John Le Carré Missed Nothing
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
I decided on a game rather than a book because it seems easier for me to signpost the inherent fog and moral spuriousness of the subject matter.
I'm fascinated by Peter Wright, so I'm aiming for a more scientific than personal approach to the meat and potatoes of the plot. It'll be still mostly dialogue, but with a similar approach to (say) what a Zachtronics game is to its subject matter.
Have you ever heard of or played Covert Action [2]? Not one of Sid Meier's best, but I enjoyed it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_13_(video_game)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Covert_Action
Did you know they are making a remake?
To add an essential distinction: I mean OSR-style (Old School Renaissance) TTRPGs. For those familiar with 'modern' TTRPGs, like the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, OSR interactions are minimally defined by rules - powers, stats, skills, proficiencies, etc.- relatively few of those exist. Most of it is free-form improvisational interaction between the players and dungeon master (DM). For example, if you want to find something in a room, you don't roll something based on your perception score (you don't have one); it's up to the player, who can do anything at all. You tell the DM what you do ('I examine the bookshelves more closely - what condition are they in?'), and the DM tells you how the environment responds ('the old shelves don't sag at all while there's a thick layer of dust on them, except in a couple of places'); ('what books are in those spots? I stand to the side and nudge one gently with the tip of my walking stick, at arms length') ... There are plenty of guidelines for the DM to deal with all the different situations, but it's really up to help the DM to respond. The players, as I said, can do whatever they want without even knowing the rules for many purposes.
Another way of conceiving of it is that it's a collaborative story where the player controls the protagonist and the DM controls the rest of the world, and they improvise together - both experience a lot of dramatic tension, not knowing what the other knows, plans or will do. Hopefully, I'm describing it well enough that you can see how it would play very well for an espionage setting.
However, I should stress that my "game" is currently still a bunch of text files and some spectrum analyser output (That's the level of HN-bait I'm aiming for...)
In a funny way, I always saw a parallel with Terry Pratchett on that front. Though different in nearly every conceivable way, both are capable of writing books that seem to be dripping with anger at the stupidity and evil of man.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/133882816405589...
https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/133882507339909...
Edit: I really like the way, which is very modern, that you can make these points and directly link footage of the man himself making them so that the reader can assess whether bias exists in the reporting and they're quotes out of context. "Here's my point and here's the evidence so you can decide yourself whether you agree with the inference." It's a really powerful use of hyperlink tech. There should be more of it in political discourse.
I don't really follow uk leftist politics to be at all sure about that.
So yeah the inference from it, dunno. The observation seems valid though. Amplifying the parts of le Carre's views that you like and support. Glossing over those that don't support your position.
I always liked Alec Guinness (Obi-wan!) but seeing this made me understand just what an incredible actor he was. BBC just knocks it out of the park here, and, it's way better than the Gary Oldman film (no disrespect). IMHO one of the best television shows ever made. Would totally put it up against The Wire, although it's an apples-to-oranges comparison for a variety of reasons.
FYI said miniseries can often be found floating around on Youtbe.
Oldman in fact does turn out a subtle and nuanced portayal of Smiley, that is not any less superlative.
Definitely not just the Alec Guinness Show.
To the original point that you seem to disagree with - I think the person making that comparison will agree that the show is built around Guinness in a way the film is not built around Oldman. I don't think that's wrong, and which is "better" must be a point of personal preference. One could not make a show with Alec Guinness any other way, and the result is certainly worthwhile.
It really is a great show and of course I'd encourage anyone to watch both. A person reading your comment might end up being a little disappointed, though. The most eminent name on that list, and the one people outside the UK are likely to recognize, does not even have a speaking part.
Nor would it be nearly as good if it had Alex Guinness, but the supporting cast wasn’t up to snuff.
Lol I very strongly feel that the miniseries kicks the movies ass :).
Consider that Gary Oldman re-uses the glasses prop for George Smiley which Guinness originated. That’s how long a shadow Guinness cast in the role - it’s the definitive performance, and thus the definitive filmic version :).
They’re not nearly as good as the actors in the film, and they’re used to a much lesser extent. (Seems a little mean but you did force me to spell it out.)
The positive comments make me feel I do need to give the series another watch someday soon to understand where the fans are coming from. I think I had a much more positive view of Smiley’s People than some, which I’m curious about too...
> Lol I very strongly feel that the miniseries kicks the movies ass :).
I can clear a room by going on about how Soderbergh’s Solaris is superior to Tarkovsky’s, so I guess I’m not a stranger to your plight.
> Consider that Gary Oldman re-uses the glasses prop for George Smiley which Guinness originated.
He used Guinness’s voice. It’s astonishing, really.
> it’s the definitive performance, and thus the definitive filmic version :)
You’ve got me wishing it was filmic - unless I’m mistaken it’s 576i :(
There’s a series with Helen Mirren called Prime Suspect that was shown intermittently in England over twenty five years. One thing I took away from it was that the evolving aspect ratios of broadcast TV (the show used three different ones over time, inviting some comparison) really have expanded what’s possible on the screen.
> They’re not nearly as good as the actors in the film, and they’re used to a much lesser extent. (Seems a little mean but you did force me to spell it out.)
Factually incorrect on both counts and very unfair to an outstanding cast.
> The positive comments make me feel I do need to give the series another watch someday soon to understand where the fans are coming from. I think I had a much more positive view of Smiley’s People than some, which I’m curious about too...
Maybe a good idea to have a recent watch before criticising. Actually Smiley's people suffers from many of the flaws you've highlighted with a much weaker cast beyond Guinness.
> You’ve got me wishing it was filmic - unless I’m mistaken it’s 576i :(
Yes it was made for TV and made in 1979. As a result it is also utterly authentic.
I have many, many criticisms of the film which I'm not going to express because it may just be my taste and I'm glad that lots of people enjoyed it. I just don't want anyone to be put off seeking out the TV series because of an assessment that is so far out of the consensus.
Edit: for an independent view the LA Times gives a good assessment of both.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2011-nov-27-la-...
> Yes it was made for TV and made in 1979. As a result it is also utterly authentic.
“Authentic.” Okay.
The remarkable photography of the film is part of its value.
> I just don't want anyone to be put off seeking out the TV series because of an assessment that is so far out of the consensus.
It’s free on YouTube. The most people have to lose is their time, and it's Alec Guinness, so of course people should watch it and form their own opinions.
> I've been trying to stop myself from commenting further but you've forced me to!
It's an interesting topic that doesn't involve the ongoing decline of civilization, or Rust, so I don't think you should be shy about it.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/we-are-all-sm...
Ha, Soderbergh's Tarkovsky I have never seen - sounds like I should.
You're probably right about filmic - I was just looking for the word that encompasses film/tv/video.
FWIW I saw the film before the miniseries, and, really liked it at the time. It's been a minute. Sounds like maybe I should
Also, watch the series not the film (if you must, watch the film second). The series is far better.
It's not as good as TTSS, bit still worth watching in my opinion.
I'm gradually watching through TTSS now. So good, although the first episode suffers from the common problem of no subtitles for the Czech scenes in Ep 1.
https://www.facebook.com/william.donadio.7
"William Daniel Donadïo, a Panamanian tailor who was born in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama, explains how he became one of the leading Master Tailor and Designer of Panamá, a profession in which he has dedicated more than sixty-eight years of his life."
Think about it - who could possibly be a more perfect double agent than the son of a con man?