Talk:The Bourne Identity (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Any details on Treadstone training/conditioning?

Hello - for anyone who has read the books from cover to cover: are there ever any details given of the training techniques Bourne went through as part of the Treadstone conditioning?

Thanks

Marklagrange 21:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In the books Treadstone had nothing to do with training or conditioning; Treadstone was the program to disguise Webb as Bourne-slash-Cain and trap Carlos. The training program was Medusa. Now if you are talking about movies... Blue Spider 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Double-entendre?

Is the title "The Bourne Identity" a play on "borne identity"? This seems notehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bourne_Identity_%28novel%29&action=edit&section=2 Editing Talk:The Bourne Identity (novel) (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaworthy if true. 149.159.92.56 04:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to IMDB, the name Bourne came from Ansel Bourne, a preacher in Rhode Island, the first documented case of "dissociative fugue", a condition not unlike dissociative amnesia or dissociative identity disorder (multiple personality disorder). One day in 1887 he forgot who he was, started a new life in Pennsylvania under the name Brown, and opened a convenience store. About three months later, he woke up and not only remembered his life as Bourne, but forgot all of his life as Brown... and needless to say was quite confused as to why he was in Pennsylvania.If it were a 'double-entendre', it would be a pretty lame one Kar98 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Writers love that kind of thing. Never put it past a writer to employ a pun -- it's almost always intended, because even if the writer didn't originally notice the pun, the writer [and editors] will, you can be sure, notice it, and then must decide: leave it, or change it? Writers work with words and phrases. It's impossible to believe, in this case, that "Bourne" did not have a double meaning in Ludlum's mind. --Mooncaine 06:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the quibble, but this is the wrong name: these days a double entendre invariably refers to a double meaning with a risqué element. We're talking just a plain pun here. Someone ought to alter the double entendre article to reflect this. 86.140.110.87 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question about the Book Clean Up Tag

This novel plot is accurate and true to the book form since I have read the book many times and since I saw the book clean up tag, I decided to re-read the book and take a look at the article. The article is indeed accurate and relating to the book. So, why is there a book clean up tag on here? Sundogs ^{UserPage My sandbox} 23:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever corrected the tag situation. Sundogs ^{UserPage My sandbox} 23:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Title of this article.

There was a discussion in 2013 about the title of the novels in Ludlum's Bourne series here: Talk:The Bourne Ultimatum#Just an idea. The question was asked "Should the articles for the novels include the disambiguating qualification (novel)".

The answer was given "...the original work gets the primary search term and any derivative works are disambiguated from that page", with a reference to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's clear, I think. As loosely as their plots might compare to the novels, the motion picture versions are derivative of them - at least in their titles - because the novels obviously came first.

At the time, that was somewhat confusing because both this article and The Bourne Supremacy included "(novel)" as part of the title. However, since then The Bourne Supremacy has had the tag removed.

Surely it should also happen to this one, and the article be named simply "The Bourne Identity".Twistlethrop (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

David Webb

It was revealed in the epilogue that Bourne's real name was David Webb. Should this not have been mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.178.105 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I think that the root argument here is based on policy on grounds of significance (a rare and notable achievement) but we still have a rough and valid consensus not to move on other grounds IMO. Andrewa (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The Bourne Identity (novel) → The Bourne Identity – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Every other work titled "The Bourne Identity" gets its name from this. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PTOPIC. This is the root of a very significant franchise and thus has very good long term significance, especially over the others which are adaptations of this. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – as usually the "root" is not relevant to primarytopic criteria, and this novel is not primary over the modern dramatizations. Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Please see this discussion initiated by Twistlethrop and make further comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Call the Midwife came from a book too, but the TV show's far more notable. Unreal7 (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The 2002 film is more searched and viewed than the novel (but not more significant). Also, statistics proves this. George Ho (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move. It can certainly be argued that the novel is not the primary topic, because the adaptations are more well-known.  ONR  (talk)  15:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plot summary inaccurate

Okay, I just saw this movie on TV the first time last night. But it's not true to say the Damon character uses the girl as a hostage to escape the embassy. He gets out of his own accord, then pays her to drive him to Paris. She's not a hostage.

He uses her as hostage in the book. the movie is different.

Amnesia or not?
I just edited the plot summary to correct the spelling of "definitely", and after re-reading it, that sentence doesn't make sense - the head injury did not give him amnesia" - could someone familiar with the plot please confirm this wording as accurate?
--DavidJField (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

She is a hostage
In response to the first comment...the reason you are confused is because you are talking about the film while this article is about the novel. In the movie, yes, you are correct about "damons" character, Jason Bourne. In the novel however, Bourne uses Marie as a means of escape from the hotel. Read it I'm sure you will enjoy it. -JuddConnell 0944 Zulu 052009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.231.65.26 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Wikipedia call for copy-editing: have cleaned up some punctuation, done some rewording, and tried to clarify parts of the introduction and plot summary. Rhymworm (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

and thems the facts  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.59.173 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 

Plot hole?

(moved question to Talk:The_Bourne_Identity_(movie))

Yacht assassination

The failed yacht assassination was part of the movie plot, not the book plot.

In the book he found his way into the ocean with gunshot wounds in a very different way. He showed up in Marseille to prevent an assassination. He was tricked into getting onto a fishing boat with the belief that he was being taken to see someone he was supposed to meet. Once the boat got out to sea there was a fight and he was seriously injured.

The assassination happened a few days later. On land.

What? I don't recall this at all. I just read the book too. From what I recall he went there to prevent the assassination on the yacht, but he failed to do so etc. The people on the fishing boat found him in the sea. I don't remember any of this trickery to get him there. I believe you're wrong. Anyone else have input here? K1Bond007 04:06, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

If you've got the book on hand, flip to right around the middle until you find his conversation with Lavier in the cafe. She explains the details surrounding his injury. It was 2 different fishing boats. The one he was shot on blew up, presumably by his hand. The other came along later and rescued him. Also, if you find the part where he reads the newspaper about the Leland assassination, you'll see that Leland was assassinated on the pier with a rifle fired from a building window. No yacht was involved.

Alrighty. Sounds good. I just LOL don't recall that and I don't have the book to double check. K1Bond007 18:06, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

It was only a couple sentences out of the whole book and not mentioned again. The only reason I remembered it is I've read the book a bunch of times. I looked it up to make sure, too.

The Assignment - another spin-off?

Has anyone noticed the plot for the film The Assignment is very similar to that of the Bourne Identity novel? One could almost venture to say its a rip-off...

Carlos the Jackal has been used in numerous films, novels etc. I would hardly call this a rip-off. One could, by the same logic, argue that the Bourne Identity was a rip off of Fleming's You Only Live Twice where James Bond develops amnesia. K1Bond007 02:22, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Spelling, Proper English & Punctuation Changes

I've made a few minor changes to this in the areas of spelling, proper English and punctuation. ~JC Eberhart