5 ms·

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 v

by 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.