Q: Is this your first work of fiction?

A: Yes. Throughout my career, I wrote hundreds of thousands of words—scientific journal articles, book chapters, and so on, but all in the form of research-based writing.

Q: Why did you decide to write Jonathan Burke?

A: I was enjoying retirement—playing tennis, gardening, and traveling with my wife—when I developed atrial fibrillation. The symptoms, including shortness of breath and fatigue, became so severe I couldn’t take even a short walk. Treatment and recovery were expected to take several months, and I knew I needed something to occupy my time. I had long considered writing fiction but never acted on the idea. I set a modest goal—to write 1,000 words and see how long it took. I finished those 1,000 words in a single day and decided to keep going, not really realizing how large a task it would be to produce a final product.

Q: How long did it take to write the book?

A: About thirteen months. My heart issues turned out to be more complex than originally thought, and treatment and recovery stretched to nearly a year. During that time, I committed to extensive research and went through ten drafts. At one point, the manuscript was 80,000 words—around 290 pages. The final version is roughly 75,000 words and 260 pages.

Q: Where did the idea come from?

A: From watching Bond films. I have always been an avid reader of espionage and spy fiction, especially fond of Le Carré and Deighton, and more recently Herron. Their main characters have struck me as focused, analytical, and skeptical, and the writing a bit cerebral. Bond, and characters mimicking him, are handsome, slick, never miss a shot, always get the girl, never get seriously injured, always save the world. That was Fleming’s model, and he did it expertly. But the films made me wonder what life was really like on a day-to-day basis for an MI6 agent. Did he always get the girl? Did the car never stall? Never lose a bet? Weapon ever misfire? Ever fail to do in the evil villain looking to take over the world? So, I was thinking about an MI6 agent who was licensed to kill but not guaranteed to lead a life without errors and disappointments.

Q: The main characters—Jonathan, Kate, Tamás, and Jonathan’s adversary—are quite well-developed. Was that intentional?

A: Absolutely. I rewrote the character-driven sections of the book a dozen times. As readers will discover, the story follows two major arcs—Jonathan’s attempt to build a life as an assassin, and the parallel actions of his unseen adversary.

Q: The assassinations are unusually detailed. Are the weapons, locations, and other elements accurate?

A: Yes. I spent many hours researching firearms, vehicles, and settings to ensure historical and technical accuracy. The sniper rifles, scopes, and tripods are all standard British Army issue. Jonathan’s Jaguar XKE and Bentley were period-accurate. Even the Alpine driven by one of the targets is correctly depicted. Many of the locations—Washington, DC; Monte Carlo; Saint-Paul-de-Vence; Lyon—are places I’ve visited. Cultural references were also carefully researched to reflect the era.

Q: Any mistakes?

A: None reported so far—but I welcome corrections from readers.

Q: Did you use a professional editor or proofreader?

A: No. My wife, while not a professional editor, has excellent writing and editorial skills. Together, we reviewed every chapter of every draft.

Q: Did anyone read early drafts?

A: Yes—eight readers reviewed the manuscript. They were very positive about the writing and characters. They also gave helpful feedback on pacing, chapter length, and plot development. I took all of their suggestions seriously.

Q: Is this the first in a series?

A: That wasn’t the original plan—I was focused on just completing Jonathan Burke. But near the end of editing, a friend suggested I leave the door open for a sequel. That idea stuck, so I very briefly introduced a character who could be an element in a next book. I gave myself an opening, but we’ll have to see how well Jonathan Burke does.

Q: So, you changed the ending?

A: No, not really. Aside from a few lines of dialogue, the ending remained consistent from the first complete draft. Killing off Jonathan was never part of the plan.

Q: But the ending leaves his future in MI6 a bit ambiguous.

A: Correct. That was intentional. I wanted the ending to live, at least partly, in the reader’s imagination.

Q: There are a lot of minor characters with names that echo classic spy authors and characters—including some iconic detectives. Was that deliberate?

A: Yes. Naming characters can be surprisingly difficult, so taking the approach I did was a successful method of finding unique names and, at the same time, paying homage to the authors whose work I admire.

Q: How many of those “easter eggs” are there?

A: I honestly don’t know—I never counted. I’m hoping a reader tallies them and sends me the list. Most of the other character names came from common name lists from the relevant eras in the UK and Europe.

Q: Was the submarine pen mission inspired by one of the James Bond novels?

A: No. Objekt 825 was an open secret since its completion in 1961. I discovered it during research and immediately thought it would make a perfect mission for Jonathan. To my knowledge, it hasn’t appeared in Fleming’s books or the Bond films. If it has, I’d love to know.

Q: Is any part of Burke’s character drawn from your own personality?

A: One trait stands out—attention to detail. As a scientist, I had to be precise and methodical. That mindset shaped Jonathan as a character—his real strength lies not just in his marksmanship or language skills, but in meticulous mission planning. My favorite example is the Lyon assassination. It takes two minutes, start to finish—clean, efficient, and flawlessly executed. That was the goal—a kill as streamlined as mailing a letter.

Q: Anything else?

A: Jonathan is teased about looking like Paul Newman. When I was younger, a few people did say I resembled Michael Caine in The Ipcress File. That was flattering—I was a big fan of Len Deighton, and Caine captured Harry Palmer perfectly. That resemblance faded fast, though. I haven’t heard it in 45 years!

Q: Are you excited about the release?

A: Very. Writing fiction was never something I thought I’d do, much less finish. I’m proud of the work—and I hope fans of spy and espionage thrillers enjoy reading it. That would be the real reward.

Q: A question about the music—why Bossa Nova?

A: Well, remember that Jonathan was in the Army and cut off from most of England’s cultural revolution. When he arrives in London, Bossa Nova music is just beginning to become a worldwide phenomenon. Perhaps because of his fluency in languages he appreciates the foreign rhythm and stories. Many Bossa Nova songs, especially those by Antonio Carlos Jobim, are about lost love or heartbreak, not just beautiful girls strolling Ipanema beach. Contrast that music with the “I wanna hold your hand” popular music of the mid-1960s. With Jonathan’s background, it’s not surprising that he prefers the more serious genre.

Q: You’re from that era. Are you describing your own addiction to the Bossa Nova tradition.

A: I usually listen to it while I am writing. I hope that answers your question!

Q: The tennis match is described in great detail. Does this reflect your love of tennis—you couldn’t help yourself?

A: Partially true. The match was described in even more detail in early drafts, but readers of those drafts who don’t play tennis were quick to point out that the detail was just too much. I did shorten the chapter substantially, but wanted to keep a certain level of detail to communicate the amount of patience, the changing strategy, and the tension of a competitive match. The match is also meant to define the relationship between Jonathan and Arnaud, a hint about matchups to come. I hope readers—even those who don’t play tennis—will appreciate the effort!

Q: I’ll have more questions soon—hopefully from readers as well!

A: I’m here with answers—I hope!