Talk:Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Discussion header

Anyone think that the comparison to the Odyssey is a bit far-fetched? Seems like original research, in a way. I tried finding some reference to it elsewere, but didn't see anything. At the very least I think it needs less promenient of a mention. As it stands it almost makes the book seem like it's Ulysses, O Brother Where Art Thou, or one of many other works that are very directly inspired by the Odyssey. It really isn't. -R. fiend 15:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JohnLeCarre TinkerTailorSoldierSpy.jpg

Image:JohnLeCarre TinkerTailorSoldierSpy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tinkertailor.jpg

Image:Tinkertailor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A FUR addressing WP:NFCC#10c has been added. MURGH ^disc. 10:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This article follows the TV adaptation rather then the novel!

For example, Control aide in the book is not Mendel, who is (in the novel) Smiley's backup and a retired police officer. There are more mistakes.

As an article for the BBC mini series, this is fine, but by no means for the novel. There are many facets in the novel which neglected.

for additional discussion I may be contacted as zarnivop in gm^ail (remove the roof, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.46.207 (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are errors feel free to correct them. I read the book years ago, myself, so the mini-series is more fresh in my head, so I can't be much help without look up specific facts in a book with no index. In any case, I'm sure there are plenty of facets of the novel left out, but the article isn't meant to go into too many details, so that is not too much of a problem, as I see it. -R. fiend (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the statement that this article is biased towards the TV adaptions. For instance, I think the word "Burrowers" does not occur in the novel Sarahburge (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite correct. LeCarre introduces the term "Burrowers" in the sequel novel "The Honourable Schoolboy". It seems the problem is that the series is so mostly faithful to the novel, that it becomes easier to inadvertently conflate them. In stories where the film/TV version deviates wildly from the source or makes major cuts, it is much easier to separate the original from the adaptation.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. More important even than the tell-tale details is that events in the novel happen in a different order than they do in the synopsis, so it's almost useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.149.195 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And, in fact, events in the American edition of the TV series happen in a slightly different order than in the British edition of same. For those living in the States, the English version is (or was) online somewhere, while renting the series on Netflix or from a local library gets you the American version. (The diff is already noted in the article)--WickerGuy (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary

I believe that the plot summary requires heavy copyediting. At present, much of it is in rather stilted English, with some very obscure phrasing and meanings. Many sentences are written back to front as compared with everyday English and are hard to understand at first reading. HLGallon (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarr, Camilla and Sand

I must admit that I find the whole issue of Tarr, his common-law wife and his daughter using passports in the name of Poole incomprehensible. How does Guillam deduce the connection to his own mistress, Camilla? What makes him realize that Dr. Sand, Camilla's music-tutor, is her ex-husband? None of this appears in the plot summary on the Article page. If any one can alleviate my ignorance, or my lack of deductive skills, I'll be most grateful.PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you mystified by the book, or by the Wikipedia plot summary? If the latter, this is a call to improve the section of the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that I am initially mystified by the exact role, in the book, of Tarr and his entourage (except, of course, for his confirmation of the presence of the Mole). But if the Wikipedia Guidelines allowed his place in the whole scheme to be treated in greater depth in the Plot Summary, I would be a less ignorant man.PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just study the book in greater detail! Leaky Caldron 11:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I have read the book three times, so I think I must resign myself to an admission of stupidity.PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have in fact read the book, then your post here was inappropriate and MarnetteD was correct in removing the post (which I restored). This is not a talk page about the subject, but about the article specifically.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note about WP:CRYSTAL

Re WP:CRYSTAL, I was reading the bit that said "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." However, perhaps I should have put more weight on "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.", so maybe the Oldman stuff is OK.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

These actually seem a bit conflicting. If the event is "almost certain" then doesn't this almost entirely exclude anything that would be called "speculation", even if "well-documented"?? Other opinions welcome.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical influences

It looks to me as though there are some issues with this section. If you follow the links for Maurice Oldfield or Markus Wolf, both of whom this article claims characters in the book were modelled on, the articles suggest that Le Carre strongly disputes this. At best this implies the articles are inconsistent with each other, but (and in my opinion more likely), it implies this article presents speculation as fact. Phnord (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unused codenames

The anon. IP 94.193.220.27 deleted the sentence "Rich man is not used because it's two words", and explained the deletion as "Poppycock. 1) the book says nothing of the sort, 2) If it is then so is "Poor man" 3) Le Carre writes Poorman as one word, he very plausibly would have written Richman the same way if it were mentioned". The rationale that "Rich man" was discarded as being two words comes not from the original book but the BBC Television series of 1979. Prideaux's description of his meeting with Control had presumably to be fleshed out from Le Carre's half-page precis to a suitably long scene. (Control discarded "Poorman" on grounds of dislike, not being two words.) While not 100% canonical therefore, the BBC did work closely with Le Carre, and would not gratuitously have introduced their own original research. HLGallon (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Is tradecraft jargon authentic?

Does anyone know whether the tradecraft terms Le Carre uses in Tinker and his other books, "scalphunters", "lamplighters", "burning" etc. were actually used within MI6, or whether he made them up? Le Carre has said that the term "mole" was actually used by Soviet intelligence, but how about the others? If we can find a source, this would be a good thing to add to the article. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I used to own a LeCarre dictionary/encyclopedia. According to it, LeCarre invented much of the terminology.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In Le Carre's preface to a mid-80s edition of this novel, he states that he made it all up, with the possible exception of "mole". Although he feels certain he heard it used, neither he nor the OED researchers found any prior use of this sense of "mole" in print except one, and that was from the 17th Century. NeoAdamite (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, as the LeCarrian sense of "mole" seems now in broader use, as especially evidenced by its usage in a pun on its meaning as double agent and as facial mole in the 3rd Austin Powers film Goldmember.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've heard accounts of former MI6 people who say that parts of the jargon made their way into the service after Le Carré's first novels became popular. Apparently the western equivalent of 'mole' was 'sleeper agent'...--188.174.135.6 (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A "sleeper agent" is a little more specialized as the sleeper may remain inactive and even incommunicado for several years prior to conducting their 'mole' activities. Then again in science fiction, sleeper agents are often with some kind of drug/brainwashing is given some kind of amnesia so they literally don't know they are working for the other side until the drug/brainwashing is de-activated. This occurred in both the television series Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica (the re-imagined version). I'm pretty sure that in both series the term "sleeper agent" was used.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Characters...

Where in the list of minor characters do we find Miles Sercombe, the minister and head of the governmental department under which the Circus belongs as well as Ann Smiley´s cousin?

Since my English is not good enough, I keep away from doing the amendments myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.35.34 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing Commas

It looks like Jmatazzoni's recent edits, where the commas are removed from the name of the book, are correct. This should be done throughout the article, especially in the title, which would mean moving the article. I will do so if nobody has any objections. See John Le Carre's website. -- Wgsimon (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wgsimon, The commas should also be removed for the film (2011) and TV (1979) versions as well. I wasn't sure when I made my prior edits, but I looked on IMDB and was able to confirm not only in the entries themselves but by looking at the movie poster and DVD box cover. (This is my first Wikipedia edit; what a fascinating process.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmatazzoni (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Character list

This part really needs rewriting. At least half is not currently in proper prose form: in some cases, there are quotes which are simply added without context or explanation. Most are not even proper sentences and, for some reason, whoever wrote it just added "Oxford" or "Cambridge" to each person's description. Presumably, this relates to their place of education, but it is poor style and might well be confusing to many readers. Unfortunately, I do not have the books on me, but I thought that, should someone with the books see this, they might want to improve the section. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC).

• Or, we could follow Wikipedia policy, and stop publishing original research, and present the descriptions and summaries of these characters (and elsewhere, other aspects of the work and its author) based on published sources. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:94DA:DFB8:C845:3AA3 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Ricki Tarr link goes back to main page, needs fixing or link removed. Also wish there was a more complete character list.24.151.184.228 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR

Any contention drawing a conclusion based on the work, or research — for instance, under heading Jargon, that the term "honey trap" originated with Le Carre's publications — needs to be the result of an editor's communication of material elsewhere appearing in a published source. This is Wikipedia policy. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:94DA:DFB8:C845:3AA3 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge to this article, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

---

I propose that Ricki Tarr be merged into Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Ricky is a minor character in a single book with no independent WP:RS coverage (that I'm a aware of) and almost certainly fails notability requirements. The merger would be easy because most of the material in the Ricky article just duplicates content the Tinker Tailor article already contains. Kramler (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree for the above reasons. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, although vital to the plot Tarr is a minor character and without sources (has anyone in academia discussed such characters in le Carré's books?), a separate article is not warranted. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You made me curious so I checked: It's easy to google up a few academic papers that mention Tarr, but he's not the actual subject of any of them; he's just one of several walking plot devices appearing in the summary. There is a handful of publications that talk about (some subset of) the "lesser characters" of le Carré as a whole, but in these papers too Tarr just appears as one of several data points. Kramler (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree for above stated reasons. Airproofing (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Unlike many other le Carre characters who're deserving of individual articles, Tarr is only featured in Tinker Tailor, and only as a supporting character, at that. Captbloodrock (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal 2

I propose to merge Moscow Centre into Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Moscow Centre is introduced in this first of three tales of George Smiley and the content in the Moscow Center article can easily be explained in the context of Tinker Tailor. The Moscow Centre article has little content and no significant references that could not easily be merged into Tinker Tailor. This merger won't cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree the article should be merged, but I'm not sure I agree on the target. Is there a source that Le Carre originated the term? Even if he did, it seems to me it has pretty much entered general usage now, in both spy novels and movies, and even serious espionage books [1], [2], [3], [4]. Since the term means KGB headquarters, I'm wondering if it shouldn't be merged into KGB instead, or possibly Dzerzhinsky Square? --Chetvorno^TALK 22:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Support merge with the original target (here), on the grounds that while the phrase might be used elsewhere, it is best know for its association with this novel. OED does give an earlier use:

1924 Contemp. Rev. May 698 Two years later,..when Zinovieff had come over from Moscow to keep the German Independents under the dictation of the Moscow Centre, the final split occurred.

That 1924 reference is before the formation of the KGB; Dzerzhinsky Square covers the building rather than an organization. So, in abscence of better targets, I think that Moscow Centre should be discussed in a separate section on the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy page. Klbrain (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot Summary too long

I have added the {{long plot}} template to the article, as I believe that the plot summary includes far too much detail, and now requires the article's reader to scroll down over almost three pages to get to the end of the section. The important details are overwhelmed in the asides or trivia. See also MOS:PLOT. HLGallon (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Jargon Section Has a Problem

The second and fourth sentences of the four sentences of the Jargon section contradict each other. The second sentence provides that "Le Carré has noted that with the exception of a few terms like mole and legend this jargon was his own invention." But the fourth holds that "For example, the terms mole, ... and ..., were first introduced in this novel, ..." 'Mole' was either already in use or Le Carré coined it, but not both.

Here's the entire section as it is now:

  "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy employs spy jargon that is presented as the authentic insider-speak of British Intelligence. Le Carré has noted that with the exception of a few terms like mole and legend this jargon was his own invention.[10] In some cases, terms used in the novel have subsequently entered espionage parlance.[5] For example, the terms mole,[11] implying a long-term spy, and honey trap,[12] implying a ploy in which an attractive person lures another into revealing information, were first introduced in this novel, and have only subsequently entered general usage."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DementiaBadToday (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC) 

Yes, a lot of these were at most popularised by him, or transposed from civilian or military slang to intelligence jargon. He employs it with such flair that I don't think there is too much need to credit him with inventing it all from whole cloth when he probably didn't. It's also worth remembering that spies and writers are terrific liars, and that for all the assertions of candour in The Pidgeon Tunnel, his posthumously published letters are frequently at odds with aspects of his autobiography and comments in interviews.

A few which struck me as either obviously borrowed or at least somewhat fishy:

'Persil' or 'Persilschein' was widespread German slang in the immediate postwar period to indicate that someone seeking a denazification certificate had been judged 'Entlastete' (exonerated). Given the author’s service in postwar Germany, it seems hard to imagine that isn’t where he borrowed it from.

‘Cousins’ pops up in a British officer’s diary entry referring to members of the OSS active during the liberation of Paris. I can’t remember the name, but I shall add a reference if I do.

‘Hood’ as a contraction of [criminal] hoodlum goes back to the 1870s. Spies have employed criminals since antiquity, so no great creative spark was required here.

‘Coat trailing’ was in military use in the 1940s referring to tactical scale efforts to provoke an enemy approach.

'Honeypot' was being used in the 1930s to an attractive female outside of espionage circles. There is also a loose connection via simile here: 'As rife as wasps around a honey pot. Every woman was a potential spy, adventuress or Secret Service siren.' 'Thank God for Laughter' Lawton, M.E. (1936)

There is an ambiguous usage of 'scalphunter' from a 1918 case of telegraph signals intelligence at a Norwegian telegraph company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperlogiK (talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)