It’s a green
time for the espionage genre (at least to me: I read more spy novels these days
than I do the other genres.) Another James Bond film romps across screens to friendly
applause on that venerable figure’s 50th cinematic anniversary. TV
and cable networks are streaming spy sagas on all channels, most notably Homeland and the first season of The Hour.
Last
year saw a remake of John le CarrĂ©’s
great novel Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,
an outwardly unnecessary project that I first greeted with arched eyebrow and
slitted eyes, my monocle swinging free in full-blown Colonel Blimp mode.
(“Really? Must we? Was something wrong the first time?”)
In the
end though, the new version was embraced by most everyone, including me,
without dimming the dour glow of the original BBC miniseries. Both versions stand
fast under repeated viewings, the new one re-visioning the original in surprisingly
fluid fashion, but still knitted to the first by the fine sensibility of the
novel’s author. (Maybe now there will be a film of Tinker’s sequel, The
Honourable Schoolboy.)
And
really, who wants to get snared in a grey, useless tangle over who was the
better George Smiley: Sir Alec Guinness or not-yet-Sir Gary Oldman? Clearly,
these gentlemen don’t. Pardon me while I clean my glasses and gaze out the window at a passing
lorry.
The
debate regarding Mr. Smiley vs. Mr. Bond is more charged, but the argument—genre
fiction as literary endeavor vs. genre fiction as commercial endeavor—is one
that I, in best English restraint, feel cautious about: Do I support mindful
boredom or mindless pleasure? Do the two never
meet?
Besides
I haven’t read Fleming’s Bond since I was a bug-eyed, horny teenager under the
bedcovers with a flashlight during summer nights in Central Texas. I have
started reading Casino Royale and
it’s an okay and likable
entertainment so far. Ian Fleming clearly writes with a pleasing smile up one
side of his face but there are startling lapses. For one, take this perilously dangly
modifier:
“As a
woman, he [Bond] wanted to sleep with her, but only when the job was done.”
(A-HA! So that was what Daniel Craig was insinuating in Skyfall’s torture scene with Javier Bardem?)
Really,
though, I like much better the brown suits and gray shadows inhabited by John
le CarrĂ©’s George Smiley. Smiley lives in a truly secret and much more
treacherous realm, a world perilous to both body and soul, than does James Bond.
Bond’s
body—whether He is Woman or not—faces much greater
dangers, obviously. As for his soul, well, it has a well-lacquered veneer—scratch
it and you find more veneer. He doesn’t live in the world so much as react to
it on behalf of our reactionary little-boy souls. He’s a spy in knee pants.
(He’s also more of a commando type; Ian Fleming organized and ran commando
operations from London during World War II.)
Bond is
fun, even delightful, in portions and sequences, rarely as a whole, regular meal.
I agree with The New Yorker critic
Anthony Lane: You can walk out of Goldfinger,
make a sandwich, and come back without missing much. (Some, like Die Another Day, can be walked out on for
a leisurely four-course meal, Pierce Brosnan or not.)
Walk
out on Tinker, Tailor, you miss that raised eyebrow, that shrug,
that tells you everything.
From
what I’ve read, John le CarrĂ© was, unlike Fleming, an actual field agent, in
his case during the Cold War. We can thank to le CarrĂ©’s experiences for
bringing us a George Smiley who acts like someone who knows what he’s doing,
someone we would rely on.
Very few
of us are James Bond. But most of us are Smiley.
Smiley is
the spy you and I would be if we were spies. He responds as any one of us would
when caught in life’s everyday intrigues—the lies and evasions we tell and are
subject to, whether we like it or not; the small incongruous gestures that are
meant to hide, but instead reveal, and vice-versa. As spies deal with the
slippery world, so do the rest of us at times.
To see
the world through Smiley’s eyes is to be drawn to look closer, for more than
just whether a hair laid across a desk drawer has been sprung, or whether the
label of the Dom Perignon faces out instead of where you left it, at
three-quarters.
There
are intricate subtleties of gesture and language, of intonation, of dress that
need close watching. There are memories to be pored over and sifted, stories to
be told, compared, broken down, then reassembled carefully, and told again.
Smiley is the one to do it, though, as slippery fellow spy Toby Esterhase
reminds us, he has “too many hats on his head.”
To
James Bond, it’s almost always clear who’s good and who’s bad; who’s with him
and who’s against him.
As real
spies know, sometimes it’s different. Sometimes it’s a little complicated.
For
George Smiley (and other loners in the le CarrĂ©’s universe) a spy’s life is not
action-packed and simplistic, but a slow, porously grained, sometimes grimy,
lonely, and painful, taut with suspicion. Most of them don’t even carry guns,
much less invisible ink pens with chambers for bullets and the means to be rejiggered
into a jet pack. Smiley would likely break a hip if he attempted a karate kick.
I know I would.
This
human vulnerability makes the dangers more real in le CarrĂ©’s books. In the seven
novels of his I’ve read, death mostly leaps from ambush; a soft-nosed bullet to
the face; a sniper’s bullet from the back, from torture.
I first
read le CarrĂ©’s classic The Spy Who Came
in from the Cold in the late 1970s, shortly after Peter Straub’s Ghost Story revealed to me the literary possibilities
of genre fiction. For me, Spy was a
stunning, thrilling, and emotional experience. Many others agreed, among them two
other masters of the genre.
“The best
spy novel I have ever read,” Graham
Greene blurbed on the back of my paperback copy.
“The best spy novel anyone has ever read,” Eric Ambler replied
underneath.
Spy wasn’t just a smart, well-told
story; it was a beautiful, poetic book, poignant and tragic. Alec Leamas felt
real to me, down to the seams on his raincoat and the sweat on his face, real
to one who knew next to nothing of real espionage, in a way I never recall
feeling with Mr. Bond. Le Carré could have been conjuring the whole thing out
of a hatful of rabbits, but it didn’t feel that way to me for a minute.
I did
not follow up on his subsequent or earlier novels immediately, but dropped them
in from time to time over the years. Some of course, I responded to more than
others, particularly his very first, Call
for the Dead (which also featured Smiley’s first appearance), The Night Manager, and, of course, Tinker Tailor.
I found
some of his books a little frustrating, his allusive, indirect style more obfuscating
and coy than intriguing and enlightening. He seemed to be practicing a
literature of avoidance and indirection, especially with action scenes (not for
him Richard Stark’s brutal
“he-shot-him” flair.) A Small Town in
Germany, for example: I recall its supposedly explosive ending as being fogged
in by winding, indirection.
Last
year, I decided it was far past time to return to le Carré and read the epic The Honourable Schoolboy and enjoyed it completely, especially the
opening in Hong Kong with its hard-partying Cold War burnouts, and Jerry
Westerby’s hair-raising journey through war-ravaged Southeast Asia.
A week
ago, I finished Smiley’s People (the
last of “The Karla Trilogy”), and
found it a rich portrait of the ending of the Cold War and the passing of the
generation of agents who fought in it, a modern, urban Ride the
High Country for aging Cold
Warriors: A story about people on both
sides who fought in the trenches but then found themselves cast aside as
history rolled on.
Though Smiley’s People was published nearly a decade before the
Berlin Wall fell, le Carré already saw the handwriting on that very wall, for
both the Soviet Union and the agents on both sides—all Smiley’s people,
including the elusive Karla--who met and did battle in its secret world.
I then
excitedly turned to the 1982 BBC adaptation, starring the peerless Sir Alec Guinness
as Smiley. It’s impossible to praise Guinness’s performance too much, even at
the expense of Gary Oldman. With his calm, almost Santa-Clause-like demeanor, Guinness
combines both great authority and great tenderness; a sense of ruthless, fortitude
(at one point Smiley takes the alias “Standfast”) and sense of sad horror at
the world he finds and what he has to do to work in it. Smiley is a prismatic
character in the novels and Guinness work in the series calmly carefully
captures each facet.
Genre
fiction is often, and fairly, criticized for being nothing more than its plots.
But le Carré is one of those writers who have shown that it can be more, that
the Fiction of Action can reveal truth about the human experience and the world
we live in, just like “real” literature. Those who do the dirty work of the
world do have an inner life, sometimes remarkably like ours.
Le Carré
is by no means the first writer to recognize this, but he’s damn near about the
best there is.
[CUTTING
BACK: I’ll be appearing here less frequently for the time being. My regular business has been
showing an uptick and so time must be set aside to bring my upcoming novel Butchertown to its roaring close,
hopefully for mid-2013.
But
worry not . . . Burchfield will return.]
Copyright 2012 by Thomas
Burchfield
Photo by author
Thomas Burchfield has recently completed his 1920s gangster thriller Butchertown. He can be friended on Facebook, followed on Twitter, and read at Goodreads. You can also join his e-mail list via tbdeluxe [at] sbcglobal [dot] net. He lives in Northern California with his wife, Elizabeth.