The Spy and The Traitor: what a lot to talk about!

The Spy and The Traitor by Ben Macintyre prompted a lot of discussion. The story evoked a sense of connectedness to the world of John le Carré among our members and provided us with an insight into the role of Maggie Thatcher and others in the détente to the Cold War.

Although the book offered an interesting look inside the mind of a very brilliant man, the text was found repetitious at times and containing possibly unnecessary detail. Some members found the abundance of characters introduced during the first few chapters mind-numbing. Nonetheless for the most part it was thought to have a quick pace, like a yarn, with quite an exciting end. The chapters were noted to have an episodic quality, like a TV series. There was criticism of the placement of the pictures that revealed the outcome of the flight from Russia before the episode was finished. The participation of the diplomats in the escape and its details were considered awesome.

Most members had not heard of Oleg Gordievsky and were intrigued by his story and the role he played in the Cold War. They enjoyed the detail about the spy game and felt the book captured quite well the moral fogginess and the “wilderness of mirrors” enveloping espionage. They found the exploration of the motivation for espionage interesting and the scope of espionage activities remarkable. One member who had a spy in her family was captivated by the reveal of a spy’s life that the book provided. There was appreciation for the human cost paid by spies/traitors.

For the most part the book was considered well researched and well written. The genre was discussed and the labels of narrative nonfiction, and fluid yarn tossed about. The glimpse of the “Deep State” that the novel provided was considered disturbing and provoked reflection on the current role of espionage and other spy activities in modern life.

PS One member recommended another book by the author Agent Sonya.

Our rating:

Washington Black

Washington Black introduces a very complex character. Born of a “Gulliver Like” fantasy, Wash pursues a narrative trail that provokes many questions. How did plantation owners reconcile their brutal treatment of slaves with their moral upbringing? How are we to reconcile Titch’s acceptance of his family’s plantation operation with his role as an abolitionist? What does it feel like to be transferred from one family, i.e., from Big Kit? and then abandoned the second, i.e., by Titch? Is John Willard primarily a device for sustaining the slavery state in Wash’s mind? Are we to understand from Wash’s story that acculturation without social acceptance is futile and harmful?  Why does Wash need to pursue Titch? To what extent does survivor or imposter guilt underlie his pursuit? And what does Wash conclude following his meeting with Titch in Morocco? And how does that serve the novel’s purpose? Is it to illustrate that the road to freedom for African American slaves is a very complex one? Are we to understand that the barriers to freedom are as much personal as systemic?

Blood Brothers and The Sympathizer

A question arose at the most recent meeting of my book club when we were discussing The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen, actually a two-in-one question – why involve “blood brothers” and why leave one unnamed?  My thoughts – the use of this trope provides a wealth of symbolic opportunities.  It brings together in a single entity the ideas underlining the unfolding drama resulting in this drama – North Vietnam communism, South Vietnam colonization and the main protagonist’s dilemma. The Bon, Man, Captain trio represents the two ideologies and the individual torn between them.  The choice of the characters names is both humorous and metaphorical.  Bon, a name of French origin, represents the colonizers of South Vietnam and offers a sort of ironic comment on Bon’s final outlook. Man, a common element in Chinese names, represents the communists of North Vietnam and offers an ironic comment on the post war Vietnamese climate. The “nameless captain” is an ironic representation of an individual torn between two ideologies.

#blood brothers #the sympathizer #book blog