Heaven: February book club - A small town in Germany (le Carre)
This spy story by John le Carre is the book for February.
It was first published in 1968 but is still in 'print' in numerous forms). The story is set in and around the British Embassy, which was then in Bonn (the "small town" of the title). Important documents have gone missing, so a counter-intelligence agent is sent to investigate. Read on...
I will, as usual , post some questions for discussion on or around the 20 th of thismonth.
It was first published in 1968 but is still in 'print' in numerous forms). The story is set in and around the British Embassy, which was then in Bonn (the "small town" of the title). Important documents have gone missing, so a counter-intelligence agent is sent to investigate. Read on...
I will, as usual , post some questions for discussion on or around the 20 th of thismonth.
Comments
What did you think of Turner? Too rough to be a spy? More like a “bad cop” perhaps?
Bearing in mind that the book was written in the 1960s, did you find the characters (including the women) (i) credible? (ii) sufficiently developed, to be interesting?
Did you find the writing (and/ or the storyline and its development) kept you turning the page to find out what happened next (or what was found out next)?
Do diplomats abroad have any influence on their host government (i) in this book? (ii) in real life? Similarly for ‘intelligence operations’? Do they necessarily or usually confine themselves to a diplomatic “bubble”, thus making anywhere they are based seem like a “small town”?
[For those who have read any of the Smiley books] How would you rate this in relation to Le Carre’s other books? How does Turner compare to George Smiley?
As for the others, they were all a horrible bunch of people with no redeeming characteristics at all as far I can see. I found the attitudes to women rather shocking, though I guess that, unfortunately, might be an all too realistic detail. I also thought the female characters were a bit underwritten. Hazel Bradfield for instance, I didn't get a handle on her at all. As for Penny being swayed by the gift of a hairdryer....
It was a page turner, after a bit of a false start when I was getting totally confused as to who every one was. The story built up well, and the interviews and conversations between Turner and the other characters were well done. I found trying to work out what they really meant by what they said interesting. LeCarre is certainly an author who prefers to 'show' rather than 'tell'. The whole political situation, round the desperation to get into the common market was fascinating in light of Brexit and I found that more engaging than finding out what had happened to Harting, another character I couldn't really fathom.
I think I prefer the George Smiley boos, the characters seem better developed, but I am glad I did read this, and I intend to read a few more LeCarres when I get through my long 'to read' pile.
Most of the characters are not particularly likeable – including Turner, though we could see where he’s coming from and what he’s trying to achieve. Surely spies are supposed to blend more into the background than he does though. Perhaps the female characters were all too credible for the 1960s. I wrote in my own notes: ‘The picture of women painted in this novel makes one realise why in the 1960s another wave of feminism was needed,’ and I stand by that. There are few of them – this is a very male world – and the few are portrayed either as hysterics or as loose women; a male excuse for the very few opportunities open to women in the foreign office and associated branches? It makes one realise the extent of the changes within spy organisations before Stella Rimington could become head of MI5 in 1992. On the other hand her Wikipedia entry makes it clear she was climbing the ranks of MI5 from the late 1960s, so perhaps it’s le Carre who’s out-of-date.
Eirenist raises the issue of whether this is an anti-German book. It was criticised as such, presumably because it portrays the German public falling for a right wing demagogue figure – again. As a historian I found this the most incredible feature of the book. Nazi leaders faced the Nuremberg trials while lower ranking Nazis were generally kept in their admin/bureaucratic jobs because the occupying forces really had little alternative but to accept this – or have the country fall apart (as Iraq did after Saddam) – but most ex-Nazis kept a low profile and in general the policy worked. The idea that West Germans would be flocking to a demagogue in 196? is pushing credulity – and to one who advocated closer links with the Soviets is pushing it further still. This I thought the main flaw in the book.
3. Did you find the writing (and/ or the storyline and its development) kept you turning the page to find out what happened next (or what was found out next)?
I did think the plotting was very good. The interviews Turner conducts gradually reveal more, very much in a ‘show not tell’ way, and shift the perceptions of Harting, making him, I felt, more likeable, or at least more understandable. I found it a page-turner. And in general I enjoyed the book, partly because it is so well-written.
4. Do diplomats abroad have any influence on their host government (i) in this book? (ii) in real life? Similarly for ‘intelligence operations’? Do they necessarily or usually confine themselves to a diplomatic “bubble”, thus making anywhere they are based seem like a “small town”?
In my experience of living overseas, but not in the diplomatic/intelligence community, it is difficult to avoid the bubble – and most diplomats/families don’t try very hard to break out of it. Frankly, I was always surprised how little the embassy staff knew about life in the country which was hosting them – far less than I did, working in an educational establishment.
I now live in Canberra, which is some ways is a ‘small town’ (c 400,000) with the apparatus of government and diplomacy. It’s all at the other end of town and rarely impinges on the locals. However learner drivers are warned to avoid bingles with cars with diplomatic number plates, as the local is by definition always in the wrong, and there is general annoyance at the way diplomats avoid parking and speeding fines. (The more responsible embassies pay anyway; the local paper publishes aggregate lists of the embassies that don’t). Locals occasionally get invited to lectures, book launches and concerts hosted by an embassy – the nibbles are usually very good. It’s almost impossible to judge how influential diplomats are on their host governments, but I’d guess less than they think. Most don’t stay long.
I was also once on the fringes of the ‘diplomatic circuit’ in an overseas country and attended a few ‘ladies morning teas’. The food was good, and I’m sure it was at least some friendship group for new arrivals, but I found it pretty uninspiring (I had strong links to the place already). This was at end of the era where the accompanying spouse was always female; things must be different now.
So yes – the enticement of the bubble is very strong, and few resist it.
Thinking about what others have said I wonder about the realism of the plot. I think I found the ending a bit of a disappointment - it seemed forced and disconnected from reality, but it occurs to me that I don’t really know much about the actual reality of West German politics and its relationship to the UK in that period. Perhaps the reality was darker than I realized.
•
• I thought of Turner more as a fixer and less as a spy. I am sure Turner would make a good spy.
Bearing in mind that the book was written in the 1960s, did you find the characters (including the women) (i) credible? (ii) sufficiently developed, to be interesting?
• The characters seemed credible but not as deeply developed as one might have liked. I am not sure character is the most important aspect of this novel.
•
Did you find the writing (and/ or the storyline and its development) kept you turning the page to find out what happened next (or what was found out next)?
•
• I enjoyed the manner in which the story slowly unfolded as more pieces were added to the puzzle.
What did you think of Turner? Too rough to be a spy? More like a “bad cop” perhaps?
He was a bit confrontational and everybody seemed to know what his role was, so not very good at being secretive. He seemed to be written to contrast with the upper and upper middle class spies and diplomats given they were all so offended by his clothing choices and repaired shoes. The introduction to my book says that before 1945 the diplomatic service had "been the exclusive preserve of Oxbridge graduates, ex-guards officers and former pupils of the major public schools" this changed between 1945 and 1951 when "the post-war Labour administration was trying to widen access to government service". Due to the British class system this was not a move approved by diplomats from traditional backgrounds.
Bearing in mind that the book was written in the 1960s, did you find the characters (including the women) (i) credible? (ii) sufficiently developed, to be interesting?
I found the men credible and the women a bit stereotypical. The sexism was a bit shocking in parts, especially when Turner physically assaulted Hazel Bradfield. Basically the male characters were considered normal for having affairs, especially when their wives were away, and Turner didn't feel the need to hit any of them for helping out Leo Harting. It seemed he hit Hazel because he was still angry with his wife cheating on him, but the event was portrayed as deserved punishment for her affairs.
Even though a bit stereotypical I did find the hairdryers funny though. I guess they were a luxury item back then and hard to get hold of.
Did you find the writing (and/ or the storyline and its development) kept you turning the page to find out what happened next (or what was found out next)?
I found the beginning fairly slow, but read a bit faster later on. I got really emotional when the events turned to Karfeld's actions during the Holocaust and had to put the book down for a bit. Later in the day I realised it was Holocaust memorial day as well that day, but I picked it up a few days later to find out the rest.
Was the book anti-German?
I didn't pick up this theme as such, given the book also satires the British characters and doesn't show many of them in a favourable light. I only liked Cork. Even though Karfeld is the villain he does make a good point in that the British and other European nations also committed terrible acts in their colonies and were white supremacists as much as the Germans - it didn't seem like Le Carre was against this view.
Today I accessed my mother's father's WWII war records for the first time after having paid to have them digitised. The records are Australian, but at a time when Australians were British subjects so I think the war records and enlistment forms were similar in Australia and Britain. WWI enlistment forms ask if the man enlisting is a natural born or naturalised British subject. The forms I read today from WWII (1942 so not even the start of the war) also asked if the candidate was of "pure European ancestry"! Given Australia still had a White Australia policy in place at the time I perhaps shouldn't have been surprised, but I was as it sounded like something you would expect the Nazis to ask and obviously there were non-Europeans both from Australia and other parts of the British Empire who fought for Britain and the allies during WWII.
The WWII forms also asked if the enlistee was or had ever been part of a Communist organisation. I'm not sure if former membership could bar someone from serving in the Australian military, especially since they were not fighting Communists at the time.