Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

It just amazes me that famous American political pundit, William F. Buckley Jr., is the author of this odd series of ten famous espionage romps. It's as strange a feeling, as when you learn that Liddy or Mitchell wrote books after Watergate. Why even bother? What does it prove?

And also I wonder, when did he even have time to dabble in this hobby. Did he not have his plate full hosting a TV show and a national periodical? Why did he even have any interest in fiction at all, aren't the Arts the provenance of Leftists? He always made so much of his cold, clear-eyed rationality, remember?

Anyway, I tried one of these once and found just something foul about it. It was just 'wrong', somehow. Off. Far-fetched and at the same time, oh-so-serious and leaden. Not one specific thing I could put my finger on; but something just awry with the whole thing. It read like it was a satire or spoof of the genre. As if the author wasn't interested in writing truthfully or deeply.

"Blackford Oakes" --protagonist --former Yale man (like Buckley) and "ex fighter pilot". Too lurid. And who names their son 'Blackford' anyway?

Oh well. Your opinions?

/book/show/1...

so far the only one I've read is Saving the Queen, I thought it was pretty good, though right now I can't remember it, if I read another one I'd like to read See Your Later Alligator, would like to read the stuff on Cuba and Central and South America if there are more of his books on the topic. Maybe one in Asia would be good as well..

Yes well, Feliks, you've turned on a light, the reason that these works might be 'just wrong', and leaden could well be that the conservative-right view is invariably objective. No self-reflection.
A conservative attempt at satire is more like flattyre.
I'd also like to read See You Later Alligator.
I have watched quite a few of the Firing Line television debates from the 1960s - 1990s now available on YouTube.
All very interesting.

This is a good debate between William F. Buckley and Robert Vaughn.

Robert Vaughn the actor? Were they debating the wisdom of helping a poor Mexican village fend off bandits?

Anyway I guardedly nod 'aye' to your comment #3. To some extent I agree; but I think Buckley --if anyone --should have been more self-aware. For contrast, look at Charles McCarry --he was an actual CIA officer, but his POV is unmarred by whatever affected Buckley. His books came out better by far.

We don't discuss politics here very much; one reason for that is it becomes divisive whereas I believe it should be possible to speak with respect towards all viewpoints (I have several real-life buddies who are rabidly conservative).

But in the case of Buckley I would probably just assume that his erudite background notwithstanding, he may simply 'not have been cut out' for this kind of fiction. It's a genre which already suffers from heavy-handedness; therefore the real luminaries such as LeCarre, are the icons they are, because of their sensitivity.

Heck, even the ham-fisted Trevanian struck the right chord with his jaded assassin Hemlock. So to write an agent like Oakes who is so un-discerning towards his martial profession and who takes his role in it at such face-value, seems silly and naive.

I'm rather amazed that Buckley got away with it for so long; and I wonder why he even tried? Why did no one slip a word in his ear?

p.s. yes, 'Firing Line' had a fine reputation and in fact is being brought back with a new host. But it's odd to contemplate this prospect and perhaps says a lot about today's political climate.

Yes, The man from uncle himself. The debate was in July 1967.
The debate was on the Vietnam War.

I'm reading Robert Vaughn's autobiography 'A Fortunate Life'.

I actually enjoyed his Oakes series

I agree it can be lively reading; but afterwards I found myself shaking my head somewhat.

Fair enough.

I will say the last book in the series was a sham. An attempt to provide a neat little bow on top. But it contradicted the timeline/events from the previous books. Sad way to end an enjoyable series.

Feliks wrote: "I agree it can be lively reading; but afterwards I found myself shaking my head somewhat."


in this day and age, I find myself shaking my head on a daily basis.

Feliks asks "who names their son Blackford?"
Clothes maketh the man. Methinks the author has dressed the protagonist in black oxfords. Might 'Blackford Oakes' be a subliminal adaptation of Oxford? Buckley's first novel has an English focus a la Bond.
Graham Greene was an Oxford man. Greene's American CIA man is Alden Pyle, young and idealistic, whereas Fowler is English, an older, worldly journalist.

From the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ Buckley's Blackford Oakes series synopsis:
"Buckley wrote the novels as an explicit corrective to the "rogue CIA" stereotype, epitomized in his opinion, by the Robert Redford movie Three Days of the Condor.
"The CIA", he argued in his introduction to the Blackford Oakes Reader, "Whatever its failures, sought, during those long years in the struggle for the world, to advance the honorable alternative."