Novelists and scriptwriters would do well to study this book. Macintyre weaves a tale from archives and actual accounts, which few spy thrillers have equalled. Eddie Chapman is painted as a unique and complicated character. His British and German handlers come to life as the brilliant and flawed individuals they must have been. Should make a helluva movie!

Great story would make a terrific film. Jaw-dropping exploits combined with a cluelessness that's very engaging. A great read. I see Clive Owen as Agent ZigZag, 'cause he's a ladies' man, a funny guy (who thinks he's suave) and hysterical as a spy.

First: what a character! Eddie Chapman, common criminal, daredevil, ladies' man, double agent extraordinaire recipient of the Iron Cross from Hitler, hob-nobbing with London elite...a blue-collar "To Catch a Thief" spy story.

Second: a gripping can't-put-it-down tale, written like a great novel, chock-full of larger than life characters in larger than life circumstances.

And, as it ended, I was sad that they're all gone...but enriched for having, through Ben Macintyre, known them.

A great book waiting for the film that will do it justice.

This book doesn't just cover the technical aspects of Eddie Chapman's double agent adventures; it uncovers the man behind the story. And he's quite a character. The author has done extensive research on all the people behind the scenes who represented the brains (and the humanity) behind Chapman's work - on both the German and the English sides. It also touches on the amazing contribution of the folks at Bletchley Park who deciphered the Enigma code. Enjoy!

Ah, the story of Eddie Chapman; long awaited and finally produced (actually two of them on the same day, but the thrust of "Zigzag" by Booth ruled it out for me.) I had read Masterman's "The Double-Cross System in the War from 1939 to 1945" which gave Chapman six pages, seen the movie "Triple-Cross", and wondered what the story really was. The movie bore no resemblance to the truth as usual, but finding out the truth in spy stories is always a realm where educated guess and conjecture must fill in the frustrating blanks. Chapman's story rings true in every respect and well worth the read over the 2-4 nights it provides.

Earlier reviewers have exalted or condemned Chapman, so allow me to state that essentially all spies/agents have a screw loose and a yen for danger, excitement and feeling special. They operate with governmental assistance well above the law -- a heady role that must in itself be its own reward. Few if any spies for western democracies have been justly rewarded for their endeavors, as such rewards are generally denied under the rubric of maintaining security. Most ex-agents are relegated to obscurity and penury while some are "terminated with extreme prejudice" (killed) if they are considered as security risks. In this respect, working for a totalitarian government like that in the old USSR has its rewards, as they tend to resettle ex-agents in government positions. There is something about a democracy that makes a spy untrustworthy to the public and unworthy of its respect. As such, Chapman was no exception.

Agent handlers or case officers are usually like Ryde, Chapman's last British handler -- bureaucrats playing it safe and willing to sacrifice their agents. The agents themselves are often despised for their courage and exciting lives -- things well beyond the capabilities of their handlers. In order to be successful, an agent must outwit the enemy and fend off bungled, misguided and often hostile actions by his "friendly" handlers. In Chapman's case he was under suspicion from both sides and faced dangerous situations that would have been insurmountable for a man with less larceny in his heart. That's what makes his case so extraordinary and improbable. But true.

Yes, Chapman was a cad and a career criminal, but many agents feature a dark side. So do many heroes. The difference is that the agent operates outside the law to be successful, and the best training for such activity is survival in a criminal world. Ask any under-cover police officer.

Other reviewers have made an issue about what Chapman accomplished. Few spies other than Burgess, Philby, Hollis, Alger Hiss, Ted Hall, the Rosenbergs, or Penkovskiy make a lasting difference -- even Richard Sorge's impact is disputed from the Soviet archives. Intelligence is made up from a number of small fragments or information, often obtained at great personal cost by unknown sources. And I'm not talking about a case officer like Valerie Plame who becomes a media darling without taking risks. Chapman was an real agent who risked his life repeatedly, made some contributions, and that should be enough. If the reader wants a story with great successes, he will have to look to stories of those traitors listed above who had unusual positions of access to information of particular value to another country. Not every agent saves the world, but many taken together just might. FYI, I was disappointed to see the author use the trendy term "mole", coined by John Le Carre, instead of the proper term "resident agent" that was in use until the 1970s.

With respect to the danger Chapman faced in Germany, it should be remembered that a number of individuals were constantly seeking to discredit or expose him, and if any single one of them had been successful, his life would have been forfeit after a period of torture. I suspect that none of the complaining reviewers would be willing to undertake such risks. Perhaps this is the "Mission Impossible" syndrome whereby we have become conditioned to expect truly impossible feats as requirements to hold our attention.

The author takes great pains to limit his presentation to facts that are confirmed through multiple sources rather than relying on Chapman. No doubt we all would have wanted more of the story, but with the available sources exhausted by this book, we will have to fall back on our own educated guesses and conjecture.

Read the book -- you'll learn a lot about how human intelligence is obtained or not obtained. The author does a good job of research and writing, and if the outcomes are not what we would want -- well, then, that is our problem.