I don't think he's the definitive or the, the necessarily the apex or the founder.

Le Carré came up with George Smiley as in some ways a kind of antidote to James Bond, and I think the two kinds of, uh, fiction are appealing for really different, almost opposing reasons.

James Bond is wish fulfillment, I think it's fair to say.

The books are actually more nuanced than the movies.

No, no disrespect to the movies, I love the movies as much as anyone else does, but Bond is a wish fulfillment character for all the reasons you were just saying, Glen, and others.

Smiley not so much, except insofar as there's just an inherent fascination with what le Carré always called the secret world.

Smiley and any other character set in that world is gonna have that going for him.

What about the two of you? Do you struggle with character development?

was actually, I thought, a smart program.

And then I know I did one stint with the DI, the Directorate of Intelligence, because the idea is, look, you're in the DO, you're gathering intelligence, and you should know how that intelligence is used, what the analysts do with it.

I mean, this is just, this is smart.

You have your specialty, but you should know how the whole system works.

It's funny, it's true in Hollywood writing too, which is something that I've dabbled in a little bit.

Like, look, if you're a writer, you should focus on the craft of writing, but it wouldn't hurt for you to know the way the whole production works.

What do actors do? Read some books on acting.

case why why did the why was it so difficult for the intelligence community's leadership to apply a new situation or what they were learning about a new situation to the old way of doing business? Why couldn't they make that transition?