I could see that if the critic qualified it as being good storytelling but without much substance. Robert Ludlum is a great storyteller and as he was a secret agent, there's an authenticity to all of his novels. However, he is hardly great literature even if he does provide some revelations about spy work and always entertaining to read. Where's an example of a reviewer just simply stating that the writer is a great storyteller without writing why he doesn't like the book and doesn't recommend it? I don't know about you, but I'm not good at mind reading.
LW -- Your link didn't come up. Just the homepage to the service.
Those are site links, not mine.
