![]() |
Agent Smith is NOT a nice guy. |
On Votaries, I post about Spies & Spouses.
The below is a repost.
* * *
The problem with the romantic spy novel is that (realistic) spies are not the kinds of people who should inspire commitment.
I argue on this blog that dysfunctional relationships can work as long as all the people involved know what dysfunction they're signing up for. But there are lines. And a firm line stands between ordinary-dysfunction and con-artists/grifters.
Spies--actual spies--fall into the latter category. Someone like Philby comes across not as clever, resourceful, daring, or even dangerous (in the James Bond sense) but as someone essentially hollow.
![]() |
Lee, from Scarecrow & Mrs King, is |
more like Seeley Booth. |
A variation to the amoral agent who protects a sleazebag asset is the tough assassin. The problem here is that generally speaking, tough assassins are like the mafia hitman serial killer in an episode of Criminal Minds: a fascinating character with a great deep voice who has no soul.
Every romance writer wants to create Jason Bourne (who doesn't?)--as opposed to the schemer in the backroom. But unless the character IS Jason Bourne and has a good reason to protect himself without becoming callous, amoral, and deranged, the romance writer is stuck. (In Person of Interest, John's determination to regain his soul means he has created a set of personal criteria that he sticks to no matter the cost--he is constantly watching himself--plus he already walked away from being an official "spy".)
![]() |
Spy movies should not even try to be |
realistic--put the secret agent in a tank! |
Where did my suspension of disbelief go? Oh, there it is, wafting out the window...
I love the "but love conquers all doubts" theme as much as the next romantic. Only, please, not in a spy novel and not in the first three chapters. Even Leverage gave its grifter several seasons to "repent" (and she was a nice grifter).