Talk:John le Carré

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents 1 Photo Source 1.1 Copyright 2 Le vs le 3 Whats not relative 4 Career dates 5 Cleanup 6 Current state of the article 7 Removed 'Unbearable Peace'

[edit] Photo Source

I'm sorry Black Widow but can you provide a source for the photo. Can this photo be placed under the GFDL ? - Ericd 02:37 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

• It doesn't have to be placed under the GFDL - see Wikipedia:Image use policy - but a statement as to its copyright status, permission, etc., should be placed in the image file (Image:LeCarreJohn.JPG). - Montréalais

• I don't give two damns about your Wikipedia:Image use policy. This is a policy created by half a dozen people out of the thousands using Wikipedia. It has NO LEGAL OR BINDING STATUS. This is an open website. I am not obliged to provide you or anyone with a statement as to its copyright status, permission, or any other thing a few people decide they want. The only obligation (and this was clearly stated already in discussions with Mr. Wales re DMCA) is to tick the box required in order to upload. NO MORE NO LESS. Stop interfering with people who actually make a contribution here. What you are doing is illegal harassment and interference. If you have any questions about this matter, please take them up with the ONLY authority, Mr. Wales who pays the freight.Black Widow__(copied to the group's Village Pump.)

• I've deleted the picture and taken the issue to the mailing list. DW/Black Widow should now be banned. -- Zoe

[edit] Copyright

I'm not sure I understand why this photo was removed? There are hundreds of photos on Wikipedia. Why this one. the person calling themselves Ericd asked for information but I can't understand why they ask or what their position at Wikipedia is to demand someone answer them. Then another guy calling himself Zoe just deletes it. Why do they single out this photo and allow others? Will that happen to other people if they add a photo? Olga Bityerkokoff

From the upload screen Please note that as with Wikipedia pages, others may edit or delete your uploads if they think it serves the encyclopedia, and you may be blocked from uploading if you abuse the system. If you don't think the deletion serves Wikipedia, then argue that, but don't argue that others don't have a right to change what you or others do. Tuf-Kat

[edit] Le vs le

On an entirely different note, this article is inconsistent because it has two different usages -- "le Carré and "Le Carré." Obviously it should be one or the other. It seems "le Carré" is correct, but I'm not familiar enough with the author to know for certain. As well, there's the stylistic issue of how to begin a sentence with a name like "le Carré." In US usage, this would be avoided; however, I don't know what the Wiki style is on this. David Hoag 16:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It is le Carré; starting a sentence with the authors surname would entail capitalising the word so that the sentence began Le Carré [..]. Sjc 13:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whats not relative

using the phrase "morally relative" is silly here: "His works also differ from the Bond books in that they are morally relative; there are constant reminders of the fallibility of the western espionage systems and western countries in general, often with the implication that the Soviet bloc and the NATO bloc are essentially two sides of the same coin."

makes more sense without it: "His works also differ from the Bond books in that there are constant reminders of the fallibility of the western espionage systems and western countries in general, often with the implication that the Soviet bloc and the NATO bloc are essentially two sides of the same coin." -- noe 3:21, 21 December 2005

• I disagree; I find it apposite and exact. 87.123.22.13 16:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course his work is morally relative... Many of his characters pause to think about the nature of their conflict, and they typically determine that their actions are justified by the simple fact that the alternative is worth resisting by any means necessary--even if the agents don't particularly like what they have to do to fight the good fight. It's never a black and white senario, and, as such, it's never really good v. evil... At its best, it normally comes down to the morally relative case of better v. worse. --(Mingus ah um 02:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

• Sorry for the initial edit on this subject without looking at the discussion first! I do disagree with calling Le Carre a relativist, though--some people take relativism in a robust sense to mean that there is no such thing as something's being right or wrong, independent of the interests, desires, biases, and so on of some particular moral evaluators. This is an ambitious claim, and while it might be possible to defend this reading of Le Carre, it seems as though such a reading would be a little too controversial for a wiki article. In fact, I read Le Carre in a way that's very incompatible with this sort of relativism--a central theme I take away from his work is a profound concern for the way that involvement in international espionage can greatly undermine the ability of individuals to lead moral, meaningful, and coherent lives, and the way that this phenomenon is a Bad (if arguably necessary) Thing. (Think of Alec Leamas's death at the Wall, Smiley's existential loneliness, Westerby's turn AWOL, and Pym's suicide.)

(You might also, and much more plausibly, defend Le Carre as a relativist in some weaker sense, as being opposed to the claim that the conflict between, say, the British secret service and its opponents on the other side of the Iron Curtain maps in some straightforward way to a conflict between good and evil, which is I think what Mingus is getting at. This defintely seems right to me, but calling this claim "relativist" might, in the context of the other, stronger meaning of the word, could be very misleading.)--71.65.205.218 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Franklly, I think comparing Le Carre's works with James Bond novels is rather contrived/silly. James Bond is basically pulp fiction as it is and doesn't require any real thought to consider it's literal implications. And even at the times the Bond books were published they weren't taken all that seriously.

However, I think it's fairly obvious LeCarre displays a relativist's quality in himself through his writing. Read any of his books and you'll see he is much more concerned about detailing to the reader about what the actual operatives are doing in the field than he does with the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are always tied to some power structure and thus held to a certain set of rules and conduct. The spies he detailed and wrote about were put on missions that were illicit and thus they were meant to act somewhat independently of their mother organization. Again, read any of the novels and you'll find numerous accounts of LeCarre's characters making their own judgements as to solving problems, often outside their own realm of training. That's essentially a form of relativism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.137.217.32 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Career dates

Need to add career dates where available. How much time between departure from SIS and publication of first novel? Implications?

[edit] Cleanup

I've adjusted the capitalisation of le Carré's name according to the rule noted by Sjc, and tried to tidy up a few other things.

• Just been through and done exactly the same - was the previous fixing reverted? Carre 15:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (and yes, Carré is my surname, although I have no 'le' in front of it)

However:

As the mole, 'Gerald', Bill Haydon, le Carré makes hay with the opportunity to detail the deceit and weaknesses of Philby. - I don't understand this sentence. Does the character Haydon represent Philby or le Carré? What is the relationship of the mole "Gerald" to either of them? How does one "make hay with" an opportunity? PhilipC 08:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been fixed. --(Mingus ah um 02:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

• I'll be doing cleanup on this pages and some relative ones. If anyone has any other comments, drop a line on my desk. Alphabeter 00:15 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current state of the article

Hey, people. I've reorganized things a bit, but I think that the article could still be strengthened by:

• a (spoiler fee) paragraph dedicated to le Carre's Circus, and the characters who have populated it, in the As an Author section
• expansion of novel stubs/elimination of related redink...
• a ref. to cite the specific years le Carré worked for the Circus

--(Mingus ah um 05:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Removed 'Unbearable Peace'

I removed this listing from the bibliography section as that's not a book. It was a short item by le Carré in Granta magazine. Perhaps if someone adds a section about le Carré's non-book items, that could be added, but it might be confusing including it in a list of books when it's not a book.71.162.248.100 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)