Mission to Tashkent is not quite as enthralling as Between silk and cyanide. I think this boils down to a few factors. One is that Bailey wrote his memoir just after WW2, and Marks wrote his in the 1990s. The styles of the respective periods are inevitably a bit different. Bailey's story also suffers because he spends most of his time in varying degrees of ignorance about what's happening in the world. He has precious little contact with anyone he can trust and so there is very little in the way of conversation described. Marks, by way of contrast, worked in London, surrounded by people he could and had to interact with, and in a position where he naturally got something of an overview picture of the whole war in Europe.
Bailey's story does make the time and place come to life. Reading it, you gain an appreciation of how brutal and chaotic the revolution was, and how it was felt in a corner of the Soviet Union-to-be that it is all to easy to ignore.
Comments