(Warning: mild spoilers)
TTSS is a book I never seem to tire of. I usually read it or listen to it on the commute about twice a year.
I know it is about loyalty and betrayal on all possible levels, but I can’t decide which side it really comes down on. I like that.
I also enjoy trying to figure out why Smiley asks the exact questions that he does. Some are so subtle.
This most recent time I heard a line, and finally understood what was going on for the first time. It is when Lacon is trying to convince Smiley to take on the task. He asks about Ann and all her cousins. Then he talks about the social contract, and Ellis, and says something like, even Ellis knew the social contract cuts both ways. And Smiley says, What is that supposed to mean? And Lacon says, well, he got a bullet in the back. That is quite a sacrifice, even in your world, George, isn’t it?
What was really going on is that Smiley, for one moment, thinks Lacon is referring to the fact that the uncovering of the truth is going to hurt Smiley through his love for Ann. The social contract cuts both ways, this will hurt you, George, but it is your duty. So George answers brusquely, and gets the unexpected answer instead. I had wondered why Smiley answered like he did, and only this time realized that it is a form of anger.
I think Smiley is so wrapped up in the central betrayal of his life, where he is so ready to forgive, that even the second most central betrayal is seen as a reflection of it, and therefore implies that a form of forgiveness must be possible there, too. And he listens to his whole life going by, searching for clues that will explain his feelings for Ann to him.
Just out of curiosity, and nothing resembling offense is meant, but is this your only LeCarre book?
Each of his books have this CHOICE. In my mind, the choice is between what is right, and what must be. And LeCarre is very good at making the reader believe that THE CHOICE is the right decision, no matter how against one’s grain that decision may be. And this tendency is why I enjoy reading LeCarre so much.
I think chique has hit the nail on the head with regard to LeCarre’s overarching theme.
This passage from “The Secret Pilgrim” is very illustrative of LeCarre’s concept of doing one’s “duty” vs. doing the right thing. The speaker is none other than George Smiley:
“Sometimes I think the most vulgar thing about the Cold War was the way we learned to gobble up our own propaganda,” he said with the most benign of smiles. “I don’t mean to sound didactic, and of course in a way we’d done it all through our history. But in the Cold war, when our enemies lied, they lied to conceal the wretchedness of their system. Whereas when we lied, we concealed our virtues. Even from ourselves. We concealed the very things that made us right. Our respect for the individual, our love of variety and argument, our belief that you can only govern fairly with the consent of the governed, our capacity to see the other fellow’s view - most notably in the countries we exploited, almost to death, for our own ends. In our supposed ideological rectitude, we sacrificed our compassion to the great god of indifference. We protected the strong against the weak, and we perfected the art of the public lie. We made enemies of decent reformers and friends of the most disgusting potentates. And we scarcely paused to ask ourselves how much longer we could defend our society by these means and remain a society worth defending.”
I’ve read several others, maybe 5?, but none moved me the same way. The ones after TTSS seem to explain too much, to be too didactic, too self-conscious about the characters. The earlier ones seem, well, earlier in his talent.
On the other hand, except for the two early Smiley novelettes, I haven’t tried any of the others recently. Should I? Which one?
I like the idea of being herded by one’s basic decency towards a given goal, even if emotion is pulling backward. I suppose it also interests me for what is not said, too. To me, the idea that Hayden is responsible for people getting killed and would go on doing it, would be more than enough to justify stopping him. But I suppose that would be too strong a card, and if you are going for a delicate balance of duty vs. personal loyalty, then you can’t play it. (Yes, it gets mentioned, but it isn’t the driving force.)
There are several ‘Circus’ books in which the protagonist chooses love, or friendship, over duty to his country.
One of my favourites is the underrated (in my opinion) The Russia House.
Spoilers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The protagonist ‘Barley’ Blair is briefed by the US and UK intelligence services to visit Russia. There he is to meet a scientist, who has already provided sensitive and valuable material to the West. Blair has already met this gentleman on a previous trip relating to his then business interests in the book trade.
Blair meets a Russian woman while he is there, and they fall in love. When the mission goes wrong, and it becomes clear that the scientist has been taken by the KGB, or whatever, Blair can only think of his lover.
He trades information (this is understood rather than reported) to the Russians in return for some quid pro quo regarding the safe passage out of Russia, for his lover and her family, to Portugal, where Blair is living at the beginning and at the end of the story.
At the end of the story, Blair is still waiting for their arrival. As I suspect the motives and modus operandi of all intelligence services, I put down the book hoping Blair would not be disappointed.
.
.
. I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.