As for the attraction between Bastien and Chloe, I actually preferred that it developed subtly rather than the more usual “bolt of lightning/love (lust) at first sight” plot device. I liked the fact that Bastien initially went to Chloe’s aid reluctantly and predominantly because she had awakened a spark of human compassion in his soul, as opposed to him rescuing her because he thought that she was a hottie. I think that Chloe *did* complement Bastien in that she filled in the gaps in his soul. The fact that Bastien was so morally adrift and dissatisfied with his current situation, combined with the healthy dose of self-awareness on the part of both Bastien and Chloe, made me much more accepting of the obvious differences between their characters and life experiences.

Well said, Elle. You make a good point that a “bolt of lightning” attraction would have made the moral issues at stake in Bastien’s decision whether or not to rescue Chloe more murky. It is more interesting, I think, that he’s not immediately hugely attracted but rather that it’s the question of Chloe’s innocence or guilt that obsesses him because he’s nearly reached his limit and doesn’t know if he can stand to see another innocent life taken in the name of saving the world.

I think in Ludlum’s original books Marie (who’s Canadian in the books) and Jason/David get married and have kids. But I’ve read so many thrillers over the years and seen so many movie adaptations that I can’t be 100% certain.

Yes, Marie survives in the Ludlum trilogy, although it is a near thing (IIRC) in all three. Interestingly enough, Marie in the book is a Canadian economist who has a PhD, I believe. I always wondered why “Damon movie” Marie was an unemployed, bohemian German chick.

But ultimately, I can delight in a hero only as far as I can admire the heroine. So in this case, my enjoyment of Bastien’s journey was marred by my frustration with Chloe. I would still recommend this book, with the caveat that readers who go into a homicidal rage at the sight of a weak heroine approach with caution.

Well, I usually loathe a weak heroine, particularly when weakness, cluelessness and naivety are held up as a standard of womanly virtue, but I actually liked Chloe. She reminded me of one of the heroines of Mary Stewart’s old gothic romances–everyday women caught up in extraordinary situations. Her reactions were not always brilliant and well thought out, but she was really out of her depth with Bastien, the Committee and the arms dealers and she was well aware of this fact.

As for the attraction between Bastien and Chloe, I actually preferred that it developed subtly rather than the more usual “bolt of lightning/love (lust) at first sight” plot device. I liked the fact that Bastien initially went to Chloe’s aid reluctantly and predominantly because she had awakened a spark of human compassion in his soul, as opposed to him rescuing her because he thought that she was a hottie. I think that Chloe *did* complement Bastien in that she filled in the gaps in his soul. The fact that Bastien was so morally adrift and dissatisfied with his current situation, combined with the healthy dose of self-awareness on the part of both Bastien and Chloe, made me much more accepting of the obvious differences between their characters and life experiences.

Susan, that is so beautifully put, archtypes rather than individuals. I think when Janine and I were having a furious (as in speed, rather than emotion) back-and-forth about it over IM, I said something like I felt Bastien was more in love with the idea of Chloe than the real person–and vice versa. I just didn’t know whether a more prolonged acquaintance wouldn’t make either of them disillusioned/dissatisfied.

I feel that Chloe was an individual as well as an archetype; Stuart made her distinctive enough for me, especially in making me feel Chloe’s emotional vulnerablility to Bastien and her contradictory mix of repulsion and attraction, fear of him and appreciation of his protectiveness, that she became a full-fledged person to me.

As for falling in love with the idea of a person, I think a lot of people who do that stay in love for a good long time. In fact I would argue that most of us are attracted based on what another person represents to us in ourselves, be it the aspects of our personality that we admire most, or the aspects that are underdeveloped in ourselves and that we want to have more of. The reasons we feel romantic love are just as much about the lover as about the loved one, if you ask me, and a lot of times where romances fall down for me is when they fail to show this: how the lovers either share commonalities or complement each other.

For me, Stuart really made this work, and in the case of Bastien’s attraction to Chloe, I feel that he was attracted to her tenderness and her heart, which were the aspects of himself that he had denied and repressed. I don’t feel that these parts of Chloe are going to go away, so I also don’t feel that Bastien’s attraction to her will change.

There’s a great line in Black Ice toward the end, after the final love scene, which since I can’t find my copy of the book I will have to paraphrase. It’s a line in which Bastien thinks that Chloe is innocent deep in her soul in a way that has nothing to do with the sex they just had. I love that line because where as in so many romances the hero’s cynicism is cured by what Jennifer Crusie calls the glittery hooha, here it’s not about that kind of short cut for heart.

Chloe’s compassion feels very real to me, and I think Bastien is drawn to that because he’s tired of acting ruthless and pretending to be ruthless.

There is also a great line in the love scene, which I think goes like this “and there was nothing between them but love, neither pure nor simple, but love it was.” I love that line too, because it’s so true, Bastien’s motives for loving Chloe aren’t pure, and neither are Chloe’s for loving Bastien, but that is I think, always the case with love — it’s just that few books acknowledge it.

Love is always, I think, a mix of selflessness and selfishness, love for the person and love for the idea of the person, and in many cases, I actually think it’s true that where love for what the person represents or symbolizes is stronger, then love is most intense, most romantic, and most long lasting, because without that streak of idealizing the other a little bit, affection becomes more mild.

The relationship in Black Ice is “neither pure nor simple” and the complications there, the characters shifting perceptions of each other, their mixed motives for their feelings, are actually a huge part of why I love this book.

I think in Ludlum’s original books Marie (who’s Canadian in the books) and Jason/David get married and have kids. But I’ve read so many thrillers over the years and seen so many movie adaptations that I can’t be 100% certain.

It’s been a few years since I’ve read the books–and I have a tendency to mix up the books with the Chamberlain movie and the Damon movies–but didn’t Bourne’s wife survive?

Ann, I haven’t read the books. But Bourne’s girlfriend from The Bourne Identity movie dies in the first ten minutes of The Bourne Supremacy. I was totally devastated.

My issue with characters like Chloe (and it is usually the heroine, although occasionally the hero) is that they represent archtypes rather than individuals. I need to believe in a 3-dimensional, flesh-and-blood heroine and understand what she brings to the relationship (other than generic innocence or whatever) if I’m to believe in the HEA.

Susan, that is so beautifully put, archtypes rather than individuals. I think when Janine and I were having a furious (as in speed, rather than emotion) back-and-forth about it over IM, I said something like I felt Bastien was more in love with the idea of Chloe than the real person–and vice versa. I just didn’t know whether a more prolonged acquaintance wouldn’t make either of them disillusioned/dissatisfied.

Too often in situations like this, my basic reaction is “what does he see in her?”

I did a post a while back about this–not Black Ice–but unequal, male-dominant pairings in general. I believe I even asked that precise question.

the fact that it comes “this close” may actually mean more dissatisfaction, as odd as that may sound.

I don’t think that sounds odd at all. It’s precisely because of my overall emotional investment in the book–which I wouldn’t have had the book been mediocre, wouldn’t have gone past 30 pages then–is so big that my frustration is just as big. Like how we feel more let down when we see someone with huge potential not achieving commensurate success, more so than if that someone had been only average.

And if Jason Bourne couldn’t keep his girlfriend alive, well, what hope do the rest of us have?

It’s been a few years since I’ve read the books–and I have a tendency to mix up the books with the Chamberlain movie and the Damon movies–but didn’t Bourne’s wife survive?