Scan barcode
emleemay's review
5.0
I'd like to start by saying "woah" and various other exclamations of surprise and wonder. This was a book that completely changed the way I view spy novels. My previous prejudice stems from quite an obvious source - Ian Fleming - who never gave me anything much of what I would want to read about or what I even find remotely interesting. Big guns, fast cars, hot girls... surely every teenage boy's wet dream, but not what tends to be my cup of tea.
Fleming, like most writers of spy novels, caters exclusively for the straight male reader. His books were never intended to be read by women because in real life women don't fall back with their legs in the air for every guy in a tux who says "shaken, not stirred". Laughable.
And, yes, there is a point hidden somewhere amidst the waffle... John le Carre is a genius, an inventive and wonderful writer. I effin loved this book... it was gripping, sad and funny! Alec didn't waste his time drinking martinis and shagging his way through the women of Europe, he had emotion and he had personality. Alec Leamas would run rings around James Bond any day and in every way possible.
Written in 1963, it was inevitably entwined with the Cold War and the darkest side of East German Intelligence. There's nothing like fiction with aspects of historical and/or political truth! And I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I simply adored it... and I want more of John le Carre right now. Highly recommended, even to you chick-lit lovers who will automatically think "no thanks", trust me you want to give this one a chance.
biscuitben's review
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
houyhnhnm64's review against another edition
4.0
I reread this book because I wanted to read A legacy of spies, the 'sort-of sequel' that LeCarre wrote some 50 odd years later.
I have rarely revisited the old terrain of spy novels, where I dwelt quite a bit when I was younger. And I must say, it was a great pleasure to make my way through these still faintly familiar pages. I had forgotten the plot, so I was once again awed at how well LeCarre plays his cards. Simply a very good spy novel. And, there are even Russians killing their opponents in London, which causes the main character, Alec Leamas, to say: 'You may be able to get away with assassination in the Balkans, but not London.' Well, that remains to be seen, even half a century later.
I have rarely revisited the old terrain of spy novels, where I dwelt quite a bit when I was younger. And I must say, it was a great pleasure to make my way through these still faintly familiar pages. I had forgotten the plot, so I was once again awed at how well LeCarre plays his cards. Simply a very good spy novel. And, there are even Russians killing their opponents in London, which causes the main character, Alec Leamas, to say: 'You may be able to get away with assassination in the Balkans, but not London.' Well, that remains to be seen, even half a century later.
tobyjames12's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
flackbyte's review
4.0
Paraphrasing James Angleton, the former chief of the CIA from 1954 to 1975, The Great Game of Espionage is trully a cold and cynic wilderness of mirrors.
anna280's review
adventurous
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
udith's review against another edition
4.0
This is my first espionage thriller. Since I was not familiar with the jargons of espionage, I felt it's too overwhelming at the start.
As I finished half of the book, I understood espionage is like a game of chess. You anticipate all the moves of opponent and prepare the strategy. One wrong move can end your life.
This book also shows there is no binary of good and evil in world of espionage. It's all about finding a middle ground. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the individual for the greater good. This sheds a light onto the harsh reality of civil societies.
I do not understand why book is named George smiley series when leamas was the main character. Could be because all were pawns of sinister game played by George smiley and the circus.
As I finished half of the book, I understood espionage is like a game of chess. You anticipate all the moves of opponent and prepare the strategy. One wrong move can end your life.
This book also shows there is no binary of good and evil in world of espionage. It's all about finding a middle ground. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the individual for the greater good. This sheds a light onto the harsh reality of civil societies.
I do not understand why book is named George smiley series when leamas was the main character. Could be because all were pawns of sinister game played by George smiley and the circus.
imminentgiallo's review
2.5
This book has EVERYTHING: racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, mediocre white men yapping constantly through their mediocre espionage.
I swear, at around 80% I thought, if the Nazi ends up being the agent for the British, so help me…
Surprise!
Anyway, most of the “women” in this book are “ugly” and all of the women who aren’t ugly are “girls.” Both sides seem to hate Jewish people, and somehow the fascist became a communist? I know this book was written in 1963 during the Cold War, but at some point it becomes a little ridiculous.
The only question I have left concerns the very last page: Am I supposed to feel bad that Liz and Leamas died?
Surprise!
Anyway, most of the “women” in this book are “ugly” and all of the women who aren’t ugly are “girls.” Both sides seem to hate Jewish people, and somehow the fascist became a communist? I know this book was written in 1963 during the Cold War, but at some point it becomes a little ridiculous.