John le Carré's 'The Spy Who Came in from the Cold' is the ultimate spy novel(bbc.com)
bbc.com
John le Carré's 'The Spy Who Came in from the Cold' is the ultimate spy novel
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230831-why-john-le-carrs-the-spy-who-came-in-from-the-cold-is-the-ultimate-spy-novel
122 comments
It's maybe one of the 3 best drama series of the last 20 years, and easily one of the 5 best. For a (nonfic) book in the same vein, try The Billion Dollar Spy.
What are the other four in your best five list?
I really liked The Americans, too.
I really liked The Americans, too.
I can recommend "The Spy and the Traitor" on Oleg Gordievsky, in particular the part about the exfiltration reads like a spy novel even though its all factual!
Right down to the local ambassador (I think it was) who wanted to stop the operation but it was escalated all the way to Thatcher who was at Balmoral at the time and who was outraged at the idea that the UK wouldn't try and rescue him.
Right down to the local ambassador (I think it was) who wanted to stop the operation but it was escalated all the way to Thatcher who was at Balmoral at the time and who was outraged at the idea that the UK wouldn't try and rescue him.
After reading that book I could not shake the feeling that Gordievsky’s defection was “too good to be true.” The intelligence he exfiltrated (with very few exceptions) was hugely beneficial in creating a back-channel between the USSR’s leadership and the West; his “arrest and interrogation” in Moscow was completely inept and even the use of truth drugs didn’t work, and the KGB somehow managed to leave him free to escape surveillance; the KGB was completely unable to detect and prevent his escape even though he got drunk and wandered around acting suspiciously; and the second KGB defector who “confirmed the legitimacy of” Gordievsky’s defection suspiciously re-defected right back to Moscow following his own interrogation. The whole thing felt extremely suspicious.
It's a lot harder to fake incompetence and failure and besides why would you? It would look, as you say, even more suspicious. At the time, Soviet intelligence services were counting how many windows were lit up after hours in US government buildings chasing signs of plans for an entirely imaginary first nuclear strike. A dude landed a plane in the middle of Red Square. The Soviets fucked up just like everyone else.
>It's a lot harder to fake incompetence and failure and besides why would you?
Whether Gordievsky was a triple agent or not, it's clear that the KGB desperately needed a conduit to convey useful (true) information to the West in a form that Western intelligence agencies would find credible. Western intelligence (particularly the UK) also desperately needed an asset who could produce that sort of intelligence. Gordievsky just happened to be a perfect conduit for this communication, and may have helped avert a truly stupid nuclear war.
If you assume this was an "op" then it would have to end somehow. Ideally it would end in a way that left Gordievsky alive and in the West, where he could continue to deliver his message to politicians. In order to keep Gordievsky's past information credible, he would either need to (1) be caught and tried/imprisoned, (2) defect. But I would imagine that the best case for his credibility would be some amazing combination of (1) and (2), especially a situation that would force the West to commit resources to a heroic escape that took him right out from under the KGB's nose in Moscow. This would make his handlers look brilliant, and it would make Gordievsky the kind of hero that politicians would take seriously. It would also be politically almost impossible for anyone in US/UK intelligence to ever (publicly) voice skepticism about Gordievsky.
Gordievsky's escape from Russia also seems extremely bizarre. Remember this is a man who has miraculously survived chemical interrogation, is liable to be shot at any moment, but has somehow slipped his KGB tail and traveled halfway across Russia to a border town. Whatever doubts the KGB had before, he is now a dead man if they catch him. Yet instead of hiding in the woods waiting for his rescue, he heads into town, gets drunk, falls asleep in a restaurant and nearly misses the appointment to escape to the West? I guess people behave strangely under stress, but there's strange and there's "death wish." Perfectly reasonable, though, if the whole thing was fake.
Finally there's the fact that Gordievsky's arrest story was almost immediately verified by Vitaly Yurchenko, whose "defection" is utterly bizarre. Yurchenko just happened to be an expert in "special drugs" who defected right after Gordievsky escaped, basically for the sole purpose of solidifying Gordievsky's story and drawing attention away from Aldrich Ames. Then, literally weeks after delivering his confirmation to US intelligence, Yurchenko walks out of a Washington, DC restaurant and heads straight back to the USSR where he is awarded the Order of the Red Star for "a successful infiltration operation."
Whether Gordievsky was a triple agent or not, it's clear that the KGB desperately needed a conduit to convey useful (true) information to the West in a form that Western intelligence agencies would find credible. Western intelligence (particularly the UK) also desperately needed an asset who could produce that sort of intelligence. Gordievsky just happened to be a perfect conduit for this communication, and may have helped avert a truly stupid nuclear war.
If you assume this was an "op" then it would have to end somehow. Ideally it would end in a way that left Gordievsky alive and in the West, where he could continue to deliver his message to politicians. In order to keep Gordievsky's past information credible, he would either need to (1) be caught and tried/imprisoned, (2) defect. But I would imagine that the best case for his credibility would be some amazing combination of (1) and (2), especially a situation that would force the West to commit resources to a heroic escape that took him right out from under the KGB's nose in Moscow. This would make his handlers look brilliant, and it would make Gordievsky the kind of hero that politicians would take seriously. It would also be politically almost impossible for anyone in US/UK intelligence to ever (publicly) voice skepticism about Gordievsky.
Gordievsky's escape from Russia also seems extremely bizarre. Remember this is a man who has miraculously survived chemical interrogation, is liable to be shot at any moment, but has somehow slipped his KGB tail and traveled halfway across Russia to a border town. Whatever doubts the KGB had before, he is now a dead man if they catch him. Yet instead of hiding in the woods waiting for his rescue, he heads into town, gets drunk, falls asleep in a restaurant and nearly misses the appointment to escape to the West? I guess people behave strangely under stress, but there's strange and there's "death wish." Perfectly reasonable, though, if the whole thing was fake.
Finally there's the fact that Gordievsky's arrest story was almost immediately verified by Vitaly Yurchenko, whose "defection" is utterly bizarre. Yurchenko just happened to be an expert in "special drugs" who defected right after Gordievsky escaped, basically for the sole purpose of solidifying Gordievsky's story and drawing attention away from Aldrich Ames. Then, literally weeks after delivering his confirmation to US intelligence, Yurchenko walks out of a Washington, DC restaurant and heads straight back to the USSR where he is awarded the Order of the Red Star for "a successful infiltration operation."
[...] KGB desperately needed a conduit to convey useful (true) information to the West in a form that Western intelligence agencies would find credible. Western intelligence (particularly the UK) also desperately needed an asset who could produce that sort of intelligence. Gordievsky just happened to be a perfect conduit for this communication, and may have helped avert a truly stupid nuclear war.
What is the theory of the case here? I'm not following what this KGB need/matching British intelligence need was and how it was met through Gordievsky's defection.
What is the theory of the case here? I'm not following what this KGB need/matching British intelligence need was and how it was met through Gordievsky's defection.
To be clear this is all spitballing, counterfactuals etc.
MI6 suffered a string of defections to the USSR in the 50s and 60s, which hurt the organization and put it in a "defensive crouch." Since intelligence production was very important to the US/UK relationship, this put MI6 in a position where it would be relatively eager to accept the bonafides of a new UK-based KGB "double agent" that dropped into their lap. And so dropping one into their lap in the 1970s would make plenty of sense.
But this does not mean anyone had a real plan on how to use Gordievsky at the time. And in fact, he's immediately recalled back to Moscow on some pretext.
In the 1980s, Andropov begins running around looking for a pretext to launch a nuclear war. He can't do this as KGB chief, but he's doing everything he can to assemble the evidence for it. And the writing is on the wall by 1981: soon Andropov will become to General Secretary, where he will have the authority to launch missiles. Somebody needs to defuse this situation, but you can't tell Andropov he's insane and there's no official channel to warn the West.
Coincidentally, and about four months before Andropov becomes General Secretary, Gordievsky re-appears. But now he's been turned into an irresistible dream asset, maybe the best human intelligence asset the UK could ask for: a high-ranking intelligence officer at the KGB station in London, clearly on his way to running the place. He should be able to produce all kinds of information that would immediately shut down all kinds of operation.
Except curiously, Gordievsky produces almost no really valuable information that would hurt the USSR. The intelligence he carries with him is described as a "trove", but on closer inspection, this stuff is juicy but utterly worthless: just a bunch of aging lefty political figures who aren't producing useful intelligence for the KGB and probably never did. But surely Gordievsky will expose dozens of London-based KGB spy networks? Except weirdly he doesn't do that, either; conveniently the main "intelligence" finding he delivers is that there are no KGB spy networks in London, so there is nobody to burn.
In fact, almost the only real piece of intelligence Gordievsky ever offers is the fact that Andropov is panicking and trying to assemble the case for a pre-emptive strike. He delivers this information instantly, and then delivers it again and again. When Able Archer happens, he rings the alarm even louder. This doesn't compromise the KGB one bit: in fact the result is entirely advantageous to the USSR, since it convinces Western militaries to back off.
He then gets promoted to an even more important position, where he basically becomes a political go-between transmitting information from the Russian leadership to the West. At one point he's basically writing Gorbachev's speeches, while convincing the West that Gorbachev is legitimate. The result is also not harmful to the USSR: indeed, it ensures that Gorbachev's visit is a resounding success.
My point here is that if the USSR wanted to deliver a high-level agent that could provide "useful" information (from the perspective of the USSR) while doing minimal damage to the USSR itself, they would have had a hard time doing better than Gordievsky. And it makes plenty of sense to exploit the UK's desire to be the conduit for such information, rather than sending Gordievsky to Washington where he would be one source among many.
MI6 suffered a string of defections to the USSR in the 50s and 60s, which hurt the organization and put it in a "defensive crouch." Since intelligence production was very important to the US/UK relationship, this put MI6 in a position where it would be relatively eager to accept the bonafides of a new UK-based KGB "double agent" that dropped into their lap. And so dropping one into their lap in the 1970s would make plenty of sense.
But this does not mean anyone had a real plan on how to use Gordievsky at the time. And in fact, he's immediately recalled back to Moscow on some pretext.
In the 1980s, Andropov begins running around looking for a pretext to launch a nuclear war. He can't do this as KGB chief, but he's doing everything he can to assemble the evidence for it. And the writing is on the wall by 1981: soon Andropov will become to General Secretary, where he will have the authority to launch missiles. Somebody needs to defuse this situation, but you can't tell Andropov he's insane and there's no official channel to warn the West.
Coincidentally, and about four months before Andropov becomes General Secretary, Gordievsky re-appears. But now he's been turned into an irresistible dream asset, maybe the best human intelligence asset the UK could ask for: a high-ranking intelligence officer at the KGB station in London, clearly on his way to running the place. He should be able to produce all kinds of information that would immediately shut down all kinds of operation.
Except curiously, Gordievsky produces almost no really valuable information that would hurt the USSR. The intelligence he carries with him is described as a "trove", but on closer inspection, this stuff is juicy but utterly worthless: just a bunch of aging lefty political figures who aren't producing useful intelligence for the KGB and probably never did. But surely Gordievsky will expose dozens of London-based KGB spy networks? Except weirdly he doesn't do that, either; conveniently the main "intelligence" finding he delivers is that there are no KGB spy networks in London, so there is nobody to burn.
In fact, almost the only real piece of intelligence Gordievsky ever offers is the fact that Andropov is panicking and trying to assemble the case for a pre-emptive strike. He delivers this information instantly, and then delivers it again and again. When Able Archer happens, he rings the alarm even louder. This doesn't compromise the KGB one bit: in fact the result is entirely advantageous to the USSR, since it convinces Western militaries to back off.
He then gets promoted to an even more important position, where he basically becomes a political go-between transmitting information from the Russian leadership to the West. At one point he's basically writing Gorbachev's speeches, while convincing the West that Gorbachev is legitimate. The result is also not harmful to the USSR: indeed, it ensures that Gorbachev's visit is a resounding success.
My point here is that if the USSR wanted to deliver a high-level agent that could provide "useful" information (from the perspective of the USSR) while doing minimal damage to the USSR itself, they would have had a hard time doing better than Gordievsky. And it makes plenty of sense to exploit the UK's desire to be the conduit for such information, rather than sending Gordievsky to Washington where he would be one source among many.
Ah I see, thanks. I'm pretty open to 'defector stories might not be as straightforward as reported, never mind self-described'. I think this bit
In the 1980s, Andropov begins running around looking for a pretext to launch a nuclear war.
is at odds with everything we know about Soviet doctrine and intent, both from the period itself and the voluminous info that's come out subsequently. The bar to hang a serious (or even plausibly fictional) theory on this is very, very high. I'm not suggesting you did, of course - you qualified it as 'spitballing and counterfactuals'. But it's a really long spitball, to my mind at least!
Edit: if you happen to speak Russian a recent interview with Soldatov/Borogan covers some of the interesting differences between outward projection and insider culture regarding defections in the Soviet security services.
https://meduza.io/episodes/2023/08/17/kak-ustroena-rossiyska...
In the 1980s, Andropov begins running around looking for a pretext to launch a nuclear war.
is at odds with everything we know about Soviet doctrine and intent, both from the period itself and the voluminous info that's come out subsequently. The bar to hang a serious (or even plausibly fictional) theory on this is very, very high. I'm not suggesting you did, of course - you qualified it as 'spitballing and counterfactuals'. But it's a really long spitball, to my mind at least!
Edit: if you happen to speak Russian a recent interview with Soldatov/Borogan covers some of the interesting differences between outward projection and insider culture regarding defections in the Soviet security services.
https://meduza.io/episodes/2023/08/17/kak-ustroena-rossiyska...
Maybe someone in the KGB thought that Operation RYAN was creating a real risk of a nuclear war and wanted to create a channel to the West to try and defuse things?
Since this is a thread about spy novels, it’s worth pointing out that there is a Tom Clancy book from 1988 (right around the Gordievsky defection) that in retrospect is obviously inspired by the Able Archer/RYAN Gordievsky story, and describes the US and USSR narrowly averting a nuclear war due to a top-level leak from within the Kremlin. I don’t want to spoil it (it’s a silly fun read) but the ending of the novel is very, very different. Ever since I read The Spy and the Traitor I’ve wondered if Clancy was just enjoying a bit of dramatic license, or if he was subtly nodding to real barroom gossip he’d picked up from his contacts in DC. It tickles me to think that disgruntled folks in the IC might use fiction to say “we all know what you did” to their counterparts in Moscow, and I bet it would have tickled Clancy as well.
I assume The Wire and Breaking Bad are on your top 5 list. What else is on there?
For me:
1. The Wire
2. Breaking Bad
3. DarK (German)
4. Halt and Catch Fire
5. Bosch
Others- True Detective S01, S03, Westworld S01, Generation War (German), Happy Valley, Mindhunter, Mad Men, Silicon Valley, The Sopranos, The Fall, Band of Brothers, Rick and Morty, Veep, Babylon Berlin (German), Arrested Developtment, The Americans, Narcos (Spanish), Fauda (Hebrew-Arabic), Black Mirror, Bojack Horseman, Vinland Saga (Japanese, Anime), Fargo S01, S03, Kleo (German), Freaks and Geeks, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Mozart in the Jungle, Tales from the Loop, Panchayat (Hindi), Paatal Lok (Hindi), Broadchurch, Yellowstone, Tales from the Loop, and Charite (German).
1. The Wire
2. Breaking Bad
3. DarK (German)
4. Halt and Catch Fire
5. Bosch
Others- True Detective S01, S03, Westworld S01, Generation War (German), Happy Valley, Mindhunter, Mad Men, Silicon Valley, The Sopranos, The Fall, Band of Brothers, Rick and Morty, Veep, Babylon Berlin (German), Arrested Developtment, The Americans, Narcos (Spanish), Fauda (Hebrew-Arabic), Black Mirror, Bojack Horseman, Vinland Saga (Japanese, Anime), Fargo S01, S03, Kleo (German), Freaks and Geeks, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Mozart in the Jungle, Tales from the Loop, Panchayat (Hindi), Paatal Lok (Hindi), Broadchurch, Yellowstone, Tales from the Loop, and Charite (German).
If I gave my actual ordered top 5 I'd be begging for a tangent thread here, but: Saul, and then I'd have to think about Leftovers vs. Mad Men for 5.
Right on. I somehow just skipped over Better Call Saul. Figure I'll have to pull an 'Americans' on it.
Tangent: is anyone familiar with a good app to help make a note of what shows you want to watch later? I know Letterboxd sort of does this for movies, but ( last I checked) they ignore the existence of TV. Each platform has its own short implementation of watch lists but they’re all pretty half baked. Is there good 3rd party app?
I like justwatch.com for this. You get cross-service watchlists and it tells you when a show or movie becomes available on a service you have.
AddToTheList
Emails for new episode reminders of shows you think may or may not be cancelled. Top 10 show/movies list for networks.
Emails for new episode reminders of shows you think may or may not be cancelled. Top 10 show/movies list for networks.
Showly.
Syncs automatically to trakt.tv.
There's also Letterboxd.
I am thinking of just moving to a G-Sheets document.
Syncs automatically to trakt.tv.
There's also Letterboxd.
I am thinking of just moving to a G-Sheets document.
Trakt.com and then the Kodi integration with Seren
The Notes app on my Mac and iPhone.
I use Sofa for books, movies, shows
Notepad
Anyone have any recommendations for other classic spy novels like le Carre’s? I’ve read some Greene and Deighton, which were both mentioned in the article, so I suppose I should revisit those, but would be interested in any other works with a similar scene and setting.
One of my favorite le Carre tidbits - apparently in the UK and US versions of “Tinker, Tailor,” a character in one version takes a ferry in Hong Kong, but takes a tunnel in another version.
Apparently after the original UK release, one of the readers asked le Carre why the character didn’t just take the (relatively recently opened) tunnel between Kowloon and the mainland, le Carre went white in the face and promptly rewrote that part in the forthcoming US version for its subsequent release and had the character take the tunnel instead (as anyone would have done in those circumstances, given the two options).
Terrific writer and storyteller. Must have had a hell of a life.
One of my favorite le Carre tidbits - apparently in the UK and US versions of “Tinker, Tailor,” a character in one version takes a ferry in Hong Kong, but takes a tunnel in another version.
Apparently after the original UK release, one of the readers asked le Carre why the character didn’t just take the (relatively recently opened) tunnel between Kowloon and the mainland, le Carre went white in the face and promptly rewrote that part in the forthcoming US version for its subsequent release and had the character take the tunnel instead (as anyone would have done in those circumstances, given the two options).
Terrific writer and storyteller. Must have had a hell of a life.
I like all of his George Smiley novels. But perhaps the most haunting for me is The Looking Glass War (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Looking_Glass_War). I had just urned 50 when I read it and was actually surrounded by a lot of people ranging 60-80.
While a spy novel, it’s almost more of dark comic tragedy on the power of nostalgia. I easily find the storyline transferrable to some of the “established” organizations I’ve done work for.
Aging is hard. I wish there were Ben more books and stories like this one.
While a spy novel, it’s almost more of dark comic tragedy on the power of nostalgia. I easily find the storyline transferrable to some of the “established” organizations I’ve done work for.
Aging is hard. I wish there were Ben more books and stories like this one.
I thought it was common knowledge that John le Carré's "The looking-glass war" (I agree with your recommendation of it) was inspired by the story of Lionel Crabb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Crabb) but neither Wikipedia page seems to refer to the other.
> Aging is hard.
A story I read as a kid, The Positronic Man, by Asimov, really revealed this to me. Because the protagonist lives a long time, it covers a few different human characters, and his final words in the book really hit home.
A story I read as a kid, The Positronic Man, by Asimov, really revealed this to me. Because the protagonist lives a long time, it covers a few different human characters, and his final words in the book really hit home.
Agree, it is very much a dark tragi-comedy.
Most Alan Furst novels are good. They are largely the same, but the despite being cookie cutter, the cookie is pretty tasty.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/49941.Alan_Furst
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/49941.Alan_Furst
Yeah, I like them but he does seem to write about occupied Paris a bit too often. When he focuses on places less covered in WWII fiction like Bulgaria, Romania, or Greece, it is a bit more interesting.
> Anyone have any recommendations for other classic spy novels like le Carre’s?
Probably not comparable, but Frederick Forsyth's novels are great. He wrote The Day of the Jackal, The Fourth Protocol, etc. If you want a taste for his books, I would suggest The Devil's Alternative.
Probably not comparable, but Frederick Forsyth's novels are great. He wrote The Day of the Jackal, The Fourth Protocol, etc. If you want a taste for his books, I would suggest The Devil's Alternative.
I always recommend The Dogs of War as a first Forsyth novel, and No Comebacks as a first Forsyth reader.
No Comebacks:
1. Are all short stories, so good for the reader who is not yet invested in Forsyth
2. Starts with the titular story, which (IMO) is a pretty good capture of Forsyth plot and story-telling.
No Comebacks:
1. Are all short stories, so good for the reader who is not yet invested in Forsyth
2. Starts with the titular story, which (IMO) is a pretty good capture of Forsyth plot and story-telling.
I find it hilarious how Dogs of War is different as the book and the movie. The movie is a classical '80s thing with big guns and explosions. The book on the other hand gets into great detail about the logistics of organizing a coup, holding accounts, export licenses for arms, etc. Forsyth would've probably preferred to write it as a non-fiction book, but making it a work of fiction vastly extended his life expectancy.
Very perceptive recommendation - I love Forsyth’s novels. I feel like they’re a little bit of a guilty pleasure, but damn, that guy can write a thriller.
Robert Ludlum had many that were great. The original Bourne Identity got my family hooked. Beware the post death authorized books
David Morrel also had some good ones. Brotherhood of the Rose was great.
David Morrel also had some good ones. Brotherhood of the Rose was great.
I was an avid Ludlum reader in my youth and recently revisited them. I was blown away by the cultural shift since then. His protagonists spends half the books arranging to use payphones and rent cars in an anonymous way. I can't tell if the job has got easier or harder since those largely stopped being possible.
Or the dozen hand signatures required at the Swiss banks to unlock vast resources…
Robert Ludlum's "The Prometheus Deception" has so many plot twists...my favorite of his.
Also Le Carre's "The Russia House" is my favorite, and has such great prose. More of a love story maybe, but the subtexts are really a thing of beauty in that work.
Also Le Carre's "The Russia House" is my favorite, and has such great prose. More of a love story maybe, but the subtexts are really a thing of beauty in that work.
Parsifal Mosaic was one of my favorite Ludlum books outside the obvious Bourne books (which actually got a little tired after the 3rd or 4th when he was “returning” as the mentor)
Same with Tom Clancy's. He wrote some pretty genius books with original stories and then it turned into a bunch of series that were nothing than drivel by other authors, like "op center".
Even now they stamp his name on games and series he had nothing to do with. I wish that would be illegal, writing a book under the name of someone who had nothing to do with it.
Ps the second Bourne book was soooo much better than the movie and so completely different. From the major events with characters (not wanting to spoil) to the setting in Hong Kong.
Even now they stamp his name on games and series he had nothing to do with. I wish that would be illegal, writing a book under the name of someone who had nothing to do with it.
Ps the second Bourne book was soooo much better than the movie and so completely different. From the major events with characters (not wanting to spoil) to the setting in Hong Kong.
Tom Clancy was my favorite author, I think authors sign contracts that let some entity use their name and it turns into a brand. The Jack Ryan books after he passed or had other writers weren’t that good. How far can you go after the main character becomes President? I did stumble onto one of those authors, Mark Greaney, who wrote The Gray Man series of novels (the netflix movie is not a good representation at all). Spy/action thrillers, main character is CIA “ground branch” type, not a chess match kind of spy.
Yeah they should stop that "branding" rights thing IMO.
The books after he died were pure drivel. Like they were secreted by the authors from some kind of gooey gland in their brain. All kinda the same, like that op center and rainbow six stuff.
The reason I read a few of them was that I didn't realise they were not written by him at the time and I thought they'd get better. But they didn't of course, they only got worse.
The books after he died were pure drivel. Like they were secreted by the authors from some kind of gooey gland in their brain. All kinda the same, like that op center and rainbow six stuff.
The reason I read a few of them was that I didn't realise they were not written by him at the time and I thought they'd get better. But they didn't of course, they only got worse.
I thought and continue to think early Clancy is excellent — basically everything that became a movie with Harrison Ford or Alec Baldwin, plus “Red Storm Rising” — but even before he brought in the ghost authors, his reactionary politics started to get in the way of the stories. Yeah yeah, I can stand a feckless Democratic pol who just cares about getting elected as a dramatic fool/foil, but as I recall his last solo works went way beyond that and just got kind of tediously offensive for anyone who didn’t share his particular politics (even accounting for the typical politics of the average writer of military fiction).
It was actually kind of a surprising turn, because Tom Clancy on TV on the day of 9/11 was one of the most level-headed commentators about the vast majority of Muslims (i.e., not terrorists). And there’s a video of him presenting at the NSA in the mid ‘80s that shows him to be a very bright, very funny, very personable guy. Got the sense that in his later years, American politics just started to make him angry, and in my view it adversely affected his work.
But at his peak, he was damn fine at his craft.
It was actually kind of a surprising turn, because Tom Clancy on TV on the day of 9/11 was one of the most level-headed commentators about the vast majority of Muslims (i.e., not terrorists). And there’s a video of him presenting at the NSA in the mid ‘80s that shows him to be a very bright, very funny, very personable guy. Got the sense that in his later years, American politics just started to make him angry, and in my view it adversely affected his work.
But at his peak, he was damn fine at his craft.
Yeah I thought Cardinal of the Kremlin was a decent book too. Had a bit of a spy who came in from the dark feel to it.
But yeah his politics oozing through everything in later books (even written by him) also put me off.
But yeah his politics oozing through everything in later books (even written by him) also put me off.
Graham Greene's The Quiet American has a similar feel. About an American spy in Vietnam.
Edit: Also, Mick Heron's Slow Horses series, based on a group of outcaste MI5 spies in London. (The first book was made into a TV series on Apple TV).
Edit: Also, Mick Heron's Slow Horses series, based on a group of outcaste MI5 spies in London. (The first book was made into a TV series on Apple TV).
> (The first book was made into a TV series on Apple TV).
There have now been 2 seasons of Slow Horses (apple TV series) and more are planned.
I haven't read the books, but this is a good series.
There have now been 2 seasons of Slow Horses (apple TV series) and more are planned.
I haven't read the books, but this is a good series.
It's not a spy novel by any stretch but if you enjoyed TSWCIFTC you'll like For whom the bell tolls. The character portrayals are similarly ambiguous (among many other reasons to read that book)
The Soul of Viktor Tronko by David Quammen (1987) - from the heart of the Cold War. American interrogators try to figure out if a Soviet defector with startling revelations is telling the truth.
Quammen has become well known as a writer on nature and the environment, but he started his career writing spy novels.
His earlier novel The Zolta Configuration (1983) is set in the atom bomb project during WWII. I recall Oppenheimer and his circle are characters.
Quammen has become well known as a writer on nature and the environment, but he started his career writing spy novels.
His earlier novel The Zolta Configuration (1983) is set in the atom bomb project during WWII. I recall Oppenheimer and his circle are characters.
Great suggestions! I read those after I read a spectacular book by Quammen about either pandemics, or the pandemic. I think it must have been more general, but I read it during the pandemic, so it blends together. (If you don’t know the book I’m referring to, I highly recommend it - look up quammen and pandemic, and it’ll be at the top of the list. Part of the book I remember best is where it tells a fascinating factionalized story of how HIV may have moved out of Africa.)
I don’t think I finished reading Zolta, though. I should pick that back up.
I don’t think I finished reading Zolta, though. I should pick that back up.
Robert Littell’s spy novels up through Vicious Circle are wonderful. He wrote The Company, which has been adapted for the screen.
There may be more than one show called "The Company"; I'm not sure. I watched one episode of a show of that name, and really liked it. I think it was in two episodes, and I missed the second. Ever since, I've been waiting for it to be repeated.
Kim Philby's "My Silent War" is a good read.
Sometimes autobiography, sometimes fiction.
(the guy literally had a hell of a life)
https://books.google.de/books/about/My_Silent_War.html?id=du...
Sometimes autobiography, sometimes fiction.
(the guy literally had a hell of a life)
https://books.google.de/books/about/My_Silent_War.html?id=du...
Charles Mccary is kind of an American John le Carre. The Tears of Autumn is especially good
You must mean the book? I didn’t recall this scene from the miniseries.
The adaptation of "The Night Manager" is excellent IMO. It's a miniseries of sorts (only 6 episodes), however Hugh Laurie & Tom Hiddleston deliver top-notch performances. It's available on Prime Video and other streaming services in the US.
It's British. In Britain 6 episodes is a series ;)
Tell that to EastEnders :)
And quite a long one. I had to buy a whole new box of tea to get through it all.
You forget the academy award winning Olivia Coleman
She was heavily pregnant when shooting the night manager and nobody noticed.
She was heavily pregnant when shooting the night manager and nobody noticed.
I grew up with Hugh Laurie when he partnered Stephen Fry in their comedy turns on the BBC. To see him portray a villain with such steely eyed certainty was breath taking. The first and last episodes are something to behold - he absolutely gravitates malign intent.
I mean, if we're talking television adaptations, the BBC Tinker and Smiley's People are hard to top; Alec Guinness is George Smiley.
It has the most satisfying ending of any series that I have watched.
Personal opinion, it was a well done series, but trying to update the timing of the events to make it related to the post-2010 "arab spring" didn't do anything good for the story. The original story was a product of the time it was written, in a pre-smartphone, pre-widespread-internet use era.
If I can compare le Carre with Cormac McCarthy I would say The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is his “The Road”. Its the novel people always recommend and put on “best books” lists because its short, punchy and therefore seems like a good introduction. But both authors have a substantial body of work that much better represents them as authors since it explores the themes that really are uniquely interesting about their work. For le Carre I think the Smiley novels and a Perfect Spy and for McCarthy the plains trilogy and Blood Meridian are much more rewarding if you are willing to put in the time.
Blood Meridian as "rewarding"? I do agree it is a jaw-droppingly well written book, but it is excruciating to read and experience. This is on a par with recommending Irreversible as more rewarding for French cinema if I put in the time. Please stop destroying young minds. /s
I think "The Spy" is a better stand-alone book than any of the Smiley trilogy books are. It's not as interesting as Honorable Schoolboy, but it's more tightly plotted and asks some of the same questions in a more interesting way.
Cormac McCarthy I'd start with Blood Meridian. But le Carre, I'd start with "Spy".
Cormac McCarthy I'd start with Blood Meridian. But le Carre, I'd start with "Spy".
I think No Country or The Road are much better starting points. McCarthy's style takes some warming up to, especially regarding the terse run-on sentences and his strict lack of punctuation or indication of the speaker during dialogue.
Blood Meridian is a heavy and dense book that is a difficult enough read even after you are somewhat used to his unique style and tone (desolate, gut-wrenching, violent, quasi-mythical, beautiful). I also think it somewhat undeservedly overshadows his other work when it comes to internet discussions.
Blood Meridian is a heavy and dense book that is a difficult enough read even after you are somewhat used to his unique style and tone (desolate, gut-wrenching, violent, quasi-mythical, beautiful). I also think it somewhat undeservedly overshadows his other work when it comes to internet discussions.
If you like le Carre, British TV Series "The Sandbaggers" is in a similar vein. I've watched a bunch of episodes on youtube and they are great with a focus on dialog and schemes as opposed to action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhRH76fepKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhRH76fepKg
Seconded. A series that was low on gloss and high on grunt work and real danger.
The works of Elleston Trevor, writing as Adam Hall, are also worth a look. His protagonist is named Quiller, and perhaps the best known work is "The Berlin Memorandum" adapted into a film titled "The Quiller Memorandum".
I know you got it.
But. For anyone who was me. I went so many years not getting the Tinker Tailor reference. I “read” the book years ago after seeing the movie. Yep.
It’s a variation of the rhyme we learned as “eenie-meenie miney-mo.” It names jobs, and replaces the schoolyard rhyme’s 4th job with “spy.”
That version actually makes sense, while the version I grew up with sounds like the gibberish of which we accuse the brits ;)
(I’m sure all of that was clear in the book and the movie. But I know I just helped at least one other person with ADD!)
Edit: I’ll save you the google. It’s “tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor” in 1930’s UK schoolboy parlance. That’s the clever bit that wooshed me
But. For anyone who was me. I went so many years not getting the Tinker Tailor reference. I “read” the book years ago after seeing the movie. Yep.
It’s a variation of the rhyme we learned as “eenie-meenie miney-mo.” It names jobs, and replaces the schoolyard rhyme’s 4th job with “spy.”
That version actually makes sense, while the version I grew up with sounds like the gibberish of which we accuse the brits ;)
(I’m sure all of that was clear in the book and the movie. But I know I just helped at least one other person with ADD!)
Edit: I’ll save you the google. It’s “tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor” in 1930’s UK schoolboy parlance. That’s the clever bit that wooshed me
In the book its relevant also that there is a suspected mole (double agent) and the protagonist knows it is one of 4 people, hence 3 innocuous titles and 1 spy. (After all the rhyme goes on with plenty of other epithets)
It was pretty shallow and typical to me. There was very little nuance to both the characters and the story. I don’t really understand the reputation this book enjoys.
I think it is because the novel has entered the subconscious of spy fiction and so many things have been inspired by it intentionally or not that it doesn't seem as fresh as it once did. But at the time, the notion that intelligence work is a dirty game and that everybody follows basically the same rulebook was pretty novel and even shocking. These days this is just generally accepted as true -- even the recent James Bond movies have this cynical view.
I'm really curious if there's a name for this phenomenon - being unimpressed by something that was a transformative work at the time because of how much it transformed the genre or medium in its image. I often think of The Matrix being a good example of this, both in how it defined the sort of "the world is a computer" trope, but also just action movies for a while. It's still good, but some of the impressiveness of it is lost in how much, if you grew up in the culture after it, it just seems normal now. To keep in the Cyberpunk zone, both Neuromancer and Snowcrash are books I almost have a hard time re-reading without reminding myself that everything that feels like trashy cliche now was invented in them.
There's something of a sweet spot for some of this as well. Too old and it's well appreciated as a progenitor of a trope - Checkov, Shakespeare, Beowulf. There's a chunk of things in the last century that haven't quite reached canonical status in that way, but almost definitely will in the next 50-100 years, so people don't quite realize how influential they are yet.
There's something of a sweet spot for some of this as well. Too old and it's well appreciated as a progenitor of a trope - Checkov, Shakespeare, Beowulf. There's a chunk of things in the last century that haven't quite reached canonical status in that way, but almost definitely will in the next 50-100 years, so people don't quite realize how influential they are yet.
This isn't a name per se, but I think the effect you're describing is a result of having a really good, original idea without the supporting artistry to create something that is enduringly great. To use your example, consider The Matrix. As a film, it is cheesy. But the quality of the original idea more than made up for the cheesiness at the time of its release. Now that the idea has aged and its originality has worn off, the bad qualities of the movie are more evident. I still love The Matrix, but I understand why people don't. In order to be great for long periods of time, you need the beautiful, original idea, but you also need the master craftsmanship that creates a work that can stand on its own.
Perhaps, but I also think there's elements of the film making of The Matrix that also impacted the way that action movies were shot and planned. There's a lot of scenes that seem less cool when you probably saw the Simpsons or Community parody of them before you ever saw The Matrix. That's stuff that was visionary craft at the time, but is now just so much a part of the fabric of the culture that it doesn't elicit the same impression.
I asked my son, who's a keen gamer, if he had ever played RtCW, Doom or Quake. They are 'old and boring' apparently, and far too crude. He's not at all curious about trying out the 'originals'. I guess he's too young to have any nostalgia for them. I understand it though — I didn't have much interest in history at that age either.
There are some young ones curious about the past games. Albeit a small subset. The nephews at least play a few with me when they're in town: Red Alert, Doom, old Quake mods, etc.
I've noticed that I myself cannot stand games significantly older than my own coming-of-age era. So anything less than VGA is hard for me to appreciate, despite an interest in learning about such things. Let's Plays and video reviews by more patient and tolerant players is how I appreciate them now.
I've noticed that I myself cannot stand games significantly older than my own coming-of-age era. So anything less than VGA is hard for me to appreciate, despite an interest in learning about such things. Let's Plays and video reviews by more patient and tolerant players is how I appreciate them now.
That's an interesting point of comparison. Games have that element of interaction that makes it different from a movie or a book in terms of how well it ages. For all sorts of technical reasons, even though Doom invented a lot of the genre, it doesn't really hold up the same way as, say, watching Rear Window or reading le Carre does for movies or fiction.
I think it's the fact that this is so ubiquitous and normal that no-one has bothered with a name for it yet, except maybe “history”. For my parent's generation, Elvis Presley and The Beatles were something new and revolutionary while for me they represent boring establishment. This is just how things go. “Transformative” only ever holds for a specific moment in history. And human history is nothing but those transformations becoming the new normal.
I always refer to Peckinpah as a breaker for this. Someone younger can watch his movies and invariably they say “oh, so is this is where that trope comes from?”
Lord of The Rings cames to mind.
It almost invented the Fantasy genre as we know it today.
It is still very much appreciated, but I've found that some people think it is boring.
It almost invented the Fantasy genre as we know it today.
It is still very much appreciated, but I've found that some people think it is boring.
I read good omens recently, and it seemed full of cliches. I wondered after finishing it, if that's because it came up with a lot of Angel and Demon tropes used in later supernatural stories.
A lot of Pratchett’s writing is tongue-in-cheek parody of genres, of conventions, of cliché’s. Collaborating with Gaiman might have amplified that playfulness for them.
McLuhan, Shirky, Postman, or someone(s) like that, wrote about how original ideas catch on and get endlessly repeated, transmuting the sublime into the banal. It's inevitable. (Just like all accusations of "selling out".)
Examples given were the Mona Lisa painting and the yin-yang symbol.
IIRC, I read a bunch of this media criticism (alarmism) stuff during dial-up era (post PC, pre Web). Their warning was that digital reproduction would accelerate the process, up-end our notions of intellectual property, swap all the gatekeepers for a new set of goons, etc.
I'm ambivalent. The more things change, the samer they get.
For my part, I sort of adapted, adopting a pseudo Beginner's Mind viewpoint, to accept and sometimes embrace a creative work both for what is and what it was.
One example.
I try to remain ignorant before viewing art and then back filling the context afterwards. I was totally unimpressed by Rothko. Then got into a (friendly) debate that revealed my puerile closed-mindedness. Then binged on his ideas and works. Now I think he was and remains brilliant.
Also, I don't think the replication banality apocalypse actually happened. Just the opposite. Contemporary music (for one) has never been more exciting to me. Today's artists are creating works my generation only fantasized about.
Sure, Sturgeon's Law is timeless. But today's best works are just as good or better than ever. And we somehow both lowered the barriers to entry and raised the ceiling. (There's probably a bigger lesson in there somewhere.... Hmmm.)
Any way. Thanks for reading this far.
TLDR: Arguments about culture are unending. Just roll with it.
Examples given were the Mona Lisa painting and the yin-yang symbol.
IIRC, I read a bunch of this media criticism (alarmism) stuff during dial-up era (post PC, pre Web). Their warning was that digital reproduction would accelerate the process, up-end our notions of intellectual property, swap all the gatekeepers for a new set of goons, etc.
I'm ambivalent. The more things change, the samer they get.
For my part, I sort of adapted, adopting a pseudo Beginner's Mind viewpoint, to accept and sometimes embrace a creative work both for what is and what it was.
One example.
I try to remain ignorant before viewing art and then back filling the context afterwards. I was totally unimpressed by Rothko. Then got into a (friendly) debate that revealed my puerile closed-mindedness. Then binged on his ideas and works. Now I think he was and remains brilliant.
Also, I don't think the replication banality apocalypse actually happened. Just the opposite. Contemporary music (for one) has never been more exciting to me. Today's artists are creating works my generation only fantasized about.
Sure, Sturgeon's Law is timeless. But today's best works are just as good or better than ever. And we somehow both lowered the barriers to entry and raised the ceiling. (There's probably a bigger lesson in there somewhere.... Hmmm.)
Any way. Thanks for reading this far.
TLDR: Arguments about culture are unending. Just roll with it.
I'm not even thinking about it as a matter of arguments over if the book is good or such, just the interesting phenomenon of different sorts of art. I find some works to be singular in ways where even if they're emulated, the original still has distinct power. Rothko's chapel in Houston is a good example of one where there's a specificity to the original that would be hard to emulate. Same with many great works of architecture.
What I'm thinking of is more like records in athletics. It's hard to appreciate how good a sprinter was in 1950 when their world record time wouldn't even qualify for a college track meet these days. Even if you mentally understand how good they were, and how what got them to that level set the groundwork for what's making people so much faster now, it still looks like someone running fairly slowly.
In some ways, it's a sort of artistic Eternal September.
What I'm thinking of is more like records in athletics. It's hard to appreciate how good a sprinter was in 1950 when their world record time wouldn't even qualify for a college track meet these days. Even if you mentally understand how good they were, and how what got them to that level set the groundwork for what's making people so much faster now, it still looks like someone running fairly slowly.
In some ways, it's a sort of artistic Eternal September.
[deleted]
It was also seen as a more realistic, grown-up alternative to the James Bond novels that were hugely popular at the time.
Thanks for that insight. I read the book for the first time in 2015, well after it had already established itself. I can see the appeal if it had a revelatory view on spycraft at the time.
Yea, I had the good fortune of reading it in a class in school where we went through a number of spy thriller books as a genre exercise. Reading it alongside something like the original Casino Royale by Ian Fleming is a really interesting pairing. In some ways, it's similar to other splits in genre - Neuromancer vs. Snow Crash, Agatha Christie vs. Conan Doyle. Neither is objectively better, but they both set the tone of the genre for the next century.
Both Fleming and Le Carre had experienced real-world spycraft, and so their competing visions of fiction both had the pedigree of realism, but applied in different ways and with different worldviews.
Both Fleming and Le Carre had experienced real-world spycraft, and so their competing visions of fiction both had the pedigree of realism, but applied in different ways and with different worldviews.
Yeah, Fleming knew more the schmoozing at fancy parties like Bond in part because he was working in the US in 1940-1941 trying (and failing) to convince American politicians to enter the war (before it had to in late 1941).
Cornwall (Le Carre) said that the tradecraft was deliberately fictitious as he created the consequences of revealing secrets from his time in MI6. Amusingly, real spies then adopted his terminology.
What I like most about John Le Carre's novels is the length they go in breaking down the bureaucratic, political, and psychological aspects of espionage. Each book is another window into the actual mechanics of intelligence work.
So it's not surprising that quite a bit of common espionage vocab was popularised by him - e.g. "mole", "honey trap", "intelligence customer"
So it's not surprising that quite a bit of common espionage vocab was popularised by him - e.g. "mole", "honey trap", "intelligence customer"
I love the break down, but also how it paints that there are no saints in the line of work. Everyone is dirty for the most part with grey morales. There are no true 'good' guys or 'bad' guys in Smiley's novels, its just one side trying to out compete the other. With the exception of Smiley himself having the cleanest hands.
Complete tangent, but does anyone remember the online puzzle ‘in from the cold’ or its follow-up ‘torment?
It’s what got me into cryptography many years ago - only two people ever completed ‘in from the cold’ if I remember correctly, and nobody completed ‘torment’ but the creator grngecko got hacked/doxed by someone trying to solve ‘torment’ and took them both offline :(
It’s what got me into cryptography many years ago - only two people ever completed ‘in from the cold’ if I remember correctly, and nobody completed ‘torment’ but the creator grngecko got hacked/doxed by someone trying to solve ‘torment’ and took them both offline :(
The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax is the ultimate spy novel.
[deleted]
It's a boring stereotype of good and evil, which threw almost half the world's population from the wrong side of the iron curtain under the bus.
It chastises the behavior of those people while praising their own behavior, even though it's essentially the same.
It sees heroes in spies, even though they are villains.
Each side thinks, that they are on the right side.
Edit: Even though the novel tries to point this out a little, it still uses all of the above to great effect.
It chastises the behavior of those people while praising their own behavior, even though it's essentially the same.
It sees heroes in spies, even though they are villains.
Each side thinks, that they are on the right side.
Edit: Even though the novel tries to point this out a little, it still uses all of the above to great effect.
Even with all your misguided moral ambiguity, you can’t ignore that the Berlin wall was only built by one side.
All governance systems are imperfect, but some are more imperfect than others.
All governance systems are imperfect, but some are more imperfect than others.
These books are famous for doing basically the opposite thing. I won't spoil the ending of this book, but, I mean, it couldn't really be clearer.
Have you read even one chapter of the novel?
Although he is fascinated by the craft of spying (and I can see why some people might find that objectionable or regrettable) Le Carre does not engage in the moral stereotyping or moral certainty you describe.
Also, spies probably save lives: if for example the Kremlin had been more skilled at collecting and analyzing information about Ukraine's military capabilities, they probably wouldn't have invaded.
Although he is fascinated by the craft of spying (and I can see why some people might find that objectionable or regrettable) Le Carre does not engage in the moral stereotyping or moral certainty you describe.
Also, spies probably save lives: if for example the Kremlin had been more skilled at collecting and analyzing information about Ukraine's military capabilities, they probably wouldn't have invaded.
"which threw almost half the world's population from the wrong side of the iron curtain under the bus."
I am one of those people. We didn't get to choose, but most of us hated the regimes that ruled us. I am fine with their portrayal as prisons of nations, because that is what they were. No need to whitewash Communism.
The Soviet empire was brutal and evil, and I am not at all surprised that a former KGB thug now started the biggest land war in Europe since 1945. It perfectly fits the imperial mentality of the Siloviki [0], who all made their early careers in Soviet armed forces and secret police.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silovik
I am one of those people. We didn't get to choose, but most of us hated the regimes that ruled us. I am fine with their portrayal as prisons of nations, because that is what they were. No need to whitewash Communism.
The Soviet empire was brutal and evil, and I am not at all surprised that a former KGB thug now started the biggest land war in Europe since 1945. It perfectly fits the imperial mentality of the Siloviki [0], who all made their early careers in Soviet armed forces and secret police.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silovik
My favorite Le Carre book is probably The Perfect Spy (especially that it is autobiographical to a great extent).
One of my favorite novels of any genre.
Someone who likes this book might like Box 88 by Charles Cumming as well. I can recommend it.
[deleted]
If you like that, you might also enjoy "The Company" by Robert Littell.
My top 10 favorite spy fiction authors in no particular order:
Gerald Seymour
Charles Cumming
Mick Herron
Simon Conway
David Ignatius
David McCloskey
Charles McCarry
Robert Littell
Brian Freemantle
Paul Vidich
Gerald Seymour
Charles Cumming
Mick Herron
Simon Conway
David Ignatius
David McCloskey
Charles McCarry
Robert Littell
Brian Freemantle
Paul Vidich
I really liked the book, and recommend it wholeheartedly, with the note that one should have some good knowledge about the cold war to understand it.
I do not agree with the review though. Spoilers ahead. The novel isn't about "about a lasting, even defiant humanism in the face of battling ideologies". The humanism wasn't very lasting or defiant. The most likeably and humanist character -- the pretty jewish girl, was brutally murdered at the berlin wall after all of her dreams were mercilessly destroyed. The other character figured out what was happening to him, but wasn't much defiant, he just played his part like a good soldier even after he knew he was being betrayed and used to kill innocent people. It is a good book, but a very sad one, with a brutal unhappy ending.
But the really scary thing about this novel is something I understood only after reading it for a second time. While the ending was horrible and unhappy from the point of view of ordinary people like me, it was really meant to be a happy ending from the point of view of people that matter -- i.e., Le Carre's bosses at the various spy agencies and the English upper class.
After all it has England winning. And England wins in a very English way, by being smart, calculating, duplicitous, nasty and ruthless and completely free of any higher principles. And especially free of humanism. In other words, very similar to the way England conquered and ruled half the world.
I bet the English upper classes loved to see how nasty and ruthless their spy agencies were and the spy agencies loved how they were portrayed in the novel.
Even the death of the pretty girl is justified if one looks upon it with the logic of the English ruling class. She was after all, a traitor. She was born and raised in England and yet was a communist. Le Carre portrays her very sympathetically as a misguided idealist, but kills her off after all.
Thus I do not agree with the other part of the review, and the usual treatment Le Carre gets. And that is that Le Carre is some kind of dissident showing the bad side of intelligence services against their wishes. I am sure, the book got the full blessing of Mi 6 top brass, if it was not directly ordered by them.
Don't get me wrong, I think Le Carre was a brilliant writer, but on more careful consideration I am pretty sure some of his early works were not the dissident works the entire literary community pretends them to be but straight up public relations for the MI 6.
His next novel, the looking glass war, confirms my suspicions. It is about some government department other than the Circus (which is Le Carre's code name for MI 6) tries to do some spying for themselves independently of the Circus. The upper levels of government fund them because they do not want all the spying competence to be concentrated in one department. Well, that other department fails utterly because of lack of experience, professionalism, training, etc. The moral of the entire story is that the government should not let other departments do any spying, but they should give all the spying missions and all the money to the Circus (i.e., MI 6).
To Le Carres credit, his later novels that I read are genuinely subversive, revealing some uncomfortable truths about power. It seems that after the iron curtain fell, he had much more freedom of speech.
I do not agree with the review though. Spoilers ahead. The novel isn't about "about a lasting, even defiant humanism in the face of battling ideologies". The humanism wasn't very lasting or defiant. The most likeably and humanist character -- the pretty jewish girl, was brutally murdered at the berlin wall after all of her dreams were mercilessly destroyed. The other character figured out what was happening to him, but wasn't much defiant, he just played his part like a good soldier even after he knew he was being betrayed and used to kill innocent people. It is a good book, but a very sad one, with a brutal unhappy ending.
But the really scary thing about this novel is something I understood only after reading it for a second time. While the ending was horrible and unhappy from the point of view of ordinary people like me, it was really meant to be a happy ending from the point of view of people that matter -- i.e., Le Carre's bosses at the various spy agencies and the English upper class.
After all it has England winning. And England wins in a very English way, by being smart, calculating, duplicitous, nasty and ruthless and completely free of any higher principles. And especially free of humanism. In other words, very similar to the way England conquered and ruled half the world.
I bet the English upper classes loved to see how nasty and ruthless their spy agencies were and the spy agencies loved how they were portrayed in the novel.
Even the death of the pretty girl is justified if one looks upon it with the logic of the English ruling class. She was after all, a traitor. She was born and raised in England and yet was a communist. Le Carre portrays her very sympathetically as a misguided idealist, but kills her off after all.
Thus I do not agree with the other part of the review, and the usual treatment Le Carre gets. And that is that Le Carre is some kind of dissident showing the bad side of intelligence services against their wishes. I am sure, the book got the full blessing of Mi 6 top brass, if it was not directly ordered by them.
Don't get me wrong, I think Le Carre was a brilliant writer, but on more careful consideration I am pretty sure some of his early works were not the dissident works the entire literary community pretends them to be but straight up public relations for the MI 6.
His next novel, the looking glass war, confirms my suspicions. It is about some government department other than the Circus (which is Le Carre's code name for MI 6) tries to do some spying for themselves independently of the Circus. The upper levels of government fund them because they do not want all the spying competence to be concentrated in one department. Well, that other department fails utterly because of lack of experience, professionalism, training, etc. The moral of the entire story is that the government should not let other departments do any spying, but they should give all the spying missions and all the money to the Circus (i.e., MI 6).
To Le Carres credit, his later novels that I read are genuinely subversive, revealing some uncomfortable truths about power. It seems that after the iron curtain fell, he had much more freedom of speech.
Cornwall was a full-on liberal, very woke and cynical about the state despite being one of its minions. He was always on TV berating Tony Blair or the tories. He had this in common with very many of the junior ranks of MI5/6 with whom there was a great divide with the upper echelons who were loyal cynical establishment servants. It's difficult to imagine him knowingly serving as the propaganda arm of MI6.
[deleted]
My wife and I just finished watching all of The Americans on Hulu, and this really resonates with me. Somehow, I managed to completely miss the show when it ran from 2013-2018, and was only reminded of its existence after watching and enjoying The Diplomat on Netflix, which also features Keri Russell in a starring role.
The Americans is about pair of deep cover KGB agents living in the United States in the 1980s. It's very loosely based on real events, and it was created by a former CIA agent.