise, Noble Savages". Not only was it silly, but a few of them contradicted each other.
The "conclusion" isn't much of one at all. It is just an attempt to have the first meaningful twist in the novel. "Wait, you mean MY source is really YOUR source and maybe HIS source? Gee!" It fell flat. It was like a bullet to the head of a wounded, dying book.
Sophie could have been a good character. Most of the others had no such chance, but nearly all of them ended up doing & saying ridiculous, stupid, out-of character things:
1. Sophie says "I can't imagine how his cover could have been blown." after her first idea is proven wrong. She lacks even enough imagination to see that there are 99 ways a spy's cover could be blown in a foreign country where he sticks out like a sore thumb. But no, she assumes the last person the spy met HAD TO BE the one who did it. He HAD to. And, when she decided he wasn't, she was flat out of ideas. Laughable.
2. The ex-I-Banker, now Chief of Staff for the PotUS is nothing but a loud-mouth. He is an empty suit who shows zero financial sophistication. He has one of the dumbest lines I have ever read. When Gertz tells him he is closing up shop, the ex-I-Banker says, "But you told me this was self-funding and self-liquidating." And, of course, Gertz replies "Yes, it is, and now we're self-liquidating." That was obvious to me, but somehow it went right over the head of this master-of-the-universe ex-I-Banker. Laughable.
3. Sabah in Brussels. After they've proven to Sabah that they have enough evidence to jail him for a long time, he agrees to help them. But then, they slap him and don't pet his dog, so he supposedly changes his mind and says something like "You nasty people. I refuse to help you." Sure. He's just going to get thrown into jail for decades because someone wasn't nice to his dog.
In addition to specific paragraphs where characters say ridiculous things, there are many parts of the story that are nothing more than an excuse to show off knowledge of some locale or piece of society. But, they are pointless either by being silly or because we know the entire sub-plot will come to not anyway.
The entire episode of Perkins' arrest was a bore. Anyone with any intelligence knew it was just going to go away. And it did. Net result: lots of wasted words. Let us count how ridiculous it was:
1. Sophie knows who A. Cronin is. Perkins knows she knows. He never mentions it. Yes, he supposedly never mentions it to protect her. But, we know she knows. We know it kills the case. We know this is all nonsense. Many pages of nonsense.
2. "Follow the money." Wouldn't there be, oh, I don't know, maybe $6 BILLION missing. Perkins never pushed that. In such cases, the M. O. would be to "follow the money". But here? $6 BILLION missing. Perkins doesn't mention it. Nobody else cares. Perkins mentions that there was a second account. But, he NEVER MENTIONS that any accountant will be able to figure out that there is $6 BILLION missing. Gee, do you think maybe a lawyer could make a case out of that?
3. He never pushes the fact that Egan, one of his "employees", was just killed in Pakistan. We were never given any reason to believe this "employee" had the experience or training to actually work at a high-powered hedge fund. But there he was. And, then there he was in Pakistan. And then there he was ... dead. Gee, do you think maybe a lawyer could make a case out of that being connected to the CIA.
The entire episode in Brussels was just kind of silly. The dog. The interrogation. The IYAAYAS. The moving "safe houses". And it was way too long. And the whole point was ... to get an email address. And to describe the dog, of course. One of the main take-aways from this novel: that guy sure loved his dog.
Sophie's entire first trip to London was silly. She was sent to London to do "Detective Work", to be the detective who figures out how Egan's cover was blown. She goes to London. She romances the boss. She plays faux hedge fund analyst. She does zero detective work in multiple chapters. Laughable.
One other thing; I understand Ignatius' desire to treat Pakistan with respect, but five to eight times he throws us off-course into contemplation of the Pashtuns as your typical "Wise, Noble Savages". Not only was it silly, but a few of them contradicted each other.
The "conclusion" isn't much of one at all. It is just an attempt to have the first meaningful twist in the novel. "Wait, you mean MY source is really YOUR source and maybe HIS source? Gee!" It fell flat. It was like a bullet to the head of a wounded, dying book.
December 29, 2021
Spy thriller
After reading a Kirkus review about this book that had the blurb "a terrific, believable novel about the intersection of politics, ethics and finance" and just recently having watched the movie Body of Lies based on the author's book of the same title, I found myself borrowing a library audiobook of Bloodmoney. The book presents the concept of an independent, non-authorized offshoot of the CIA known as the Hit Parade, which on the outside is an entertainment business but is, in fact, a self-financing international spy organization manned by ex-CIA operatives. The Hit Parade finds itself being "hit" when two of its overseas operatives are assassinated. Inquiries from the legitimate CIA and media interest about the organization arise which pressure elements of the Hit Parade to "hit" back. Ultimately, the company's funding system begins to unravel and the various characters scramble to save themselves and keep some of the money in the process.
The off-the-books, independent spy organization is a common trope in spy novels; i.e., the Campus in the Jack Ryan Jr. books, Jason Bourne, James Bond, and others. But being so, does that make the concept "believable"? I think there would need to be more to the construct of the Hit Parade for it to be real, but who knows. Maybe Kirkus had some inside information.
In any case, this book wasn't as thrilling as I thought it would be. The Hoffman character (played by Russell Crowe in the Body of Lies) seems much transformed here and not quite as intriguing. The lead character, Sophie Marx, could not decide on whether to be a geeky genius or femme fatale. Perkins, the head of the investment firm that secretly handled the Hit Parade's finances seemed the most interesting and sympathetic. But not enough to carry the others. Nuff said.
After reading a Kirkus review about this book that had the blurb "a terrific, believable novel about the intersection of politics, ethics and finance" and just recently having watched the movie Body of Lies based on the author's book of the same title, I found myself borrowing a library audiobook of Bloodmoney. The book presents the concept of an independent, non-authorized offshoot of the CIA known as the Hit Parade, which on the outside is an entertainment business but is, in fact, a self-financing international spy organization manned by ex-CIA operatives. The Hit Parade finds itself being "hit" when two of its overseas operatives are assassinated. Inquiries from the legitimate CIA and media interest about the organization arise which pressure elements of the Hit Parade to "hit" back. Ultimately, the company's funding system begins to unravel and the various characters scramble to save themselves and keep some of the money in the process.
The off-the-books, independent spy organization is a common trope in spy novels; i.e., the Campus in the Jack Ryan Jr. books, Jason Bourne, James Bond, and others. But being so, does that make the concept "believable"? I think there would need to be more to the construct of the Hit Parade for it to be real, but who knows. Maybe Kirkus had some inside information.
In any case, this book wasn't as thrilling as I thought it would be. The Hoffman character (played by Russell Crowe in the Body of Lies) seems much transformed here and not quite as intriguing. The lead character, Sophie Marx, could not decide on whether to be a geeky genius or femme fatale. Perkins, the head of the investment firm that secretly handled the Hit Parade's finances seemed the most interesting and sympathetic. But not enough to carry the others. Nuff said.
April 27, 2020
Ignatius writes on the CIA and intelligence issues for the Washington Post, and his insider knowledge always shows in the details and "spook-speak" in his fiction, (including Body of Lies, which was made into a film with Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe). However, while his reporting obviously remains fact-based, he lets his imagination run free in both Blood and Body - in this case, a secret "rogue" CIA which even the "normal" CIA doesn't know about. Which is fine - most fiction is by definition imaginative. What I have against Bloodmoney is that it's not particularly GOOD fiction. The characters are more caricatures - the prissy, dandyish Hqs mandarin; the sleazeball "rogue" chief; the attractive-yet-competent female agent sent to save the world from Pakistani assassins by...integrating herself into a British bank? And there lies the other problem with this story: for CIA fiction, it's surprisingly bloodless, both literally and figuratively. There are a few killings early on, each taking no more than a page or two - but these quickly get lost in the endless pages of financial data and not-particularly-clever banter over expensive meals in London.
What earns this book its second star is the excellent audiobook narration by Indian actor Firdous Bamji. His voicing of the two main Pakistani characters makes them the most compelling characters in the whole book. And he does a great job dealing with all the various Urdu, Pashto and Waziri terms and expressions sprinkled throughout the story, (whether he actually speaks these languages or not). Were I just reading this book, I probably would have put it down halfway through - but having it read to me by Mr. Bamji kept me interested (if not enthralled) until the very end.
While not exactly a bad book, Bloodmoney is an unnecessary one, offering neither the intelligence of le Carre nor the action expected from Clancy or Ludlum.
What earns this book its second star is the excellent audiobook narration by Indian actor Firdous Bamji. His voicing of the two main Pakistani characters makes them the most compelling characters in the whole book. And he does a great job dealing with all the various Urdu, Pashto and Waziri terms and expressions sprinkled throughout the story, (whether he actually speaks these languages or not). Were I just reading this book, I probably would have put it down halfway through - but having it read to me by Mr. Bamji kept me interested (if not enthralled) until the very end.
While not exactly a bad book, Bloodmoney is an unnecessary one, offering neither the intelligence of le Carre nor the action expected from Clancy or Ludlum.
April 23, 2014
I was pleasantly surprised with this one actually! Saw it featured on the library front feature blurb and thought it sounded pretty good - and I was ready for a good spy thriller book as well, which always helps you get into a book a little faster.
Well, it was meant to be. I picked it up during the week before the anniversary of my father's death and once I started reading, I smiled thinking that it would have been a book that he would have liked- political intrigue and dirty spies with a hidden agenda. Plus the quote at the beginning was by Viscount John Morley on vengeance and revenge - and since my father's name was John Morley, I figured the book was a good bet. Funny how those things sometimes fall into place!
I've not read anything by David Ignatius either, so had no expectations one way or the other as to what to expect. It was fairly fast paced (for the most part) and I thought the 'mole' aspect of the story was plausible - how you can create your own monster within if you aren't careful about your actions. It certainly didn't paint a very favorable picture of the CIA but I did like how he said it was an organization that told lies to everyone but the members themselves because there had to be truth within in order for the lies to work effectively without - an element of trust that someone has your back while you're fabricating a story out on the front lines. Probably a truth that is the truth too. Unfortunately, enter an ego and the whole plan can go to hell in a hand basket fairly fast.
I had a feeling for what may transpire for an ending about half-way through and it was somewhat close to it, but there was a great twist that I didn't see coming so it was a satisfying end! I'll look for more books by David Ignatius! A book recommended!
Well, it was meant to be. I picked it up during the week before the anniversary of my father's death and once I started reading, I smiled thinking that it would have been a book that he would have liked- political intrigue and dirty spies with a hidden agenda. Plus the quote at the beginning was by Viscount John Morley on vengeance and revenge - and since my father's name was John Morley, I figured the book was a good bet. Funny how those things sometimes fall into place!
I've not read anything by David Ignatius either, so had no expectations one way or the other as to what to expect. It was fairly fast paced (for the most part) and I thought the 'mole' aspect of the story was plausible - how you can create your own monster within if you aren't careful about your actions. It certainly didn't paint a very favorable picture of the CIA but I did like how he said it was an organization that told lies to everyone but the members themselves because there had to be truth within in order for the lies to work effectively without - an element of trust that someone has your back while you're fabricating a story out on the front lines. Probably a truth that is the truth too. Unfortunately, enter an ego and the whole plan can go to hell in a hand basket fairly fast.
I had a feeling for what may transpire for an ending about half-way through and it was somewhat close to it, but there was a great twist that I didn't see coming so it was a satisfying end! I'll look for more books by David Ignatius! A book recommended!
June 29, 2023
Kimin elinin kimin cebinde olduğu belli olmayan sonunda bazılarının kaybettiği bir roman. Politika, terorizm ve CIA.
May 25, 2018
A real page-turner and a realistic look at intelligence agencies with no good guys or bad guys...very well researched and written and, for once, believable. Above all, it is the first spy thriller with the ISI of Pakistan at it's heart (that I know of).
May 26, 2012
Setting Pakistan. CIA and government undercover contractors. Someone killing agents. Spies. Corruption. Good people caught in lies. Smart people manipulating others. Power. Money.
These are the ingredients for an action-packed novel about murder and deception. Sophie Marx is chosen by her boss to find out who is killing their agents. She has a history that makes her a good choice as well as the personal characteristics that can make her successful. However, the more she digs and learns the more tangled the web she is trying to unravel and the more cryptic the solution.
I enjoyed this book. It felt current and true although there is a disclaimer at the end of the book that tried to convince the reader that no part is based on fact.
These are the ingredients for an action-packed novel about murder and deception. Sophie Marx is chosen by her boss to find out who is killing their agents. She has a history that makes her a good choice as well as the personal characteristics that can make her successful. However, the more she digs and learns the more tangled the web she is trying to unravel and the more cryptic the solution.
I enjoyed this book. It felt current and true although there is a disclaimer at the end of the book that tried to convince the reader that no part is based on fact.
March 23, 2020
Interesting read. Gripping characters but no real substance in the plot. It’s almost like the author set it up so perfectly for the reader, bringing up characters and events that would want you to read but was in some sort of a hurry to finish writing this book that he just botched all the hard work he had done in perhaps three quarters of the book
January 24, 2021
Não posso dizer que adorei, gostei mas não foi dos melhores que li. Gostei da base da história, mas demorou um pouco a cativar-me. Só a meio do livro é que senti aquela vontade de ler com mais entusiasmo.
Achei o final curioso. Estava à espera de alguns dos acontecimentos, mas outros até fiquei surpreendida.
De modo geral é um livro mediano, mas para quem gosta do tema certamente será do agrado.
Achei o final curioso. Estava à espera de alguns dos acontecimentos, mas outros até fiquei surpreendida.
De modo geral é um livro mediano, mas para quem gosta do tema certamente será do agrado.
June 22, 2011
A blacker than black operation that is so far off the CIA books that only the U.S. president and his chief of staff know about it. The idea is that lack of bureacratic oversight and Congressional committees will produce a nimble and adaptable outfit to fight the war on terrorism. Sounds good until operatives become targets and are being killed off. On the homefront none of the staff seems to know how or why the agents are discovered, the head of the outfit plays it close to the vest so no one understands how the organization works or who its field agents are or how they are funded. Inquisitive agent Sophie Marx asks lots of questions and gets no answers. As more field agents are found dead she goes rogue and helps bring all the pieces of the puzzle to a satisfying conclusion.
The book is very well written, timely, and the plot is fairly plausible. The characters weren't well drawn and the pacing was quite slow at times. But David Ignatius is an accomplished writer on Washington and the region of South Asia he aptly describes in the book. I enjoyed it.
The book is very well written, timely, and the plot is fairly plausible. The characters weren't well drawn and the pacing was quite slow at times. But David Ignatius is an accomplished writer on Washington and the region of South Asia he aptly describes in the book. I enjoyed it.
July 28, 2011
As a spy novel, I thought it was good. The characters were interesting, if not as fully fleshed out as in LeCarre's best. The plot was also good with enough twists and turns to keep it interesting, and not so many plot holes that it ruined my suspension of disbelief. A standard element of spy thrillers is visiting exotic locales, and that was also done well. But for me, the best feature of the book was the way the author makes Pakistan a little more understandable. It is the clash of cultures that underlies so much of the tension between the US and Pakistan as each side constantly behaves in ways the other side considers dishonorable. If you're interested in the current relationship between the US and Pakistan, this makes it a little more understandable. This was my first reading of this author and I'll definitely read more.
March 19, 2012
This fascinating spy thriller mixes knowledge of the war in Afghanistan and the cost to the U.S. in terms of the enemies it is creating, of the advice to "follow the money" that worked before (during Watergate) and for the CIA in its tracking of al-Qaueda, and now for a lone terrorist seeking satisfaction for the senseless killing of his family. This begs the question, why only that of his family--but never mind. The author also weaves in hedge-fund voodoo and the sex interest of a young American woman with an older, more-cultured, Brit for good measure.
It deserves, nonetheless, to be widely read if only for its insight into Afghan values--revenge, hospitality and sanctuary; perhaps it will leave a sense that we are fighting a civilization that is very different but has its equivalent of the code of honor--that the enemy has values even if they are different from ours.
It deserves, nonetheless, to be widely read if only for its insight into Afghan values--revenge, hospitality and sanctuary; perhaps it will leave a sense that we are fighting a civilization that is very different but has its equivalent of the code of honor--that the enemy has values even if they are different from ours.
July 11, 2012
When you read a book by Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, you learn something. A lot of somethings. In this case, you learn about the intricate minuet that is spy-craft in the post 9/11 age, specifically as it relates to the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. If you're looking for car chases, shoot-em-ups, and 007-ooo-wow-gadgetry, look someplace else. If, on the other hand, you wonder, "why do they hate us?" and why fighting terrorism seems so futile, Ignatius will show you. "Bloodmoney" is as current as today's headlines. The story deals with an off-the-books, back-channel, rogue U.S. intelligence operation whose purpose is to buy peace. Perhaps the most compelling scenes are the nuanced conversations between a senior CIA official and the general in charge of keeping Pakistan's secrets. The wariness, lack of trust, yet mutual respect between them is amazing to watch.
December 29, 2016
I thought it was fascinating! Not what you would call "fast-paced, rock 'em and sock 'em." It's more like classic espionage. And I love that sort of thing. It gets into modern investment banking on a global scale. But not so much as to be tedious. Still you get a taste for deals zipping around the planet faster and faster. This is the driver of global economics. It's not simply the old supply and demand model from 1960 anymore. It's way more than that. It's the whole world on speed. So watch yourself!
Then read Dark Money by Jane Mayer.
Then read Dark Money by Jane Mayer.
June 27, 2011
Somebody is killing the most secretly placed agents in other countries, but how are they being found out? This is what Sophie Marx, a CIA operative must find out. As the title state, is it all about money? The author takes current political climate and wraps them into a thriller that is disturbing (and I don’t mean bad, but one that makes you think). It’s a political power play for the characters that control the operatives, but the money involved.
April 4, 2013
A secret group inside Afghanistan is funded by bank arbitrage and insider trading. This book is very pat, trying to maximize everything from our digust with Wall Street to the mysteries of our conflicts overseas. It's entertaining, when you are stuck in a long commute, but otherwise pretty forgettable.
July 4, 2011
Slightly unbelievable characters... with a slightly unrealistic and simplistic plot... though he did get South Asians quite well -- The head of the ISI is quite astutely sketched.
December 29, 2011
Wow, it took me forever to read this book. And that's not a good thing. Wannabe-LeCarre-eqsue ending. Meh.
February 5, 2013
Well written espionage novel with a world balance approach. 8 of 10 stars
November 13, 2020
Reading Bloodmoney is a veritable roller-coaster of a ride, around the world - many times over. The story is told at a clipped pace, never slowing down long enough to provide any explanations that are not truly essential to the narrative. That's what makes the story whip-smart, in my opinion.
One gets enough background from that very brief prologue, and the rest of the story is chasing the end of that serpent, trying to complete the circle. The primary premise makes for a gripping tale of deceit, double crossing, murder and revenge.
Sophie Marx is an upcoming star of the CIA, and is almost pleased to be given a chance to make her mark and prove herself. Her assignment begins when top secret CIA personnel begin getting killed all over the world, without any possible connection. This is not your usual Le Carre, nor an expose of the CIA agent's psyche. It is a story of a particular Operation that goes horribly wrong - for reasons you'll find out soon enough should have been seen as inevitable from a mile away. The tease is there, but to the G-Men it gets lost in the sleight.
Geoffrey Gertz is the ever-exuberant boss of a recently created wing of the CIA, that is so off the books even parts of the CIA don't know of its existence. But when he begins losing people, he is at a loss to explain to the powers-that-be in D.C. what's causing it, and how can he stop the bleeding.
Along the way, we meet other suitably well-sketched characters - the hedge fund manager, the Pakistani General who heads the ISI, the CIA Director who's Gertz's boss... you'd notice it is not a very long lineup. The author keeps a tight leash on the story, by not introducing characters that aren't intrinsic to the plot, and thus manages to hold on to your attention for every word and every action from these small group of actors.
All the primary characters - Sophie, Jeff, Perkins, the polite ISI Chief and the somewhat-rambunctious CIA top brass - are all etched very satisfactorily, and quite believably. For that's what one wants more than anything while reading a story that's reminiscent of the best of Bourne and Bond, rolled into one. You want to believe that something as sinister and yet as benign-looking as this can happen, in fact - most assuredly has been happening - while you've been reading this so-called story. It rings authentic. It rings chillingly spot-on. It rings ominously accurate.
The pace never lets down. The killings keep happening with clockwork efficiency. It's an inexorable force that seems to be meeting an immovable object. Of course, sooner or later something's got to give. The fact that there's no big climax, no showdown, no crackling face-off to mark the culmination of the story - makes it even more believable, and pleasing to read.
The spooks know their jobs, and they do it well. Of course, when the dust settles down, only the top brass and the lucky ones survive.
The author, David Ignatius, is a prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, and has covered the middle-east and the CIA for more than 25 years. It shows. Way up there in the pantheon of some of the best under-appreciated spy thrillers of our times.
One gets enough background from that very brief prologue, and the rest of the story is chasing the end of that serpent, trying to complete the circle. The primary premise makes for a gripping tale of deceit, double crossing, murder and revenge.
Sophie Marx is an upcoming star of the CIA, and is almost pleased to be given a chance to make her mark and prove herself. Her assignment begins when top secret CIA personnel begin getting killed all over the world, without any possible connection. This is not your usual Le Carre, nor an expose of the CIA agent's psyche. It is a story of a particular Operation that goes horribly wrong - for reasons you'll find out soon enough should have been seen as inevitable from a mile away. The tease is there, but to the G-Men it gets lost in the sleight.
Geoffrey Gertz is the ever-exuberant boss of a recently created wing of the CIA, that is so off the books even parts of the CIA don't know of its existence. But when he begins losing people, he is at a loss to explain to the powers-that-be in D.C. what's causing it, and how can he stop the bleeding.
Along the way, we meet other suitably well-sketched characters - the hedge fund manager, the Pakistani General who heads the ISI, the CIA Director who's Gertz's boss... you'd notice it is not a very long lineup. The author keeps a tight leash on the story, by not introducing characters that aren't intrinsic to the plot, and thus manages to hold on to your attention for every word and every action from these small group of actors.
All the primary characters - Sophie, Jeff, Perkins, the polite ISI Chief and the somewhat-rambunctious CIA top brass - are all etched very satisfactorily, and quite believably. For that's what one wants more than anything while reading a story that's reminiscent of the best of Bourne and Bond, rolled into one. You want to believe that something as sinister and yet as benign-looking as this can happen, in fact - most assuredly has been happening - while you've been reading this so-called story. It rings authentic. It rings chillingly spot-on. It rings ominously accurate.
The pace never lets down. The killings keep happening with clockwork efficiency. It's an inexorable force that seems to be meeting an immovable object. Of course, sooner or later something's got to give. The fact that there's no big climax, no showdown, no crackling face-off to mark the culmination of the story - makes it even more believable, and pleasing to read.
The spooks know their jobs, and they do it well. Of course, when the dust settles down, only the top brass and the lucky ones survive.
The author, David Ignatius, is a prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, and has covered the middle-east and the CIA for more than 25 years. It shows. Way up there in the pantheon of some of the best under-appreciated spy thrillers of our times.
April 8, 2019
It had been a long time since I read a novel. At the suggestion of my boyfriend who told me "You'd read more if you just picked up a novel you liked", I went and skimmed a few options at the library and settled on Bloodmoney as the one I'd start reading.
Bloodmoney is a good book, let me give a couple of my reasons why. The plot kept me interested because it was exposing new pieces and connections as you went. When you start in chapter one, you're as out of the loop as the characters that are trying to find their answers. You follow them as they learn of new information, travel to new places, and try to put everything together.
Without giving any spoilers, you meet the handful of main characters - which at first I thought the book was fast to throw new characters at the reader, but that quickly calms down as you get into the story - and learn what they learn along the way. The way in which some of these characters speak to each other, it was easy for me to stay interested every line. Maybe this is a part of the espionage/spy aspect of the book. You get the sense that each person is being very careful of how they talk to one another.
As you slowly see all the connections in this book and get the plot revealed to you little by little, it's hard to not get emotionally involved. That's when I started seeing who I sided with. But you also get this sense that you're never sure who you can side with, which keeps it interesting until the end.
Having said all that, I only have two critiques. First is I found about 3 typos in the book. While that didn't compromise the quality of the story, I feel like it's not something I should easily find myself. Secondly, and this is just my selfishness, in the way things built up in the end I had a hard time feeling like the book reached a final resolution. It felt almost rushed. As I was reading what I knew would be the lead up to the resolution, I was surprised how few pages were left.
Overall I'd recommend reading this book. It kept me interested, which is really all a good book needs to do.
Bloodmoney is a good book, let me give a couple of my reasons why. The plot kept me interested because it was exposing new pieces and connections as you went. When you start in chapter one, you're as out of the loop as the characters that are trying to find their answers. You follow them as they learn of new information, travel to new places, and try to put everything together.
Without giving any spoilers, you meet the handful of main characters - which at first I thought the book was fast to throw new characters at the reader, but that quickly calms down as you get into the story - and learn what they learn along the way. The way in which some of these characters speak to each other, it was easy for me to stay interested every line. Maybe this is a part of the espionage/spy aspect of the book. You get the sense that each person is being very careful of how they talk to one another.
As you slowly see all the connections in this book and get the plot revealed to you little by little, it's hard to not get emotionally involved. That's when I started seeing who I sided with. But you also get this sense that you're never sure who you can side with, which keeps it interesting until the end.
Having said all that, I only have two critiques. First is I found about 3 typos in the book. While that didn't compromise the quality of the story, I feel like it's not something I should easily find myself. Secondly, and this is just my selfishness, in the way things built up in the end I had a hard time feeling like the book reached a final resolution. It felt almost rushed. As I was reading what I knew would be the lead up to the resolution, I was surprised how few pages were left.
Overall I'd recommend reading this book. It kept me interested, which is really all a good book needs to do.
March 22, 2020
I'm a big fan of David Liss's historical fiction, and this lived up to my expectations. It's told from two alternating points of view, which is sometimes hard to follow as they are not happening concurrently. Overall, I think it works well to set up the complicated plot (typical of Liss's books!) that would have seemed extremely far fetched for either character to fully understand. [return][return]I found Ethan to be the more believable of the two leads - Joan being so very bold that she seemed more a sop to giving modern audiences a strong female character than a believable woman of that era. But both have such witty dialogue that I forgive them their character flaws. [return][return]The ending does not quite sit well with me, but I am not sure why. Maybe its abruptness? I would have preferred to see a little more of what happens next. I like a bit of "happily ever after" for characters I've grown to like. [return][return]If you've enjoyed any of his previous books, or if you're interested in early American history (oh it's strange to think of western Pennsylvania as "the frontier"!) I'd definitely recommend this book.
January 17, 2018
This is the first spy novel i've read in a very long time, perhaps ever & it was good. The CIA have got a spin off organisation that hardly anyone in the govt knows about, yet somehow operatives are being killed in the field Enter Sophie Marx, tough yet sexy, totally cliched but still likeable, to save the day. We know who is behind the killings from the beginning & why but we are not privy to the machinations of Jeffrey Gertz, someone whose perspective would've been interesting.
It's interesting to read about the on-going war that Pakistan is now involved in, though the author does have an American bias which can be hard to stomach at times. There are also a few scenes where the conversation turned my stomach, the conversations between Sophie & Mohammed, the Pakistani chief particularly.
There is not enough closure, we are left wondering what the game actually is & whose playing, but it's a satisfactory ending with room for a sequel.
It's interesting to read about the on-going war that Pakistan is now involved in, though the author does have an American bias which can be hard to stomach at times. There are also a few scenes where the conversation turned my stomach, the conversations between Sophie & Mohammed, the Pakistani chief particularly.
There is not enough closure, we are left wondering what the game actually is & whose playing, but it's a satisfactory ending with room for a sequel.
April 26, 2020
This thriller was a little schizophrenic. It started out well, faded about a third of the way through, got very interesting and tense at the two thirds point and then ended somewhat abruptly. I thought that it might be the beginning of a series (which often requires authors to take detours to explain characters for future stories), but as far as I can see, this is a standalone novel.
With all of that in mind, I would say that this was a good, but not great thriller. I almost wish that it had turned into a series (and perhaps it is and I haven't found the sequel yet). The characters that were left standing at the end were unique and interesting and I could easily see a path to character growth and development that would have been the foundation for a really interesting series.
It's well worth the few hours that it takes to read, but I would not put it on the top of my list of great thrillers.
With all of that in mind, I would say that this was a good, but not great thriller. I almost wish that it had turned into a series (and perhaps it is and I haven't found the sequel yet). The characters that were left standing at the end were unique and interesting and I could easily see a path to character growth and development that would have been the foundation for a really interesting series.
It's well worth the few hours that it takes to read, but I would not put it on the top of my list of great thrillers.
September 21, 2017
This novel delivers...
I have been reading Ignatius’ works in order of their release. I almost fell out of love earlier, but this wonderfully complex shadow box of circles within circles is a fascinating spy yarn.
It’s a heady ride, with a believable trip through the freespending myth of intelligence that many of us want to believe. Concomitantly, it reveals the institutional CIA that we have come to know as reality. It also gets very up close on several characters, and there was not a moment in the course of reading this that I ever had a sense of how it would end.
This book delivers from beginning to end, and I may have to slow my reading to enable me to find other works on such a level. It’s really that good.
I have been reading Ignatius’ works in order of their release. I almost fell out of love earlier, but this wonderfully complex shadow box of circles within circles is a fascinating spy yarn.
It’s a heady ride, with a believable trip through the freespending myth of intelligence that many of us want to believe. Concomitantly, it reveals the institutional CIA that we have come to know as reality. It also gets very up close on several characters, and there was not a moment in the course of reading this that I ever had a sense of how it would end.
This book delivers from beginning to end, and I may have to slow my reading to enable me to find other works on such a level. It’s really that good.
March 1, 2021
A sensitive look at the intrigues in Pakistan
I've been a reader of David Ignatius as columns for several years, and more recently I've attended some of his interviews at The Washington Post, so I looked forward to reading his fiction. True to my expectations, Ignatius infuses his story with the same keen understanding of security issues that make his expository columns so interesting and so readable. He's a great writer, and between the efforts of his editors and of his own, he's produced a well written and intriguing story. I look forward to reading more fiction by this great author.
I've been a reader of David Ignatius as columns for several years, and more recently I've attended some of his interviews at The Washington Post, so I looked forward to reading his fiction. True to my expectations, Ignatius infuses his story with the same keen understanding of security issues that make his expository columns so interesting and so readable. He's a great writer, and between the efforts of his editors and of his own, he's produced a well written and intriguing story. I look forward to reading more fiction by this great author.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews