Mister 8

Wes Britton @ Spywise has spent the past few months assembling a series of best-of lists for the past decade of espionage fiction. It was actually a decade rich with quality movies, television, books, comics and video games, and this is reflected in the lengthy lists of high-caliber media that Wes has put together.

A number of the articles went live today, and Wes sent out the following announcement. Note that I have an installment coming soon (as soon as I finish putting it together!) on the best comics of the decade. I’ll let you know when that one goes live as well:

Spywise.net is delighted to announce the publication of four new articles, the first of our “Decade In Review” features discussing the best espionage-oriented projects released since 2000.

Without question, the Crown Jewels of this series can be found in our “Spies on Film” files:

A Decade in Review: The Best Spy Films, Part I (2000-2004)

A Decade in Review: The Best Spy Films, Part II (2004-2009)

The over 50 pages of insights, opinions, and analysis were written by an international cast of experts from the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, and Japan. Craig Arthur, Wesley Britton, David Foster, Anders Frejdh, Amanda Ohlke, and Paul Rowlands each discuss movies you’d expect—the Bourne trilogy, Casino Royale — movies you likely never heard of, and likely some controversial choices.

Then, in the “Spies in History and Literature” files, you’ll find:

A Decade in Review: The Best Spy Literature, 2001-2009

A slightly different team, Craig Arthur, Wesley Britton, Mark T. Hooker, Amanda Ohlke, and Bill Raetz suggest the best spy books of this decade, both novels and non-fiction histories and biographies. Compare your choices with theirs and see if you have some catch-up to do! (Or perhaps some ideas about what we missed . . .)

Finally—for now—the last new article is in the “Spies on Television and Radio” files:

A Decade in Review: What We Brits Saw And What We Didn’t (2000-2009)

by Ian Dickerson

This very lively and personable essay is very different from the other overviews. Here, the longtime Honorary Secretary of “The Saint Club” shares his observations on what U.K. “telly” watchers got to see and why they missed some of the better shows we got in the states.

Coming soon: Wes Britton, Craig Arthur, and David Foster will present the “Top 10” TV programs we’ve seen since 2000. In addition, Armstrong Sabian is preparing his overview of the best spy comics and graphic novels of the decade. In the meantime, the film overviews alone should keep you busy—and hopefully find you matching your own perspectives with fellow fans and experts from around the globe. Let us know what you think—the articles are ready for you as PDF files at—

www.Spywise.net

P.S. The man who handled all the visuals for this series, Peter Lorenz, runs the “Illustrated 007 – The Art of James Bond” blog at–

http://illustrated007.blogspot.com/

Peter didn’t choose to plug himself in the articles, feeling his contributions didn’t match those of the writers. I disagree—he created a great banner, plugged in all the photos, and cleaned up the format. So here’s his bio as thanks for all his hard work:

Peter Lorenz is a veteran Bond collector specializing in 007 artwork from around the world. He lives in London with his wife Mia and constantly runs out of space for his collection.

Welcome back to a weekly series at Mister8 and TheStasi.com, where we look at the autobiographies and essays of the world’s spymasters. Markus Wolf, my esteemed counterpart at TheStasi, is taking excerpts from Ion Pacepa’s Red Horizons: Chronicles of a Communist Spy Chief, and I’m, as usual, looking at Allen Dulles’ The Craft of Intelligence, written in 1963. Dulles (1893-1969) had a long and storied career in intelligence, including a role as the first civilian director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Markus and I have been out of touch this week, and so I have no idea if our excerpts will align. Today I’ve chosen to look at the question of why someone would choose to be an agent (not an intelligence officer — note the distinction that Dulles draws). Allen Dulles lets us know in today’s quite political (and sort of one-sided…he doesn’t go into much detail about why a Westerner might betray their country) excerpt:

The intelligence officer engaged in covert intelligence collection described above is a career staff member of the intelligence service, an American citizen, on duty in a particular place, at home or abroad, acting on the instructions of his headquarters. He is a manager, a handler, a recruiter, also an on-the-spot evaluator of the product of his operatives. The man whom he locates, hires, trains and directs to collect information and whose work he judges is the agent. The agent, who may be of any nationality, may produce the information himself or he may have access to contacts and sources “in place” who supply him with information. His relationship with the intelligence service generally lasts as long as both parties find it satisfactory and rewarding.

If the staff intelligence officer succeeds in locating someone who is attractive to the intelligence service because of his knowledge or access to information, he must first ascertain on what basis the potential agent might be willing to work with him, or by what means he could be induced to do the job. If the agent offers his services, the intelligence officer does not have this problem, but he must still ascertain what brought the agent to him in order to understand him and handle him properly; he might, after all, have been sent by the opposition as a penetration.

As motives, ideological and patriotic convictions stand at the top of the list. The ideological volunteer, if he is sincere, is a man whose loyalty you need rarely question, as you must always question the loyalties of people who work chiefly for money or out of a desire for adventure and intrigue.

Actually, ideology is not hte most accurate word for what we are describing, but we use it for want of a better one. Few people go through the analytical process of proving to themselves abstractly that one system of government is better than another. Few work out an intellectual justification or rationalization for treason as did Klaus Fuchs, who claimed that he could take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown and still pass British secrets to the Soviet Union because “I used my Marxian philosophy to establish in my mind two separate compartments.” It is more likely that views and judgements will be based on feelings and on quite practical considerations. Officials in Communist bureaucracies who are not utterly blind to the workings of the state that employs them cannot fail to see that cynicism and power-grabbing prevail in high places and that teh people are daily being duped with Marxist slogans and distortions of the truth. Communism is a system which deals harshly with all but its fanatical adherents and those who have found a way to profit from it. Every Communist country is full of people who have suffered at the hands of the state or are close to someone who has. Many such people, with only a slight nudge, may be willing to engage in epsionage against a regime which they do not respect, against which they have grievances or about which they are disillusioned.

The man engaged in espionage on behalf of his own country is committing a patriotic act. The man who gives away or sells his own country’s secrets is committing treason. Today we frequently encounter another situation, in which it is usually unjust to speak of treason. The internal political conditions of the Communist nations, as was once the case in the Fascist nations, have caused thousands to flee their homelands, either to save their own lives or because of their vigorous disapproval of the government in power. If an escapee aids his hosts in the country of adoption against the country he has fled, he can hardly be said to be committing treason as that term is generally used.

The ideological agent today usually does not consider himself treasonable in the sense that he is betraying his countrymen. He is motivated primarily by a desire to see the downfall of a hated regime. Since the United States is not imperialistic and makes the distinction of opposing Communist regimes rather than peoples of those countries, there can be a basic agreement in the aims of the ideological agent and the intelligence services of free states.

The more idealistic agent of this type will not engage in espionage lightly. He may at the outset prefer to join some kind of underground movement, if there is one, or perhaps to engage in the political activities of exiles which aim directly at unseating the tyranny which dominates his country.

I cribbed this one from Grain Edit today, admittedly. Matthew’s “About Me” says:

I’m a 21 year old student called Matthew Lyons in the final year of an illustration and animation course at Loughborough University in England.

Matthew has some amazing work at his blog, which I suggest you all go check out. But there are a few secret agent-y pieces that I thought I’d spotlight for you all here:

Soggy Get Away

Polar Employees (1966)

Dorothy