5 ms·

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 e

by rcme 3y ago

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.

jhbadger 3y ago
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.
- jonjacky 3y ago
  It was also seen as a more realistic, grown-up alternative to the James Bond novels that were hugely popular at the time.
- rcme 3y ago
  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.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    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.
    - jhbadger 3y ago
      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).
  - davidwritesbugs 3y ago
    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.
- noirbot 3y ago
  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.
  - rcme 3y ago
    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.
    - noirbot 3y ago
      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.

by rcme 3y ago

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.

jhbadger 3y ago

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.

jonjacky 3y ago
It was also seen as a more realistic, grown-up alternative to the James Bond novels that were hugely popular at the time.
rcme 3y ago
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.
- noirbot 3y ago
  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.
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    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).
- davidwritesbugs 3y ago
  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.
noirbot 3y ago
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.
- rcme 3y ago
  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.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    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.