Talk:Robert Ludlum

message: what happen to robert Ludlum's life
Maybe theres not a lot of history about him --Transagent 18:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the article comes up short on his biography.  There's quite substantial information here: .  The link also gives some references:
Robert Ludlum: A Reader's Checklist and Reference Guide by CheckerBee Publishing (1999); Mystery and Suspense Writers, vol. 1, ed. by Robin W. Winks (1998); Robert Ludlum: A Critical Companion by Gina Macdonald (1997); Contemporary Popular Writers, ed. by David Mote (1997); Bestsellers: Top Writers Tell How by Richard Joseph (1997); St. James Guide to Crime & Mystery Writers, ed. by Jay P. Pederson (1996); World Authors 1980-1985, ed. by Vineta Colby (1991)
Pgr94 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ludlum's life

message: What's with the 'subdural hematoma' notation? Most other news articles point to the cause of death as 'believed to be a heart attack'... this is significantly different from a 'subdural hematoma' which is described as resulting from a traumatic brain injury.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.169.148 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ludlum's death

message: Ludlum died in 2001, yet he continues to release books (albeit co-written). Does anyone know the truth about this? It seems to me that Ludlum has become a trademark, with other writers using his name to write (admittedly good) books. I am reading The Lazarus Vendetta now, and although it is written by Patrick Larkin, his name barely appears on the book. I bought it because it says Robert Ludlum on the cover.--Ezeu 16:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The late Robert Ludlum's name has become a trademark, as The Amber Warning has his name listed as the author but signified as a trade mark. I'd say in that capacity someone is definitely writing for him because the prose and sentence construction is actually better in this book. I never ran into a one sentence paragraph, thought it was evident the "author" was trying to emulate Ludlum. No source, but reader's intuition. I've love to source this though. Gibson Cowboy 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bourne Legacy is included in the list of books written by Ludlum himself, but it appears that it was published in 2004.  Should it be moved to the list of posthumous books? 69.140.173.15 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Since they are credited to Ludlum then it makes sense to leave them here, however I think that it could be noted a bit more ( on individual pages and the template ) that they are posthumous and might be ( according to the source on the article, is ) ghostwritten. Not sure how this is usually done since I haven't seen it so extensive, but if anyone feels like changing the template, I certainly wouldn't object. Znog (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Posthumous releases

message: Recently read "Bourne Identity", now reading the Supremacy and have been amused by the flaws in descriptions/choices of weapons - such as talking about a .38 automatic (the only .38 autos are extremely expensive target pistols, not likely choices for professional killers - not just cost, but identifiability), revolvers with safeties (unknown in the United States, the largest market for revolvers), concealed .357 Magnum automatics (the only .357 Magnum automatics weigh more than 4 pounds, hardly concealable) - such errors aren't uncommon in the genre, but they lead me to wonder - what other technical devices - economic or whatever - are similarly wrong or misused? Has anyone actually sat down and compiled an analysis of the technical errors in Ludlum's books? I guessing the list would be quite long.... good thing he's wordy and boring... oh, wait - that's not a good thing, is it? Readers certainly must have gotten desperate while I wasn't looking - where have all the Donald Hamiltons gone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.103.246.168 (talk • contribs) 9 April 2006.
:with over 210m pieces, 'some' people are enjoying the works of the late Mr Ludlum, his books are amongst the few that I would categorise as hard to put down, in more ways than one! I have read and enjoyed all of his works, not to critisise but to escape into, toast to absent friends. Tim S
:Which leads to the inevitable question, who cares? This is Wikipedia, not an academic review of the accuracy and validity of an author's piece of fiction.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.220.83.63 (talk • contribs) 15 May 2006.
 
:You do have a point, but it's not as if this is a textbook on how to be an assassin. They're just vehicles to move the plot around, nothing more. You two should also sign your posts, too. Shadowrun 02:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign you comments by typing four tildes (~~~~), or by clicking the signature icon (), as a courtesy to others as it makes it easier to follow the discussion (ie. who wrote what, when). --Ezeu 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 2 original author of note: You have a very valid point! Also see below for my comment re: languages. SirReal1 (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ludlum's credentials

message: I understand that Ludlum didnt write/publish his first book until he was forty years old. If true that would be worthy of a mention. Can anyone confirm/deny that? Adam777 15:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ludlum's late entry to publishing

message: "However, it was Ludlum who first wrote the thriller in the modern style that one recognises today ... "
Frankly this seems nonsense. What is the 'modern' style of the thriller? Certainly, for example, The Day of the Jackal, which is arguably the most celebrated thriller ever written, would be a better claim. It was published in 1971 - in other words before all Ludlum's novel except 'Scarlatti Inheritance', also 1971, and this latter was hardly a ground-breaking novel. Macgruder 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Helen MacInnes Certainly Anticipated Ludlum 

message: He popularized the notion of American and Soviet intelligence operatives working together, and the CIA conducting illegal operations on American soil. Both premises, once derided as being fictional, are now accepted as fact.
What evidence is there that both premises are accepted facts?  This seems ridiculous! Invasion10 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence of keeping up with the news. --IceHunter 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accepted as fact?

message: :File:The Scarlatti Inheritance.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used to illustrate the mans work - what the hell did you think. --IceHunter 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for File:The Scarlatti Inheritance.jpg

message: Ludlum has also received criticism for using the same fixed titling pattern, "The [Proper noun] [Noun]", for most of his books. The bibliography below contains evidence of this. (It is popularly believed that "Trevayne" was written under a pen name in order for Ludlum to continue his obsessive titling style.)
While the naming is worth mentioning, this needs a citation for the "criticism" and is somewhat false, at least with Ludlum's intent.  In "The Ludlum Identity" documentary included with The Jason Bourne Collection DVD, Ludlum and his publicist both comment on how this pattern came about "purely by accident".  Cable Tortugas! was the original title for The Rhinemann Exchange, but they received phone calls stating that "it wasn't a 'Robert Ludlum title'".  Ludlum goes on to describe it as "six grown men crying" that he couldn't do that to them by publishing something that wasn't a three word title, and that the NY Times had said that Ludlum had "brought back the three word title", so they ran with it ever since. Djnafai (talk)
: Criticism seems like a heavy-handed term. It's more likely to have amounted to gentle mockery from a more literary elevated crowd who would not stoop to such tacky gimmicks. Still, horses for courses and all that. Incidentally, the section "In Popular Culture" may wish to note that episode titles for the TV comedy "The Big Bang Theory" are a homage to the Ludlum title.137.205.100.45 (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed titling pattern

message: The Bourne movie series, which I enjoyed, prompted me to read Ludlum. While on vacation, I picked up The Bourne Ultimatum. Not only was I astounded at the slow pace and lack of coherence (which are outside the scope of this note), but his use of French and Russian frustrated me on three levels.
1) I don't speak French, so most of the time I just had to skip it. When it was something important to understand (like complete sentences 10 words or more), I resorted to an online dictionary. Not a good way to treat your readers, IMHO.
2) When Europeans speak English, especialy when conversing with Americans or other English speakers, they don't insert words in their native language into their speech. Either they speak English or they don't. Strike 2 for Ludlum.
3) Those who don't speak Russian must have hated it as much as I did French. However, Russian is no mystery to me - it's my mothertongue. And let me tell you, Ludlum's Russian is at times nothing but ridiculous. First of all, the character names he made up (including Alexander Conklin - Alexei Nikolae Konsolikov [sic]) are just that - made up and unreal. Second, he makes some hilarious mistakes. For instance, Conklin says about his growing up in a Russian community in the US, "If you didn't [speak Russian], you couldn't even buy bread at the ovoschnoi otdel." Ovoschnoi otdel is where they sell produce - no wonder they wouldn't sell you bread! There were many other examples - I can dig them up as the book is on my shelf right now.
The sad thing is that any Russian speaker could have easily pointed out these oversights to the author.
Based on this, I have a hard time believing Ludlum's "novels are meticulously researched." He might have done a good job in other areas, but not in languages.
* In the Bourne series, Ludlum's characterization of Canadian Marie St Jacques is earnest but unconvincing.  She is described as coming from a ranch in Ontario, where ranches are quite rare (unlike Alberta). Elsewhere, she offers to cook someone the best french meal in Ontario, which is like offering the best lobster in Ohio. Evaluist (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but either way the notion that the author is well-acquainted with what really goes on in these shady circles and corridors of power is part of the fun --- you can call it a marketing ploy or just a component of the readerships' overall enjoyment. My dad loved these novels and firmly believed Ludlum was a former spy who knew exactly what he was talking about. How was my uneducated father going to know the difference anyway? It's the thrill of feeling close to the inner circle.137.205.100.45 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on Ludlum's "meticulous" research

message: Maybe I'm wrong but I think there's a book missing from the bibliography section, "The Bancroft Strategy".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.164.239 (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing "The Bancroft Strategy" in the bibliography section?  Copyright 2006, so who was that book written by?

message: I am not a native Anglophone, so I don't know how to pronounce properly Ludlum. Can you add it to the article in IPA or transcription ? Thanks. Yakuzanodon (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: How can the first sentence say he wrote "11 thriller novels" when far more thriller novels than that are listed in the bibliography?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.112.146 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "11 thriller novels" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Ludlum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070331131750/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/ludlum.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/ludlum.htm
*Added  tag to http://soccer.msg.com/article/05DjdrucY53jX?q=Robert+Ludlum
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified