What do you think?
Rate this book
Will Flemyng #1
The Madness of July
A sophisticated spy thriller, set in the dangerous maze of the Cold War, from political insider James Naughtie
Will Flemyng was a spy who turned to politics and is rising to the top in the 1970s. But when a bizarre death, on one hot summer day in London, starts to unravel some of the most sensitive secrets of his government, he's drawn back into the shadows of the Cold War and begins to dance with danger once more. Buffeted by political forces and the powerful women around him, and caught in interlocking mysteries he must disentangle—including a potentially lethal family secret—Flemyng faces his vulnerability and learns, through betrayal and tragedy, more truth about his world than he has ever known.
Will Flemyng was a spy who turned to politics and is rising to the top in the 1970s. But when a bizarre death, on one hot summer day in London, starts to unravel some of the most sensitive secrets of his government, he's drawn back into the shadows of the Cold War and begins to dance with danger once more. Buffeted by political forces and the powerful women around him, and caught in interlocking mysteries he must disentangle—including a potentially lethal family secret—Flemyng faces his vulnerability and learns, through betrayal and tragedy, more truth about his world than he has ever known.
400 pages, Paperback
First published February 27, 2014
53 people are currently reading
300 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
August 3, 2025
Romanı, adı gibi cinnet geçirtecek sıcaklarda okumaya başladığımdan mıdır nedir, 60. sayfasında neredeyse bırakacaktım. Gereğinden fazla karakterin tanıtımına ayrılan bu sayfaları geçtikten sonra ancak hikayenin içine girebildim. ( 17 İngiliz, 8 Amerikalı karakter var romanda) Temmuz ayının 6 gününde geçen olay örgüsü hem casusluk hem de ailevi ilişkiler yönünden iki taraflı ilerlerken, bir taraftan da karakterlerin bolluğu yüzünden dikkatli bir okuma istiyor.
Konusuna gelirsek, Soğuk Savaş yıllarının iki müttefiki İngiltere ve ABD arasındaki bilgi paylaşımı 1970'li yıllarda ara sıra birbirlerini aldatmaya evrilirken, ABD'li bir casusun Avam Kamarası 'nın dolabında bulunan cesedi iki taraf arasında gerginliğe sebep oluyor. Üç kitaptan oluşan Will Flemyng serisinin bu ilk macerasında eski ajan ve şimdi bakanlıkta siyaset yapan Will Flemyng eski günlere geri dönerek hem cinayeti çözmeye hem de iki müttefiki yeniden barıştırmaya soyunuyor. Suyun diğer tarafında yaşayan ve ABD için çalışan küçük kardeşi de belli sınırlar içinde ona yardıma geliyor. Diğer kitaplar henüz dilimize çevrilmemiş ne yazık ki.
Roman, John Le Carr ile Andrew Marr tarzının karşımı gibi, ancak bazı bölümlere gerek var mıydı diye düşünmedim değil! Yine de keyif aldım ve casusluk romanları okumayı özlediğimi fark ettim. Seda Hauser de iyi bir iş çıkarmış çeviride doğrusu.
Yazar deneyimli bir gazeteci, tv ve radyo programcısı, yapımcı ve sunucu. Yıllarca ABD başkanlık seçimleri ve İngiltere'deki seçimleri takip edip haber yapmış. Kurumların işleyişi, siyaset ve diplomasi alanındaki birikimini romanında konuşturmuş resmen. Mizahı seven ve bilerek gaflar yapıp kahkahasını öksürüklerinin ardına gizlediği yönünü ele veren bir radyo programını da dinledim Naughtie' nin, diline düşenin işi zormuş:)))
Konusuna gelirsek, Soğuk Savaş yıllarının iki müttefiki İngiltere ve ABD arasındaki bilgi paylaşımı 1970'li yıllarda ara sıra birbirlerini aldatmaya evrilirken, ABD'li bir casusun Avam Kamarası 'nın dolabında bulunan cesedi iki taraf arasında gerginliğe sebep oluyor. Üç kitaptan oluşan Will Flemyng serisinin bu ilk macerasında eski ajan ve şimdi bakanlıkta siyaset yapan Will Flemyng eski günlere geri dönerek hem cinayeti çözmeye hem de iki müttefiki yeniden barıştırmaya soyunuyor. Suyun diğer tarafında yaşayan ve ABD için çalışan küçük kardeşi de belli sınırlar içinde ona yardıma geliyor. Diğer kitaplar henüz dilimize çevrilmemiş ne yazık ki.
Roman, John Le Carr ile Andrew Marr tarzının karşımı gibi, ancak bazı bölümlere gerek var mıydı diye düşünmedim değil! Yine de keyif aldım ve casusluk romanları okumayı özlediğimi fark ettim. Seda Hauser de iyi bir iş çıkarmış çeviride doğrusu.
Yazar deneyimli bir gazeteci, tv ve radyo programcısı, yapımcı ve sunucu. Yıllarca ABD başkanlık seçimleri ve İngiltere'deki seçimleri takip edip haber yapmış. Kurumların işleyişi, siyaset ve diplomasi alanındaki birikimini romanında konuşturmuş resmen. Mizahı seven ve bilerek gaflar yapıp kahkahasını öksürüklerinin ardına gizlediği yönünü ele veren bir radyo programını da dinledim Naughtie' nin, diline düşenin işi zormuş:)))
November 4, 2014
This book (like Eliot Pattison's Tibet-based novels) required me to construct a chart to track people. It's not that the characters in this political novel/espionage novel are so numerous; it's that all of them play their cards very close to their chests. Most of the characters are either junior ministers in the British government in the early 1970s, some with intelligence connections, or American espionage agents. They are brought together (at least on the surface) by the discovery of a dead body in a storage chamber in the House of Commons. The body is that of an American, most likely an intelligence agent engaged in his own personal crusade, Death is the product of a massive injection of drugs. So who is he and what was be about?
The Special Branch tidies things up quickly, moving the body to its hotel room. But the discovery has complicated other, even more fraught doings. Central to our understanding are a pair of brothers (two of three), one a former intelligence agent and now a junior minister (Will Flemyng) and one an American agent (Abel Grauber), their mother having been an American with a past rooted in Bletchley Park and British signals intelligence during World War II. Both know the dead American. One, the minister, is aware of two major complications for the British government: the rumored belief that the soon-to-be announced ambassador to the United States comes from a pool of ministers that may be tainted by some kind of past indiscretion. The fact that the dead American has material tracking the travel history of those in the pool of candidates in his possession is alarming, as is Flemyng's discovery of an unsigned letter in a photocopying machine that hints at some kind of madness and ill will on the part of a governmental minister. The letter is an odd combination of strong threat and veiled plea, but by whom and to whom?
To complicate things for the brothers, their eldest brother, the scot laird in the family, has encountered an extensive correspondence between the mother of the three men and her one-time lover. The letters overlap her wartime intelligence involvement. Are the brothers really brothers? What emotional sense do they make of their mother's duplicity, especially while engaged in unraveling governmental duplicity.
Underlying all of this is the growing recognition that the British and Americans are engaged in a struggle over American access to Britain's prize German agent--a highly placed official who the Americans want to use to smoke out a double agent in the US ranks. The British asset is pure gold, and the Americans want to leak false information through him to smoke out the turncoat. The problem, aside from the German official's wish to remain anonymous, is that it is the British who have turned the American agents.
The novel's various pieces are somehow connected, but no single person knows how, or no person will say. Flemyng, his brother, Abel, Flemyng's secretary, and Flemyng's trusted co-worker (and boss, in the long run) seek answers without knowing what questions to ask or in what order. The relationships of the various governmental fast climbers are both close and distant, given the inevitable clashes of ambition. Who is hunting whom? Who wants what? How lethal, to career or life, will the process of acquiring knowledge, or interfering with it, become?
This novel is more of a political novel than a thriller, though it deals consistently with intelligence matters. No one leaps across rooftops with enemies in pursuit or exchanges shots in the night. ANd yet there are deaths. Its thrills are cerebral rather than spasms of excitement. And yet there is a constant sense of menace, some of which is conveyed by the last lines of the first several chapters, though in subdued ways. I liked it a great deal, but I don't know what I'd compare it to in the way of other novels. Maybe W. T. Tyler ("The Man Who Lost the War" or "The Ants of God.")
The Special Branch tidies things up quickly, moving the body to its hotel room. But the discovery has complicated other, even more fraught doings. Central to our understanding are a pair of brothers (two of three), one a former intelligence agent and now a junior minister (Will Flemyng) and one an American agent (Abel Grauber), their mother having been an American with a past rooted in Bletchley Park and British signals intelligence during World War II. Both know the dead American. One, the minister, is aware of two major complications for the British government: the rumored belief that the soon-to-be announced ambassador to the United States comes from a pool of ministers that may be tainted by some kind of past indiscretion. The fact that the dead American has material tracking the travel history of those in the pool of candidates in his possession is alarming, as is Flemyng's discovery of an unsigned letter in a photocopying machine that hints at some kind of madness and ill will on the part of a governmental minister. The letter is an odd combination of strong threat and veiled plea, but by whom and to whom?
To complicate things for the brothers, their eldest brother, the scot laird in the family, has encountered an extensive correspondence between the mother of the three men and her one-time lover. The letters overlap her wartime intelligence involvement. Are the brothers really brothers? What emotional sense do they make of their mother's duplicity, especially while engaged in unraveling governmental duplicity.
Underlying all of this is the growing recognition that the British and Americans are engaged in a struggle over American access to Britain's prize German agent--a highly placed official who the Americans want to use to smoke out a double agent in the US ranks. The British asset is pure gold, and the Americans want to leak false information through him to smoke out the turncoat. The problem, aside from the German official's wish to remain anonymous, is that it is the British who have turned the American agents.
The novel's various pieces are somehow connected, but no single person knows how, or no person will say. Flemyng, his brother, Abel, Flemyng's secretary, and Flemyng's trusted co-worker (and boss, in the long run) seek answers without knowing what questions to ask or in what order. The relationships of the various governmental fast climbers are both close and distant, given the inevitable clashes of ambition. Who is hunting whom? Who wants what? How lethal, to career or life, will the process of acquiring knowledge, or interfering with it, become?
This novel is more of a political novel than a thriller, though it deals consistently with intelligence matters. No one leaps across rooftops with enemies in pursuit or exchanges shots in the night. ANd yet there are deaths. Its thrills are cerebral rather than spasms of excitement. And yet there is a constant sense of menace, some of which is conveyed by the last lines of the first several chapters, though in subdued ways. I liked it a great deal, but I don't know what I'd compare it to in the way of other novels. Maybe W. T. Tyler ("The Man Who Lost the War" or "The Ants of God.")
March 30, 2014
This is James Naughtie's first novel. Being a fan of his BBC program, I eagerly bought his book and looked forward to reading it. "The Madness of July" is a political thriller, a genre I have read and enjoyed in the past. But right from the beginning, I felt like I was dropped into the middle of a story or a series where I haven't read the first book. There was no real background. Without the back story, it's hard to feel a connection to the characters or understand their reactions to one another vis-a-vis their own connections. It made things a bit confusing, especially in the beginning.
In a mystery thriller, of course one doesn't want to be told everything at once, but I felt like I was repeatedly dropped. I usually don't try and figure anything out before the author reveals it to me; I let the author take me there at his or her own pace, carrying me along. But there were many times I felt the author just plain forgot about me, the reader. I did like, though, that at the end, I realized that I missed quite a few things along the way. Many ah-ha points.
These issues left me with only two stars and that was only because his description of Altnabuie and Scotland were touching and invoked a real sense of place. Maybe it was just me--I'm not in politics, nor am I English or Scottish, so maybe I just didn't get it. The 70's political jargon was at times difficult to understand.
But at the end, when he tied everything up, I raised my opinion to three stars. It was a nicely twisted plot. I just wished the development of his characters matched the level of intrigue. And a little more depth to the women, please.
In a mystery thriller, of course one doesn't want to be told everything at once, but I felt like I was repeatedly dropped. I usually don't try and figure anything out before the author reveals it to me; I let the author take me there at his or her own pace, carrying me along. But there were many times I felt the author just plain forgot about me, the reader. I did like, though, that at the end, I realized that I missed quite a few things along the way. Many ah-ha points.
These issues left me with only two stars and that was only because his description of Altnabuie and Scotland were touching and invoked a real sense of place. Maybe it was just me--I'm not in politics, nor am I English or Scottish, so maybe I just didn't get it. The 70's political jargon was at times difficult to understand.
But at the end, when he tied everything up, I raised my opinion to three stars. It was a nicely twisted plot. I just wished the development of his characters matched the level of intrigue. And a little more depth to the women, please.
January 14, 2015
Incredibly boring. This book’s plot had potential to be very poignant in this day and age. But its main problem is that it discusses what has happened, rather than why it has happened. I’d like to sum up the story of this book with this description. One man goes for a walk. Then another person goes for a walk. Then some brother find out their mother had an affair. Followed by one of them goeing for a walk. Then one of them goes to a church.
July 8, 2018
A spy thriller which i found a bit difficult to follow - although maybe just me! Not sure which side everybody was on! But had to finish it.
I have read another James Naughtie - Paris Spring and found that more enjoyable.
I have read another James Naughtie - Paris Spring and found that more enjoyable.
November 27, 2015
1970s London is in the grip of a heat wave, but for the government ministers the soaring temperature is the least of their worries. A body has been found in a supply cupboard, and not just any body, but that of an American spy who was in possession of some very dangerous information. Instead of winding down for the summer recess Westminster finds itself on the cusp of a political crisis.
Will Flemyng, a foreign office minister with a secretive past, is asked to resurrect his old skills and discover why the man was in London, who he spoke to and what he knew. As the case develops the repercussions are felt around the world, from New York to the remote Scottish highlands, dredging up long forgotten secrets and reopening old wounds. When the lines between professional and personal begin to blur, Will's family, friends and co-workers are all drawn into the insanity.
This is a highly sophisticated spy novel in which the intricacies of a government in turmoil are painted in exquisite detail. Set in a claustrophobically sweltering July, every page is tense and filled with secrets allowing the characters play their parts like cogs in a well-oiled machine, keeping up appearances while slowly cracking under the strain. Naughtie lifts the curtain on a world normally kept hidden from view, a world where pride, brotherly bonds and a love of the game collide.
Will Flemyng, a foreign office minister with a secretive past, is asked to resurrect his old skills and discover why the man was in London, who he spoke to and what he knew. As the case develops the repercussions are felt around the world, from New York to the remote Scottish highlands, dredging up long forgotten secrets and reopening old wounds. When the lines between professional and personal begin to blur, Will's family, friends and co-workers are all drawn into the insanity.
This is a highly sophisticated spy novel in which the intricacies of a government in turmoil are painted in exquisite detail. Set in a claustrophobically sweltering July, every page is tense and filled with secrets allowing the characters play their parts like cogs in a well-oiled machine, keeping up appearances while slowly cracking under the strain. Naughtie lifts the curtain on a world normally kept hidden from view, a world where pride, brotherly bonds and a love of the game collide.
January 4, 2018
After being suckered by a cover quote for another respected BBC journalist's novel (Frank Gardner's worthless Crisis), I fell for another here.
"Echoes of Le Carre and Buchan" say the Sunday Times. Maybe. Echoes that have passed through a room where all originality, intrigue, levity, depth, sophistication and humour have been washed out, leaving only prose that takes itself so seriously that it is utterly joyless.
I know cover quotes are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but really....
"Echoes of Le Carre and Buchan" say the Sunday Times. Maybe. Echoes that have passed through a room where all originality, intrigue, levity, depth, sophistication and humour have been washed out, leaving only prose that takes itself so seriously that it is utterly joyless.
I know cover quotes are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but really....
March 5, 2015
I trudged through 128 pages wishing that the book would catch my interest. It didn't so I put it down and will mark it as DNF. Not all books are for everyone, and this one just didn't do it for me. The story was slowly starting to develop, but by that far into the book it should have been well on the way. The cover boasts that readers will be pulled in on the first page, and that never happened for me. :(
January 10, 2014
Was sent this book to review and isn't usually the type of book I read. a political thriller with lots of twists and turns, incorporating a personal journey of brothers finding out about their mother. I enjoyed the book, but found I had to concentrate to keep up with the many different characters involved. Having said that the book was one I couldn't put down!
March 18, 2014
A hard book to get into, not really the kind of book I normally read so it was good to try something different. Sometimes difficult to follow what was going on and I lost the plot a few times, however, I did pick it up again in places. I found this book was written well but the storyline just seemed to be lacking something for my liking - perhaps a little too slow paced for me.
February 14, 2015
Had to put it down because it kept putting me to sleep.
Was unable to follow any of it and unwilling to put in
the effort required to do so. The best thing about it was
the list of characters at the beginning... A big help but
not enough.
Was unable to follow any of it and unwilling to put in
the effort required to do so. The best thing about it was
the list of characters at the beginning... A big help but
not enough.
December 19, 2015
Knowing how smart James Naughtie is in his journalism, political writings, radio presentations, notably “Today”, and other shows, for instance, “Book Club”, where he chairs discussions with authors, it is puzzling why this first novel is so weak. Maybe he is too enthusiastic a student of fiction because “The Madness of July” seems to be over-influenced by other writers and genres; for instance, it is easy to see how much he gets from John Le Carré, one of the guests on “Book Club”. The story is of a rising government minister who is drawn back into his previous career as a spy. Whatever the explanation, too many leading characters are introduced too quickly and credited with too many expressions of deep emotion, particularly because we have barely been introduced to them. The style is over-portentous, as if Naughtie is straining for significance. In just a few pages we have: “cross-currents flowed beyond his reach”; “darkness beyond”; “the earth turned on its axis”; “planets moved through their ethereal orbits”; “mystery and precision”; “there was hope, still”; “she was entering the locked room where he kept his secrets”; “in three days at most the damn would break”; “the fire was burning deep within his own government. The flames might consume them all. Something evil.”
That this is a confused mix of political novel, spy story and family drama – all at their most formulaic -- makes the language and over-heated plotting seem even more over-blown and these British ministers and top mandarins even more ridiculous. Sean Barrett is not the best choice of reader because his very solemn and down-beat style adds to the portentousness. Characters aside, Naughtie catches quite well the atmosphere of Westminster politics in a hot July in the 1970s London as Parliament prepares to break up for the summer. And the manoeuvring of ministers and civil servants is effectively conveyed – knowing how thoughtful Naughtie is in his other political commentary, I can only assume that he deeply disapproves of this shallow slice of British society.
As it is, the novel falls between different genres: political novel, though, unfortunately, not a novel of political ideas which, one would think, John Naughtie could excel at; spy novel but, here, the convolutions are so badly managed that I started not to care what was at stake; and family novel, where, in spite of the potential for connecting mystery and close relations any semblance of depth in the characters is sacrificed to the over-busy plotting. I do hope that James Naughtie doesn’t bring back his hero in a second novel but, instead, sorts out what kind of novel he really wants to write. I also hope his publisher shows more discrimination in quoting from critics and other authors, some of whom surely couldn’t have read the book!
That this is a confused mix of political novel, spy story and family drama – all at their most formulaic -- makes the language and over-heated plotting seem even more over-blown and these British ministers and top mandarins even more ridiculous. Sean Barrett is not the best choice of reader because his very solemn and down-beat style adds to the portentousness. Characters aside, Naughtie catches quite well the atmosphere of Westminster politics in a hot July in the 1970s London as Parliament prepares to break up for the summer. And the manoeuvring of ministers and civil servants is effectively conveyed – knowing how thoughtful Naughtie is in his other political commentary, I can only assume that he deeply disapproves of this shallow slice of British society.
As it is, the novel falls between different genres: political novel, though, unfortunately, not a novel of political ideas which, one would think, John Naughtie could excel at; spy novel but, here, the convolutions are so badly managed that I started not to care what was at stake; and family novel, where, in spite of the potential for connecting mystery and close relations any semblance of depth in the characters is sacrificed to the over-busy plotting. I do hope that James Naughtie doesn’t bring back his hero in a second novel but, instead, sorts out what kind of novel he really wants to write. I also hope his publisher shows more discrimination in quoting from critics and other authors, some of whom surely couldn’t have read the book!
January 19, 2016
Oh dear! Readers of my reviews will be aware that I am not afraid of giving up on a book when I feel that the effort of reading to the end is unlikely to bring any respite from the tedium. I confess that I wanted to give up on several occasions while reading this, but I made myself push through to the final page because: 1) I respect James Naughtie; 2) I don't like wasting money; 3) I am sometimes naive enough to hope things will change. I was very disappointed.
On the plus side the author can write fantastic prose. If you want a detailed description of Scotland or of people interacting in detail (though saying virtually nothing), Naughtie is your man!
However, what the author failed to do in this book is tell a story in a way that interested me. I suspect that the author understood the plot in his head. What he failed to do was convey the conflicts and resolutions to the reader with sufficient clarity. The characters were keeping secrets and the author was keeping too many secrets from us. The problem was that he gave us so few clues, or gave us clues without enough clear signposts as to what was happening. For most of the time I didn't really know what was going on. Then, at around 85% of the way through, a glimmer of hope appeared. However, by the time I had reached the end, I knew that something had happened (someone was murdered and someone committed suicide), but I honestly wouldn't be able to tell you why.
And the fact that the most of the plot revolved around pompous and suppressed men didn't make it particularly riveting either. I found it difficult to care about the characters.
What was explicit in the author's mind was only implicit in the text. It wasn't enough to write intelligent descriptive prose describing surroundings. It wasn't a novel in search of a story, but rather a novel struggling to find a clear and compelling story.
On the plus side the author can write fantastic prose. If you want a detailed description of Scotland or of people interacting in detail (though saying virtually nothing), Naughtie is your man!
However, what the author failed to do in this book is tell a story in a way that interested me. I suspect that the author understood the plot in his head. What he failed to do was convey the conflicts and resolutions to the reader with sufficient clarity. The characters were keeping secrets and the author was keeping too many secrets from us. The problem was that he gave us so few clues, or gave us clues without enough clear signposts as to what was happening. For most of the time I didn't really know what was going on. Then, at around 85% of the way through, a glimmer of hope appeared. However, by the time I had reached the end, I knew that something had happened (someone was murdered and someone committed suicide), but I honestly wouldn't be able to tell you why.
And the fact that the most of the plot revolved around pompous and suppressed men didn't make it particularly riveting either. I found it difficult to care about the characters.
What was explicit in the author's mind was only implicit in the text. It wasn't enough to write intelligent descriptive prose describing surroundings. It wasn't a novel in search of a story, but rather a novel struggling to find a clear and compelling story.
March 8, 2014
I received this book as a review copy from Goodreads , as a regular listener to radio 4s Today programme and BookClub I was expecting a lot from James Naughtie and in his own unique style he certainly delivered. A complex novel billed as a thriller in the blurb, but so much more.
Will Flemyng Foreign office minister, former spook and fixer of all things , offers Naughtie the vehicle to delve into political espionage and family history in a complex and twisting journey, which means you need to think to appreciate this book.
I was expecting it to be more of the time and the politics of 1976 but it isn't , I'm not even sure what party was in power in the book and you are led to see that it is not those we see as in power who are actually leading the country.
The book probably requires at least a minimum understanding of Westminster, but at least it isn't dumbed down to explain everything for all. Dialogue features heavily and you need to hear those voices as individuals clearly to follow some parts of the book, it would be easier set currently when all of the voices would be differentg, plenty of Estuary speak or even female voices to differentiate from the public school boy voice which adds confusion to remembering who is who! The Storylline in Scotland is intriguing and more easily followed, but the whole project leaves several lines unfinished so are we to expect more books in this series?
The only niggle was the lack of depth to the few women characters, but was that due to the 1970s setting?
Thoroughly enjoyed this book and would recommend it to book groups, look forward to the Radio4 book club discussion around this one!
Will Flemyng Foreign office minister, former spook and fixer of all things , offers Naughtie the vehicle to delve into political espionage and family history in a complex and twisting journey, which means you need to think to appreciate this book.
I was expecting it to be more of the time and the politics of 1976 but it isn't , I'm not even sure what party was in power in the book and you are led to see that it is not those we see as in power who are actually leading the country.
The book probably requires at least a minimum understanding of Westminster, but at least it isn't dumbed down to explain everything for all. Dialogue features heavily and you need to hear those voices as individuals clearly to follow some parts of the book, it would be easier set currently when all of the voices would be differentg, plenty of Estuary speak or even female voices to differentiate from the public school boy voice which adds confusion to remembering who is who! The Storylline in Scotland is intriguing and more easily followed, but the whole project leaves several lines unfinished so are we to expect more books in this series?
The only niggle was the lack of depth to the few women characters, but was that due to the 1970s setting?
Thoroughly enjoyed this book and would recommend it to book groups, look forward to the Radio4 book club discussion around this one!
February 18, 2014
Reviewed for www.lovereading.co.uk
http://www.lovereading.co.uk/book/104...
I was not aware of James Naughtie as a journalist, and although I read crime / thriller fiction its not one of my go to genre's. That said this book has a certain flow to it that works. Set over the course of one hot summer weekend in the 70's in Westminster, Washington and Scottish Highlands in the political and espionage world. There are multiple characters which are hard to keep track of, and its a very "wordy" book. I enjoyed being thrown back to my childhood of the 70's in a world before mobile phones, internet access and CCTV. It was easy to not read the book, but I read the final 175 pages in one sitting and it made all the difference to my enjoyment. If you can spend the time reading it in one or two sittings you will benefit from it. I found a few of the characters were left with loose ends, I am not sure that the female characters were portrayed or explored to their potential. On the flip side Will Flemyng was very well discussed and I was able to picture him easily. Overall an enjoyable debut novel
http://www.lovereading.co.uk/book/104...
I was not aware of James Naughtie as a journalist, and although I read crime / thriller fiction its not one of my go to genre's. That said this book has a certain flow to it that works. Set over the course of one hot summer weekend in the 70's in Westminster, Washington and Scottish Highlands in the political and espionage world. There are multiple characters which are hard to keep track of, and its a very "wordy" book. I enjoyed being thrown back to my childhood of the 70's in a world before mobile phones, internet access and CCTV. It was easy to not read the book, but I read the final 175 pages in one sitting and it made all the difference to my enjoyment. If you can spend the time reading it in one or two sittings you will benefit from it. I found a few of the characters were left with loose ends, I am not sure that the female characters were portrayed or explored to their potential. On the flip side Will Flemyng was very well discussed and I was able to picture him easily. Overall an enjoyable debut novel
March 17, 2016
4.5 stars really
When I began reading The Madness of July I was immediately drawn into the story. I used many markers as I read it because it has such a complicated plot. It’s a political thriller set in London in the mid 1970s one sweltering July as Will Flemyng the foreign office minister and former spy finds himself drawn back into the world of espionage, a world of deception, manipulation and diplomacy. It’s the Cold War period and Will discovers politics can be just as dangerous as espionage.
If you like a quick easy read, then The Madness of July is not the book for you. It, however, like me, you like a book that makes you think, that keeps you on your toes as you read, that both puzzles and entertains you, then you’ll probably enjoy it as much as I did.
For my full review see http://www.booksplease.org/2016/03/17...
When I began reading The Madness of July I was immediately drawn into the story. I used many markers as I read it because it has such a complicated plot. It’s a political thriller set in London in the mid 1970s one sweltering July as Will Flemyng the foreign office minister and former spy finds himself drawn back into the world of espionage, a world of deception, manipulation and diplomacy. It’s the Cold War period and Will discovers politics can be just as dangerous as espionage.
If you like a quick easy read, then The Madness of July is not the book for you. It, however, like me, you like a book that makes you think, that keeps you on your toes as you read, that both puzzles and entertains you, then you’ll probably enjoy it as much as I did.
For my full review see http://www.booksplease.org/2016/03/17...
couldnt-even-finish
March 12, 2014I am a big fan of Jim Naughtie as a journalist, but really really struggled to read this book. I am under 100 pages in and am going to have to call it a day. It's not bad at all, I suspect it's probably very good, but it is so dense I can't find a way in. There are a lot of characters, there's a lot of things going on, and I'm not following any of it. Loyalty to Jim the journalist far outweighs an uneasiness in Jim the novelist, so I am not giving this book a star rating - I couldn't do so fairly.
October 7, 2014
Remind me never to buy any book that is
A recommended by the luscious Kate Mosse
B compared by half of its reviewers to john le Carre.
I'm a big fan of mr Naughtie as a journalist, book club host and general good chap but tuis is a great disappointment. All fan and no dance. Vague confusing and disappointing.
A recommended by the luscious Kate Mosse
B compared by half of its reviewers to john le Carre.
I'm a big fan of mr Naughtie as a journalist, book club host and general good chap but tuis is a great disappointment. All fan and no dance. Vague confusing and disappointing.
June 29, 2015
Thank god he had the chart of players in the beginning. That should have been a warning to me. It was also hard for me to remember this was the 70s without a few more cultural references. I found that the story took a long tim in starting and the descriptions in Scotland were some of the better parts of the book.
October 22, 2014
I found this book to be a really difficult read, hard to identify characters, very hard to follow any sort of plot and difficulties with the florid language used. Disappointing really as the blurb described it as Le Carre like!
January 3, 2015
I ploughed through this - very slow, thick like treacle and pretty unbelievable. The wonderful brothers on their fabulous estate somewhere in Scotland was really stretching it. I'm still not sure how I managed to get to the end of this turgid tale !!!
March 9, 2015
The Madness of July showed such promise - unfortunately, I couldn't get on with this book. The entire plot is muddy, mixed in with numerous characters that get introduced all the time, with no strong plot line so the story just turns into a bit of a mess.
June 1, 2017
Thought a British spy thriller would be the perfect companion while nursing back to health from bad cold. Wrong. The narrative seemed to assume that I knew more of these people than I did from the author at the outset and after 65 pages of searching for a reason to care I abandoned the effort.
January 24, 2015
confusing book (the backstory); seemed to drag what seemed like forever
September 20, 2016
A great cure for insomnia. Worst espionage novel I've ever read.
May 15, 2020
I enjoyed this book immensely, especially the scenes of the protagonists at their ancestral home in Scotland.
I sort of think that the author's interplay of characters and plotlines between the United States and the UK represents his own experience having worked as a journalist for high quality newspapers in the USA and the UK (The Washington Post and The Guardian) and, moreover, having been educated in the UK at Aberdeen and in the USA at Syracuse University.
The majority of the action takes place in England (London) and in Scotland; just a little bit in the USA. All of that reveals, I think, Mr. Naughtie's UK heritage and familiarity, which is great, because those beautiful descriptions of Scotland, especially, left me feeling peaceful and calm, and away from all the "dynamism" that we get caught up in New York.
The other reason I appreciated this thriller was because Mr. Naughtie reveals the enormous benefits to a foreign intelligence service of having just one highly placed source providing information about a hostile government. What I don't appreciate is his characterization, his foundation of the plot, of conflict between us steadfast allies in this manner.
But look, I don't know anything and cannot be sure of anything, even about my own self anymore. To be quite honest, I bought this book six years ago, based most likely on a WSJ recommendation, but if anything, I am coming more and more to the realization that I read at my own risk, even with the WSJ involved.
I cannot count on anything anymore. "...The time falls away, in these small hours, these little wonders, these twists and turns of fate..." as the Rob Thomas song goes.
Maybe that is a good thing. Philip Phillips sings, "...I love you long after you're gone, gone, gone."
But my takeaway on "The Madness of July" is that while it touched a nerve, it ended well for both sides, the "madness" having been resolved at the end. That is what I look forward to for myself.
I sort of think that the author's interplay of characters and plotlines between the United States and the UK represents his own experience having worked as a journalist for high quality newspapers in the USA and the UK (The Washington Post and The Guardian) and, moreover, having been educated in the UK at Aberdeen and in the USA at Syracuse University.
The majority of the action takes place in England (London) and in Scotland; just a little bit in the USA. All of that reveals, I think, Mr. Naughtie's UK heritage and familiarity, which is great, because those beautiful descriptions of Scotland, especially, left me feeling peaceful and calm, and away from all the "dynamism" that we get caught up in New York.
The other reason I appreciated this thriller was because Mr. Naughtie reveals the enormous benefits to a foreign intelligence service of having just one highly placed source providing information about a hostile government. What I don't appreciate is his characterization, his foundation of the plot, of conflict between us steadfast allies in this manner.
But look, I don't know anything and cannot be sure of anything, even about my own self anymore. To be quite honest, I bought this book six years ago, based most likely on a WSJ recommendation, but if anything, I am coming more and more to the realization that I read at my own risk, even with the WSJ involved.
I cannot count on anything anymore. "...The time falls away, in these small hours, these little wonders, these twists and turns of fate..." as the Rob Thomas song goes.
Maybe that is a good thing. Philip Phillips sings, "...I love you long after you're gone, gone, gone."
But my takeaway on "The Madness of July" is that while it touched a nerve, it ended well for both sides, the "madness" having been resolved at the end. That is what I look forward to for myself.
April 5, 2023
A spy novel touted on its cover by the likes of genre luminaries Cumming and Littell... how did I miss this one? Nearly 400 pages later, my single word review would be.... "tedious". (note to self: for the 100th time, quit lending any credibility whatsoever to praise from other authors!).
First, in late 70s London there's the discovery of a dead American, whom we later learn to have been in the spy business, in a place where he shouldn't have been. Of course, since the Brits had no idea why he was there they move his body and allow it to be discovered elsewhere. What was he doing on English soil and why was a politician's phone number in his pocket? Well, that's the first mystery. The second is another discovery, that of a disturbing unsigned memo found by the same politician on a copy machine near his office. What's the memo mean? Who wrote it? Who was to receive it? That's subplot #2.
Well, after much introspection by said politician, introduction of dozens of characters, and travel to and fro by the politico (who also happened to be an ex-spy) and his family members (one of whom being a connected American spy, the other being the unfortunately named "Mungo"), the mysteries are solved. But it was just so boringly done.....
First, in late 70s London there's the discovery of a dead American, whom we later learn to have been in the spy business, in a place where he shouldn't have been. Of course, since the Brits had no idea why he was there they move his body and allow it to be discovered elsewhere. What was he doing on English soil and why was a politician's phone number in his pocket? Well, that's the first mystery. The second is another discovery, that of a disturbing unsigned memo found by the same politician on a copy machine near his office. What's the memo mean? Who wrote it? Who was to receive it? That's subplot #2.
Well, after much introspection by said politician, introduction of dozens of characters, and travel to and fro by the politico (who also happened to be an ex-spy) and his family members (one of whom being a connected American spy, the other being the unfortunately named "Mungo"), the mysteries are solved. But it was just so boringly done.....
May 6, 2019
Well, it turns out that James Bond, Mycroft Holmes and Felix Leiter were all brothers and in the seventies when Bond was minister of boredom in the Heath/Wilson government they spent a weekend at Skyfall, assisted by Jeeves, trying to work out who their parents were, by talking each other to death and admiring their native Highlands. They also unravel some interagency issues of international importance by the same method. They interview each other, discuss and read letters. They don't actually do anything. Nothing happens. Moneypenny cameos, but Bond, now happily married to someone in an opera factory, is too absorbed in the echo chamber of his own contemplations to pay her much heed. A bigger turkey than the prize one Scrooge bought for the Cratchitts in 1843, as one of them might have been reported as saying to one of the others. They all love Dickens, but I do not believe he would love them. 1.5 rather than 2.4, in honesty.
September 18, 2020
james Naughtie is the 'Today' presenter who was famed for asking questions so long that who they were asked of did not know where to start to begin to answer. I shall be briefer in this review, the characters in this book never quite land on the page, they are so busy with-holding information from each other that they hid their character from the viewer. Then there is the spelling of names, 'Flemyng' sounds improbably pretentious, and he could have been a rich character if he had been allowed to breathe, but the prose made sure his character could not. The whole thing seems so transitory about any sense of lace that even the places seemed unreal.
I read three chapters of this book and decided that was enough, before deciding that had Clive James got hold of this book in his prime, and for the reader/listener he had picked apart a few of it's looser structured sentences, he would have found a rich source for humour that would have been much more engaging than the book itself.
I read three chapters of this book and decided that was enough, before deciding that had Clive James got hold of this book in his prime, and for the reader/listener he had picked apart a few of it's looser structured sentences, he would have found a rich source for humour that would have been much more engaging than the book itself.
January 7, 2024
I was looking forward to reading a well-recommended spy thriller. But in the end I gave up after about half the book, and I only struggled that far because it was a book club read.
I found this book tried to be rather too clever for its own good. Massive amounts of prose just didn't move the plot along for chapter after chapter. Nearly 200 pages in and all we know is that there is a dead man and a few of the other characters knew him; yet every other detail or action by other characters was left deliberately vague or obtuse. This doesn't help the reader understand their place in the story or their motivations and none was fleshed out enough to make them memorable.
I get it, in a spy novel you need some intrigue and you don't feed out all the details at once, but you have to give the reader SOMETHING to keep them interested.
Disappointing, because a 1970's Cold War spy thriller ought to have been right up my street.
I found this book tried to be rather too clever for its own good. Massive amounts of prose just didn't move the plot along for chapter after chapter. Nearly 200 pages in and all we know is that there is a dead man and a few of the other characters knew him; yet every other detail or action by other characters was left deliberately vague or obtuse. This doesn't help the reader understand their place in the story or their motivations and none was fleshed out enough to make them memorable.
I get it, in a spy novel you need some intrigue and you don't feed out all the details at once, but you have to give the reader SOMETHING to keep them interested.
Disappointing, because a 1970's Cold War spy thriller ought to have been right up my street.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews