There's a girl - and a boy - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2012) Discussion

[–] nystulc 10 years ago

I'm not sure you can really tell from the film, so I'll answer on the basis of the novel (since the film suggests no contrary conclusion).

In the novel, Bill is referring to a (younger) male lover; a sailor. His female lovers are consistently called "girls" in the novel. They are said to be half Bill's age (Bill is about 50).

In the novel, when Smiley visits Bill's "girl", at Hayden's request, she does indeed have an infant child (probably Hayden's). The "girl" initially guesses Bill has left her temporarily to "chase after that sailor boy". When Smiley tells her instead that Bill has left her for good, she throws a screaming tantrum.

In the novel, Bill does not ask Smiley to tell her he loves her; but only that it does not matter what he tells her as long as he makes it final. He also makes clear that he would not take her with him even if he could because she would be a "bloody millstone". The movie version of Bill has been altered to seem much less callous.

reply

[–] eolloe 10 years ago

Thanks!

reply

[–] carolgs 9 years ago

Bill actually tells Smiley to give the boy some money - I think he says a hundred quid - "to shut him up." That's a pretty clear indication that it's a sexual relationship and not a parent-child one.

reply

[–] aleugene 9 years ago

I've always assumed the money was for Jim Prideaux, and it's precursor to the reveal that there was something going on between Haydon and Prideaux, ala, the party flashback where it shows that the relationship is over and Jim is hurt by it. This flashback (and Haydon's assassination)come immediately after the scene with the payoff envelopes. Upon second viewing, it seems even more so.

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

I've always assumed the money was for Jim Prideaux, and it's precursor to the reveal that there was something going on between Haydon and Prideaux, ala, the party flashback where it shows that the relationship is over and Jim is hurt by it. This flashback (and Haydon's assassination)come immediately after the scene with the payoff envelopes. Upon second viewing, it seems even more so.

Sorry, but no. Prideaux is not some "boy". He is a middle-aged Circus veteran and an old associate of both Smiley and Haydon. They just finished having a conversation about him; and his name is "Jim" not "a boy".

Haydon already took care of Prideaux when he sent Toby to give him 1000 quid and arranged "Lotus-eater" exile at a boarding school.

There is no need to to send Smiley to give him 100 quid and another kiss-off.

For what it's worth, the line is paraphrased from the novel, where is it absolutely clear it refers to a different person.

reply

[–] guywood 9 years ago

This subject turned up a long time ago on the 1970's BBC blog, but the question then was if the funding which came out of the reptile fund would ever be paid. Bill writes personal cheques for Smiley to post, but the question still remains as to whether they would ever be sent.

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

This subject turned up a long time ago on the 1970's BBC blog, but the question then was if the funding which came out of the reptile fund would ever be paid. Bill writes personal cheques for Smiley to post, but the question still remains as to whether they would ever be sent.

The personal check was for his girlfriend. The reptile fund is for the boy. This seems to be the same in all versions. For instance, what he writes and hands to Smiley, in the BBC version, is presumably just the boy's name and address. He expects Smiley to come up with the money to "shut him up."

The novel actually shows Smiley delivering the money to Jan, his girlfriend. Then there is a final interview between Smiley and Haydon, where Haydon remembers the boy. He's an afterthought in all versions, but in the novel, he actually does not remember him until much later.

Smiley offered to follow through, & I don't see why he wouldn't, in any version. Would Bill's death change things?

reply

[–] guywood 9 years ago

This thing seems to be developing a life of its own - the true version according to the novel, and the alternative which is a sort of creation somewhere between the novel and readers' imagination!

The 1970's blog has since been erased as is IMDb's practice, but this is the way I remember it over many years. Fantastical? of course it is. We are talking about a ficticious drama...

reply

[–] simon23 9 years ago

Haydon already took care of Prideaux when he sent Toby to give him 1000 quid and arranged "Lotus-eater" exile at a boarding school.

Why on earth would Haydon arrange a particular job for Prideaux? - The whole point is for him to disappear with as little trace as possible not be found with relative ease. Jim finds the lowly temporary job through an agency, the school proprietor rings the agency suspicious of his thin resume in chapter one.

reply

[–] kristavogelberg 9 years ago

Just finished rereading the book and rewatching the film. In the film, Toby is said to have given Jim 1000 pounds plus the Alvis. As for the particular job, obviously Bill did not choose it, but I do not think this is a very grave mistake. After all, the 1000 pounds (plus, in the film, the Alvis) were a good starting capital in that day and age, making it possible for Jim to look for a job, through agencies.

Incidentally, in the book, where Jim was not debriefed at all, he was in the limbo in Sarratt for four days, juts "ate a lot, drank a lot, slept a lot", to quote himself describing the situation to Smiley. He then goes on to tell Smiley that the first person from the Circus to visit him was the resettlement officer, talking about a friendly teaching agency, then somebody to discuss a pension entitlement, then a doctor. As for the "friendly teaching agency", this might have been standard procedure, just as the pension entitlement, or it might conceivably have been arranged by Bill?

But all this is by the way. I reread the whole book just to see whether your hypothesis on another thread that the Czechoslovakia affair might also have been a speedy reaction to Jim's revelations to Bill after he met Control might be in the realm of possibility - I always took it for granted that in the book the set-up had been all arranged earlier, to get rid of Control, so Jim's revelations did not make much actual difference, while in the film there might conceivably even have been a real general/source, in which case all of Jim's revelations amounted to treason. I will write about my conclusions tomorrow.

However, what struck me most on the re-reading of the book is how many more confirmations it contains not only about Haydon's bisexuality, but also of "something much more than friendship" between Jim and Bill. There is the most crucial one that I always remembered: Lacon, having made new background checks on Jim, tells Smiley about Jim and Haydon at Oxford:"Prideaux and Haydon were very close indeed, you know. ... I hadn't realised". But there are also, e.g., Smiley's thoughts right before Haydon's arrest: "This man was my friend and Ann's lover, Jim's friend and, for all I know, Jim's lover,too". Or when Sam Collins told his story of the fatal Czech night when Haydon did "a thorough cleaning job /on Prideax/. Dependants, everything" and Smiley reacts with "There weren't any dependants", adding, half under his breath "Apart from Bill, I suppose". And there are other cases.

And all the while I wasted time debating with posters (not you!) who claimed either a) there is nothing but friendship between the two men in all the versions of TTSS, or b) if there is something more than friendship in the film, that would be a gross distortion of the book. So now I know that the book, if anything, is more definite and more explicit on the relationship than the film, or, anyway, the visual means used by the film (looks, photos) do not convince many (male?) posters, while (re)reading the pertinent passages of the book might.

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

Just finished rereading the book and rewatching the film. In the film, Toby is said to have given Jim 1000 pounds plus the Alvis. As for the particular job, obviously Bill did not choose it, but I do not think this is a very grave mistake. After all, the 1000 pounds (plus, in the film, the Alvis) were a good starting capital in that day and age, making it possible for Jim to look for a job, through agencies.

Incidentally, in the book, where Jim was not debriefed at all, he was in the limbo in Sarratt for four days, juts "ate a lot, drank a lot, slept a lot", to quote himself describing the situation to Smiley. He then goes on to tell Smiley that the first person from the Circus to visit him was the resettlement officer, talking about a friendly teaching agency, then somebody to discuss a pension entitlement, then a doctor. As for the "friendly teaching agency", this might have been standard procedure, just as the pension entitlement, or it might conceivably have been arranged by Bill?

In the novel, the Circus (through its resettlement officer) found the teaching position for Jim. Jim did not choose his job. The Circus chose it for him. The Circus put him into exile, and found him a job in the process. The Circus (through Toby) gave him his lotus-eater parting instructions.

In addition to what you said above, it is clear that the agency that finds Jim a job has Circus contacts. We can see this, when the school principal becomes curious about Jim's background, and tries to interrogate the agency. The agency gives deliberately vague and evasive answers, appears aware that Jim was injured in the line of duty, and hence probably knows a bit more about Jim than it is letting on.

I spoke of Bill doing these things, because Bill is effectively in charge of the Circus, at least in those areas that are of special concern to him, like Jim's resettlement. Recall that Jim's parting "forget Tinker Tailor" instruction from Toby (speaking on behalf of the Circus) was actually scripted by Bill.

And again, Simon23 is reading my words too narrowly if he thinks I think Bill has any particularly particularly strong opinions about what sort of job Jim should get. Surely this is rather beside whatever point I was trying to make at the time.

reply

[–] simon23 9 years ago

Sorry, the notion of the Circus's thoughtful and considerate cushioning the blow of ejection - transitioning employment by deploying some super duper evasive agency - is just delusional cobblers.

If they're masters of deception, disguise, assumed identity etc. you think it might have just crossed their minds to pad out the CV in the first place to eliminate any suspicions and possibly get him something other than a third rate job.

Secondly, here's that masterful agency at work, amply demonstrating their full commitment to Prideaux's welfare (for those with a reading comprehension age under five, I've added emphasis)

... he telephoned the agency—a Mr. Stroll, of the house of Stroll & Medley.

“What precisely do you want to know?” Mr. Stroll asked with a dreadful sigh.
“Well, nothing precisely.” Thursgood’s mother was sewing at a sampler and seemed not to hear. “Merely that if one asks for a written curriculum vitae one likes it to be complete. One doesn’t like gaps. Not if one pays one’s fee.”
At this point Thursgood found himself wondering rather wildly whether he had woken Mr. Stroll from a deep sleep to which he had now returned.
“Very patriotic bloke,” Mr. Stroll observed finally.
“I did not employ him for his patriotism.”
“He’s been in dock,” Mr. Stroll whispered on, as if through frightful draughts of cigarette smoke. “Laid up. Spinal.”
“Quite so. But I assume he has not been in hospital for the whole of the last twenty-five years. Touché,” he murmured to his mother, his hand over the mouthpiece, and once more it crossed his mind that Mr. Stroll had dropped off to sleep.

“You’ve only got him till the end of term,” Mr. Stroll breathed. “If you don’t fancy him, chuck him out. You asked for temporary, temporary’s what you’ve got. You said cheap, you’ve got cheap.”

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

Sorry, the notion of the Circus's thoughtful and considerate cushioning the blow of ejection - transitioning employment by deploying some super duper evasive agency - is just delusional cobblers.

If they're masters of deception, disguise, assumed identity etc. you think it might have just crossed their minds to pad out the CV in the first place to eliminate any suspicions and possibly get him something other than a third rate job.

Secondly, here's that masterful agency at work, amply demonstrating their full commitment to Prideaux's welfare (for those with a reading comprehension age under five, I've added emphasis)

... he telephoned the agency—a Mr. Stroll, of the house of Stroll & Medley.

“What precisely do you want to know?” Mr. Stroll asked with a dreadful sigh.
“Well, nothing precisely.” Thursgood’s mother was sewing at a sampler and seemed not to hear. “Merely that if one asks for a written curriculum vitae one likes it to be complete. One doesn’t like gaps. Not if one pays one’s fee.”
At this point Thursgood found himself wondering rather wildly whether he had woken Mr. Stroll from a deep sleep to which he had now returned.
“Very patriotic bloke,” Mr. Stroll observed finally.
“I did not employ him for his patriotism.”
“He’s been in dock,” Mr. Stroll whispered on, as if through frightful draughts of cigarette smoke. “Laid up. Spinal.”
“Quite so. But I assume he has not been in hospital for the whole of the last twenty-five years. Touché,” he murmured to his mother, his hand over the mouthpiece, and once more it crossed his mind that Mr. Stroll had dropped off to sleep.

“You’ve only got him till the end of term,” Mr. Stroll breathed. “If you don’t fancy him, chuck him out. You asked for temporary, temporary’s what you’ve got. You said cheap, you’ve got cheap.”

Are you attacking some kind of straw man? The Circus got him the job, through a "friendly teaching agency". The text says so. The resettlement officer tells Jim about a "friendly teaching agency". Friendly to whom? To the Circus, of course. Elsewhere in the novel we learn the name of this "friendly teaching agency". It's Stroll & Medley.

I never said they went to a huge amount of trouble to get him a "cushy" job; nobody claims it was "masterful"; nobody said it was "thoughtful" or "considerate". But yeah, I'll give you one thing, Mr. Stroll sure is "super duper evasive" when the Principal Thursgood asks about Jim's background. He's "friendly" to the Circus and he's protecting his secrets. If the principal let's Jim go, they'll probably find him another position, with a principal who's too busy to ask so many questions.

Complain all you want about how they should have padded his CV. Wax sarcastic about their third-rate treatment of him. Get personal and nasty about my "reading comprehension under age five". You're just attacking what happens in the novel. And that's what we were talking about: what happens in the novel.

reply

[–] kristavogelberg 9 years ago

Though your answer was not addressed to me, I would like to clarify a few points.
Personally, I never meant that Jim got fair treatment from the Circus. What I wrote was

He then goes on to tell Smiley that the first person from the Circus to visit him was the resettlement officer, talking about a friendly teaching agency, then somebody to discuss a pension entitlement, then a doctor. As for the "friendly teaching agency", this might have been standard procedure, just as the pension entitlement, or it might conceivably have been arranged by Bill?

But all this is by the way.

I am not adding emphasis since I am firmly convinced that your reading comprehension ability is not below the age of five ☺

Probably the resettlement officer did just what is usually done while sacking somebody (cf "Up in the Air"), i.e. handing out some "helpful" materials with a fake friendly smile. Bill's extra contribution would probably be the 1000 pounds (and, in the film, also Alvis). Plus getting Jim back from Russia, of course. I just thought that saying Bill personally got Jim a job, though a mistake, in my opinion, is not that grave a mistake. Though how grave a mistake is is just a matter of opinion, and I am by no means clinging to mine.

As for CVs, it reminds me of being rather astonished when first reading about the US Federal Protection program. They give no references for the person protected to help him/her get work in the new location and under a new name. No references as a matter of principle, so the person will be really hard put to get any decent job. Seems all such systems are rather ruthless towards the persons they are supposed to support.

Then again, if Hungary was not a Soviet set-up designed to get rid of Control, but rather an operation hastily arranged based on what Jim told Bill, to protect Bill and Witchcraft, Jim does not deserve better treatment by Britain, or does he? I mean, if it was not a pre-arranged set-up, there must have been a real source (a general in the book) who would have suffered (= been executed), and Jim did as much as Bill to "let Karla into the Circus". Did he deserve more from Bill? Definitely, but then again anything more than Bill already did would have put Bill in danger, so clearly he was not going to do more.

The core of my post, however, was my surprise, on rereading the book, about how clear and explicit it is on the issue of Jim and Bill having been lovers. This part is also in accord with the theme of the thread, which is essentially about Bill's relations, with girls, boys, and Jim.

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

Bill's contribution would probably be the 1000 pounds (and, in the film, also Alvis).

In the novel, a doctor comes to assess him for the "gratuity" which indicates that the so-called "gratuity" is in fact intended to reimburse him for being injured on the job.

In addition to that, he is also (in the novel) to receive a pension.

And of course, the resettlement officer refers him to a "friendly teaching agency", as already discussed.

But yeah, there was 1,000 pounds in cash from Toby to add to the "gratuity". And that was probably from Bill.

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

However, what struck me most on the re-reading of the book is how many more confirmations it contains not only about Haydon's bisexuality, but also of "something much more than friendship" between Jim and Bill. There is the most crucial one that I always remembered: Lacon, having made new background checks on Jim, tells Smiley about Jim and Haydon at Oxford:"Prideaux and Haydon were very close indeed, you know. ... I hadn't realised". But there are also, e.g., Smiley's thoughts right before Haydon's arrest: "This man was my friend and Ann's lover, Jim's friend and, for all I know, Jim's lover,too". Or when Sam Collins told his story of the fatal Czech night when Haydon did "a thorough cleaning job /on Prideax/. Dependants, everything" and Smiley reacts with "There weren't any dependants", adding, half under his breath "Apart from Bill, I suppose". And there are other cases.

And all the while I wasted time debating with posters (not you!) who claimed either a) there is nothing but friendship between the two men in all the versions of TTSS, or b) if there is something more than friendship in the film, that would be a gross distortion of the book. So now I know that the book, if anything, is more definite and more explicit on the relationship than the film, or, anyway, the visual means used by the film (looks, photos) do not convince many (male?) posters, while (re)reading the pertinent passages of the book might.

I suspect you are drastically mis-remembering a conversation you and I had. We discussed this topic, yes, but I never took the positions you are ascribing to these anonymous posters.

Our disagreement was precisely this: You claimed that the BBC version had purged all hints of love between Bill & Jim. I claimed the BBC version was consistent with the novel, in that it contains deliberate (but indefinite) hints of a sexual relationship between Bill & Jim, & goes out of its way to quote the novel for this precise purpose.

I did say that these clues are not 100% definite (in any version) as whether Bill & Jim were actually sexual lovers. But this is undeniable. The main point of them is to emphasize that Bill & Jim really were very very close. Jim loved Bill deeply, and whether it was a romance or a bromance is probably not all that important. And that Jim loved Bill (on some level) is certainly made very clear in the BBC version. But on top of this, the BBC hinted at a sexual aspect as well, much as the book did.

Also your "something much more than friendship" is a misquote. The actual line, taken literally at least, says the exact opposite: "The tutors of both men aver (twenty years later) that it is inconceivable that the relationship between the two men was 'more than purely friendly' ...". In short, the tutors are saying "Gay lovers? No way! They were just close friends." Of course you can still take this as a hint that they were gay lovers. After all, if they weren't any rumors, the tutors would never have been asked to address the question.

reply

[–] kristavogelberg 9 years ago

Just to clarify: I did not have you in mind when I wrote about posters I have debated with who have claimed that there is nothing whatsoever gay about Jim and Bill's relationship. There have been a lot of such posters, and, after all, my main time on this board was in 2011, when you were not even around.

My "something much more than friendship" is not a misquote because it is not a quote at all, just a synonyms for a gay relationship (actual sexual or not is not that important).
Also, I did not include the tutors opinion among the passages in the book that I found to confirm said gay relationship, though you are right, this passage also supports the idea, for the very reasons you cite. Some of the most convincing passages are referred to in my post.

I do admit that I do not remember the BBC version too well, so if you say the hints are there, I do not object- Perhaps I do not remember them because the BBC version is in general less emotional (here I can support my own impression with that of Colin Firth who has claimed that the theatrical version is the most emotional of the three).

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

There have been a lot of such posters, and, after all, my main time on this board was in 2011, when you were not even around.

Fair enough.

My "something much more than friendship" is not a misquote because it is not a quote at all, just a synonyms for a gay relationship (actual sexual or not is not that important).

Well then, I was misled by the quote marks. I assumed it was intended to be at least a paraphrase.

Your reference to a "gay relationship" which might or might not be be "actual sexual", suggests to me that we agree in substance while differing in semantics. As I would talk, if Jim and Bill did not perform certain sex acts with each other, then I would say that the assessment of the tutors was essentially correct. And on such questions the evidence is deliberately indefinite. But on such semantic questions, to each his own.

Perhaps I do not remember them because the BBC version is in general less emotional (here I can support my own impression with that of Colin Firth who has claimed that the theatrical version is the most emotional of the three).

Certainly Colin Firth is very emotional (in a very specific way) in the theatrical version. He's all abject misery in his final scenes. I assume he was asked to do that, and he does it well. But it's rather one-note.

In my opinion Ian Richardson tromps him in every respect. I just watched his final scenes on youtube, and they are awesome. Pride. Grief. Defiance. Contempt. Frustration. Guilt. Fear. It's all there. But then again, he's playing a different character, in a much better show.

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

Why on earth would Haydon arrange a particular job for Prideaux?

I have no opinion about whether Haydon, in arranging exile for Prideaux, was particularly particular about any particular job. He arranged exile for Prideaux, and no doubt (through the Circus and its contacts) helped him get a job. You are reading my words far too narrowly in some desperate attempt to find fault with anything possible.

And of course, when I speak of Bill doing this, I am giving him credit for what the Circus does, since Bill now is (more or less) effectively in charge of the Circus when he wants to be, and this is one of his areas of particular interest.

reply

[–] swd_ist 9 years ago

I also think that Bill did feel bad about what happened to Jim, in Hungary. They were friends/possible lover, Jim's shooting was a mistake by a soviet or Hungarian KGB officer.

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

I also think that Bill did feel bad about what happened to Jim, in Hungary. They were friends/possible lover, Jim's shooting was a mistake by a soviet or Hungarian KGB officer.

Well, Bill sure feels bad about something. He lays it on with a trowel. The audience is left to guess what it is that he feels so miserable about. Maybe he'll miss the cricket?

But what, if anything, did Bill actually DO to Jim, in this version of the story? Not much, that I can see. It was Control who sent Jim to Hungary. It was a mad waiter who shot Jim for no reason. It was Karla who tortured Jim. It was Karla who rounded up Jim's networks, after Jim betrayed them under torture.

Bill is guilty by association only because he works for Karla. But his only actual influence on these events (the script hints) is that he managed to influence Karla to not murder Jim. Or am I missing something?

Contrast the novel & the BBC version: Bill effectively sends Jim to Czecho by setting a trap for him there, and Jim's shooting (Jim remains loyal to Britain and therefore goes down fighting) is a direct consequence of this. Bill betrays Jim's networks to Karla, causing them to be rounded up and killed; and then arranges for Jim to take the blame. Jim's life is spared for strategic reasons. And Bill remains defiantly unrepentant to the end, and looking forward to life in Moscow, despite subtle hints that, for all his his proud unrepentant defiance, his conscience may be bothering him slightly for what he did to Jim.

In this version Bill's remorse (if that's what it is) seems overblown. In the novel and BBC version there was no remorse at all, and even his sore conscience (if that counts as remorse) does not bother him nearly as much as it should.

reply

[–] swd_ist 8 years ago

Jim went to Bill after Control gave him the mission to Hungary. Bill betrayed him to Karla who then set up the sting on Jim. The KGB agent was not supposed to shot Jim and ended up killing the breastfeeding woman and wounding Jim.

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Jim went to Bill after Control gave him the mission to Hungary. Bill betrayed him to Karla who then set up the sting on Jim. The KGB agent was not supposed to shot Jim and ended up killing the breastfeeding woman and wounding Jim.

There is no clear indication that Bill betrayed Jim to Karla in the film. He does betray him in the book, but under substantially different circumstances, not connected to Jim's visit to Bill.

The mad crazy waiter who shot Jim was indeed working with the KGB to some extent. But, since he was ordered by the KGB agent not to shoot Jim two seconds before he decided to go ahead and shoot Jim anyway, it cannot be said he was acting under KGB authority. He shot Jim IN SPITE of KGB instructions, not because of them. Jim's back injury, like the dead mother, is a random, senseless tragedy that even Karla (never mind Bill) cannot be held accountable for.

reply

[–] GorchBrother 9 years ago

Since the woman and the boy are referred to on equitable terms I think it's reasonable to conclude that his relationship with both was similar too.

If it was the woman's son then I don't think they would receive seperate consideration.

"I don't need to believe it's real. I just need to believe it."

reply

[–] Nomad-1968 9 years ago

Bill Haydon is bi-sexual. He had a relationship with Smiley's wife and at one time was Prideux's lover (although this isn't mentioned in the film version). The boy referred to in the film is one of Haydon's lovers. In the TV version (and possibly the novel, I don't have it to hand), the boy is referred to as 'a cherub but no angel' and the money he asks Smiley to give him is 'hush'/pay-off money.

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

In the TV version (and possibly the novel, I don't have it to hand), the boy is referred to as 'a cherub but no angel'

That line is not from the novel, but was added as clarification. The scenes from the novel that made clear that Haydon was bisexual and that the "boy" was a lover were not included in the BBC version, so this line was added as replacement.

In the novel, Smiley visits Haydon's girlfriend Jan (who has a baby) at Haydon's request, to deliver Haydon's check. Jan says "He's gone chasing after that snotty little sailor boy again. Is that it? And this is the pay-off, is that it?." This seems to be jealousy of a rival lover. This scene was not included in the BBC version.

Smiley then returns for a second interview and Haydon, as an afterthought, refers to "a boy, a sailor friend" and asks Smiley to give a couple hundred quid from the reptile fund to shut him up. This is evidently the same person.

There are also earlier references to Haydon hanging out with young men.

... and the money he asks Smiley to give him is 'hush'/pay-off money.

That's the same in all 3 versions.

reply

[–] dylanw1 9 years ago

This brought to mind this bit from the novel:

In the old days he would have brought an unsuitable girl and sent her to sit with Ann upstairs while they talked their business; expecting Ann to bolster his genius to her, thought Smiley cruelly. They were all of the same sort: half his age, bedraggled art school, clinging, surly; Ann used to say he had a supplier. And once to shock he brought a ghastly youth called Steggie, an assistant barman from one of the Chelsea pubs with an open shirt and a gold chain round his midriff.

reply

[–] AzaleaRose 9 years ago

Steggie sounds a bit like TV!Ricki, don't you think? Also, after reading that description of Bill's type, my mind immediately went to Mattie Storin from House of Cards.

reply