It's not Fallujah but John le Carre rips Bush in "Absolute Friends"

Here's a write up about it.

All I can say is that he's as freaked out by the barbarians in the WH as most DU'ers are. It also wouldn't surprise me if he was either LIHOP or even MIHOP, the book is that twisted.

I can see now why the Reichwing has turned on one of their favorite spy novelists. Throw in his "The United States of America has gone mad" article and we've got ourselves a nice ally.

Has anyone else read it? Care to discuss his new attitude? Or maybe he's always been this way and just missed it?

Either way...

Viva le Carre!!!!

:kick:

least for me) but usually at the end of the third chapter he drags you in and you can't put it down.

I looked at this in the bookstore, but put back because I had Phillips, Clarke and other books I had to get to.

I'm glad you liked it when you read it. He did great posts in "The Guardian" before the Iraq Invasion trying to stop it. I hope this book picks up on that.

Thanks.

The reason I mentioned "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold" in an earlier le Carre thread was a possible parallel with the protagonist in the new book. And "The Honourable Schoolboy", too. These guys who weren't exactly saints but did the dirty work, and were loyal -- and they're sacrificed by their own side as part of a big game. Precisely what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan now, with the Americans who've been sent over.

From what I've read of his work, there seems to be a transition from seeing the Soviets as an implacable foe (the Smiley books) to being human ("The Russia House"), and now there are other characters (supposedly from the "good" side) doing something really sinister. I got the sense that before, there were people on both sides trying to keep a lid on things (whether or not they believe their own ideologies). There was room for doubt. Le Carre generally figured "the Cousins" (CIA) for having their own agenda, but in "Absolute Friends" it seems much worse. It's as if they not only don't care if the rest of us get hurt -- it would suit them just fine.

The full horror, of how sneaky and awful the bad guys are this time around, didn't sink in until after the second reading. The one who actually pulls the trigger -- I could just imagine him having cocktails and yukking it up with W's born-again bunch, and the author drops hints to that effect. He kind of leaves us to fill in the blanks about what this guy is up to.

To answer your question more directly -- I think he always did have doubts about imperialism and the way it uses people. But he's used that awareness to look even further into the questions that frighten many of us. He's been around enough, and is reputable enough, that he wouldn't need to crank out a cheap potboiler just to make some bucks. How far would they go to discredit the opposition? I suspect he wrote this book as a warning, about how dirty things could get -- don't forget, from his work experience he knows a lot of the people who are making these policy decisions, them or their associates, and how scary they can be.

always been cynical, but I like what you said about his "transition." Now that I look back on his books I do see that he has done this in his books. In the Cold War there was the "lid" and then the lid lifted and one got a peek at a little less cynical view, but in the end he portrays folks who would sell their own Mother if it was to their advantage.

My little scan of "Absolute Friends" did seem to portray a dark story and, as I said, I had those other books to read.

Interesting. He probably speaks the truth about these guys. But, I know there's still some "idealism" left in his heart because of the "Op-Ed's" he did for "Guardian" trying to stop the Iraq Invasion. I think he knew the intelligence was faulty from his contacts. Maybe he even knew that Kelly would be silenced in GB with the fake "suicide."

Who knows what he knows...but one would think he knows alot with his history. :scared:

One thing I remember from "The Russia House" was the absolute contrast with his earlier books. There's a real sense of hope -- the Soviet Union shows some humanity, and that family is set free. It's such a contrast with the situations where the protagonist dies trying to save someone else, and you know it's all for nothing.

I think Le Carre really believed that after the end of the Cold War, a better world could be built -- that didn't rely on deception and lies. And then the light went out. But maybe not all the way -- there was an unforgettable "Russia House" passage where he wrote about "the grey men" who didn't want the world to be at peace, and who were afraid of the world moving on and leaving them. When I watched Rumsfeld at the podium, that's what I thought of. Now the really dangerous people are the ones who are fired up by a dangerous new plan ... not blocking or defeating Communism, not trying to keep the Cold War going so they don't lose their jobs, but running the world to their benefit. Just as fanatical as al Qaeda, and just as willing to sacrifice innocents. Notice that the baddies aren't strictly part of a government this time, but have gone off on their own. (How about all those mercenaries in Iraq these days, eh? Do you think Le Carre saw this coming?)

I think he's trying to tell us that these people can be defeated, but it's going to take a lot of work.

around Bush are about as sinister as they come. Even though in their early days they didn't give off the vibes they do now. It just shows that even the most sinister amongst us can appear very "charming" sometimes. Those are the one we need to watch for. They can turn very ugly. Or maybe they always were, and we just missed it.