As Ronald Seth ever so casually admits, this is a novel that is so partial so Mr. Alger Hiss that one wonders why one of Whittaker Chambers' descendents did not bother filing some sort of a complaint against him? Perhaps it was because the Chambers's were by then used such people lashing out against Whittaker, and after all, there is such thing as the right of the freedom of the press. Mr. Seth was indeed entitled to say as he wished, whether it be kind, or even necessarily true.

One of the things that bothered me most about his writing was hypocrisy, a tactic he seemed to use when comparing the acts of Mr. Chambers to the acts of Mr. Hiss. Seth views Chambers as some sort of liar for mishandling dates, but when Hiss did the same, the excuse became "but what man doesn't after so many years?" He also believes that Chambers is some sort of fake for saying that Alger Hiss was 5'9 when he was really 6'0, that he was never really in his house because he could not remember a distinctly patterned mirror, and because he said their library was "simple" and "non-descript", even though Alger was always supposed to show off a book that was important to him. True, it would have added to the credibility of Chambers's testimony, had he remembered such things, but forgetting them should not deem him a liar, as Mr. Seth seems to think. If failed memory deems one a liar than what does that make Hiss, who could not even recall the name of George Crosely(the man whom he said was Chambers, using one of his many aliases)and even flubbed the address of his own street once while cross-examining Mr. Chambers?

Besides glorious praises of Hiss and numerous insults aimed at Chambers(he didn't have to call the "Letter to my Children" section of Witness nauseating!), this book fails to account little more than some re-hashes of the trials, as well as a section of Seth's view of "what really happened", which at times was so outrageous I was literally laughing out loud. Not exactally earth-shattering material in other words, but he does have a smooth writing style, and his vast knowlege of espionage and spy tactics was actually quite interesting, a point in his favor.

With that in mind, I would advise that people read this book if interested in getting a "pro-Hiss" view on the cases, but it would simply not do to ONLY read this book if wanting to find out about the case and nothing more. You would surely be missing out.