The Great Game: The Myth and Reality of Espionage

by Frederick P. Hitz

In this fascinating analysis, Frederick Hitz, former inspector general of the Central Intelligence Agency, contrasts the writings of well-known authors of spy novels—classic and popular—with real-life espionage cases. Drawing on personal experience both as a participant in “the Great Game” and as the first presidentially appointed inspector general, Hitz shows the remarkable degree to which truth is stranger than fiction.

The vivid cast of characters includes real life spies Pyotr Popov and Oleg Penkovsky from Soviet military intelligence; Kim Philby, the infamous Soviet spy; Aldrich Ames, the most damaging CIA spy to American interests in the Cold War; and Duane Clarridge, a CIA career operations officer. They are held up against such legendary genre spies as Bill Haydon (le Carré’s mole in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy ), Magnus Pym (in le Carré’s A Perfect Spy ), Tom Rogers (in David Ignatius’s Agents of Innocence ), and Maurice Castle (in Graham Greene’s The Human Factor ).

As Hitz skillfully weaves examples from a wide range of espionage activities—from covert action to counterintelligence to classic agent operations—we see that the actual is often more compelling than the imaginary, and that real spy case histories present moral and other questions far more pointedly than fiction.
A lively account of espionage, spy tradecraft, and, most of all, the human dilemmas of betrayal, manipulation, and deceit.

Genres: Espionage, History, Nonfiction, Government, Research, Literature, Reference

224 pages, Hardcover

First published April 20, 2004

Reviews

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author, a former employee of the CIA, attempts to juxtapose (I chose that word for you Mary) some of the reality with some of the fiction found in the spy novels he deems as ‘classic’.

It’s an interesting read, but I’m not too convinced it works too well.

It must be accepted, by all, that the manuscript was pored over by the CIA editors long before this went anywhere near a publishing house. As a consequence little is given out on operational facts. A good deal of pages are filled with the writings found in these ‘classic’ novels.

We’ve a chapter on traitors, much of which discusses the psychological makeup of the traitor and the drivers of this ‘life choice’. It may be that the editorial panel had the black-marker-pen in hand, but I, some years back, was reliably informed it was simply MICE that made the traitor:

Money
Ideology
Compromat
Ego

We spend time focused on the introspection of the battle-scared minds of fictional time-served spy heroes. I’ve read a good amount of these ‘classics’ and always come away with the belief that when plot development slows to a stop, the first port of call is a thorough self-examination by ‘the spy of the time’ to bridge the gap.

I’m sure some spies do struggle with some of what they’ve faced in their life of spying, but not too much when active - more so, I’d suggest, when alone and part way into a bottle of scotch.

There is a chapter devoted to tradecraft - be warned the editorial panel definitely spent a good few few hours here. In this the author mentions self-discipline. Field agents only survive because of strict, incredibly strict, self-discipline. What is touched upon in this chapter is the tip of a very big iceberg. Counter-surveillance = Tradecraft: hours and hours and hours of it.

It is well-worth a read, but I’d suggest, it gives little more than a glimpse at reality and does little to expose that which is myth.

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

Found this while searching the library for books on the "other" Great Game, and thought it looked interesting. However, while I was really looking for something that did a more side-by-side comparison of literary espionage and the real thing, this turned out to be fiction lite and "real spy" heavy, and so was ultimately more of just another "introduction to the history of espionage and the CIA in the 20th Century" with nominal literary aspirations.

The book was at its most interesting when Hitz did focus on spies in fiction, and he cited numerous (although still too few) examples from Conrad's The Secret Agent to Buchan's The Thirty-Nine Steps and up through le Carré and Clancy. But again - just not enough of this; I frankly got more out of Mike Ripley's Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang: The Boom in British Thrillers from Casino Royale to The Eagle Has Landed.

Another flaw, albeit an unavoidable one, is the age of the book. Published in 2004, it's most current reference is "Will Smith's recent movie, Enemy of the State." And so it totally misses out on spying in the age of the internet and Edward Snowden.

So ultimately, while not quite in the "I read this so you don't have to" category, this one just needed a little more pizazz. In fact and in hindsight, it really read more like a textbook for a course of the same name

[Deepak · Rating 4 out of 5]

If someone would ask me the description about this book then I would use the phrase " truth is stranger than fiction ".This book is a comparison between actual spying business and what is written in spy novels. Though reality does not entail such sophisticated gadgets as shown in James Bond Movies, however, the the real human spying is far more complex and astonishing than that. What is written in spy novels is to catch reader's eyes but an author can't foresee the real complexity of this business which is not just a job but a web of unforeseen complexities. A wonderful insight into this business and a must read for all those who make a picture of second most oldest profession by reading novels and watching bond movies.

[Sam Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow, this was a good book! It was interesting having this ex-CIA Director of Opereations(for Europe) compare and contrast good spy literature with real-world spying. Sadly, there were only the publicized cases, of course, and I'm sure he even had to pare those down for security purposes as well. I wish he used more than a handful of authors, though. But, alas, maybe there only is a handful of good authors in the spy genre. Like anything else, 90% is crap and 10% is quality.

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great read for those interested in spy fiction. Topical chapters.

[Lisa (Harmonybites) · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book arose out of seminar Hitz taught in which "great works of spy fiction are compared to actual espionage operations." As such there is a lot of quoting of espionage fiction in the book, and from the Notes and index one could get a great reading list of such fiction from Rudyard Kipling's Kim to John le Carre, Graham Greene and Tom Clancy. In fact, it may be that as supplying a reading list of such fiction it's at its most useful. On the fact side of things, Hitz is certainly qualified to give us insight into the real world of espionage. He worked for decades in various positions in the Central Intelligence Agency, and the State and Defense departments. The book acts as a good primer on intelligence and the Cold War, with such chapters as "Recruitment" and "Tradecraft" and discussing moles such as Kim Philby, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. It's a well-written and absorbing book--a quick and entertaining read at 189 pages. In the end however, I felt as if I just skimmed the surface and felt unsatisfied as to the insights on either a literary or policy level. Not a keeper. FWIW, and for my own future reference, here are the classics of spy fiction referenced in the book:

Rudyard Kipling, Kim (1901)
Erskine Childers, The Riddle of the Sands (1903)
Joseph Conrad, The Secret Agent (1907)
John A. Buchan, The Thirty-Nine Steps (1915)
W. Somerset Maugham, Ashenden (1928)
Eric Ambler, A Coffin for Dimitrios (1939)
Graham Greene, The Confidential Agent (1939); The Quiet American (1955); Our Man in Havana (1958); The Human Factor (1978)
Ian Fleming, From Russia, with Love (1957); Dr. No (1958); Goldfinger (1959)
John Le Carre, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1963); Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (1974); Smiley's People (1979); A Perfect Spy (1986); The Russia House (1989)
Frederick Forsyth, The Day of the Jackal (1971)
Charles McCurry, Tears of Autumn (1975)
John Banville, The Untouchable (1977)
William Hood, Mole (1982)
Tom Clancy, The Hunt for Red October (1984)
David Ignatius, Agents of Innocence (1987)
Alan Furst, Dark Star (1991)
Robert Littell, The Company: A Novel of the CIA (2002)

[Kathleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Great Game traces the work and reality of the CIA, complete with discussions of how actual spying worked (not remotely like James Bond) both diplomatically and prosaically. It then compares the reality to the fictional depictions of spies in books like, well, James Bond* and Le Carre novels.

Now, I knew nothing whatsoever about the spy fiction that Hitz references, but that turned out to be a good thing because apparently they are all very wrong? I'm not sure. I did like the book, and I appreciated that he divided the book into sections focusing on different aspects of spy work-- recruitment, activity, operational safety, and so forth. However, it's a very 'surface' book, and it doesn't really talk about day-to-day work that people, especially the more administrative folks, would be engaging in. So it wasn't helpful to me, but I did enjoy reading it quite a lot.




*I realized yesterday that as of the most recent movies, James Bond? English symbol? Yeah, not actually English. According to Skyfall he's half Scottish and half French. Because those people have always have a great historical love for the English.**

**Another note to say that he's definitely British, just not English.

[Norman Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was "OK". I liked it enough to read (it isn't a very long book), but not enough to keep it. I will put this in the donation pile for giving away.

Given the subject matter, it is likely that the author can't really get into a lot of specifics, but it seemed to me that the main cases that he examined - Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, Pyotr Popov and Oleg Penkovsky, and to a lesser extent, Anthony Blunt and Kim Philby - became somewhat repetitious after a while. There must have been a much wider set of cases from which to select.

The "reality" side of the book deals primarily with US espionage and counter-espionage, not unnaturally give the author's background. The "myth" (i.e., fiction) side is heavily British, with frequent references to the works of W. Somerset Maugham, John Buchan, Eric Ambler, John Le Carré, and to a lesser extent Ian Fleming; US spy fiction is mostly limited to Tom Clancy. There's a whole lot more to choose from that just these.

By sticking to the US and USSR/Russia for the reality, the author skips over some of the stories that I expected to read about. The cover of the volume I have has an illustration of a needle coming out of the tip of an umbrella, a reference to the assassination by the KGB of Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian living in London. However, this story is not referenced in the book, though there is a chapter specifically about assassinations.

So, my main complaint with the book is that it is rather thin on material, and often rather superficial. It was a pretty easy read, on the other hand, so I concluded that it was "OK".

[Jordan McCollum · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this after reading several CIA memoirs (including at least one that this book referenced), and I think I might have liked it better had I read it first. I wished it had dug deeper--it certainly didn't feel like a college-level look at the disparity between real and fictional espionage.

Perhaps the reading list from this course would be a better place to start.

[Claire · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had to read this book to prepare for my Espionage UVA~OLLI class which begins this Wednesday. This book's purpose was to compare spy literature with real life spy cases from around WWi to 9/11. It just touches the surface of what could be discussed. Thus the book begs more questions than it answers. So now, I cannot wait to ask those questions during the OLLI lecture series.

[Jay D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read. Compares the basics of espionage and tradecraft with aspects of the classical spy fiction works. Plenty of nuggets of veiled hints, as well as juicy tidbits and conspiracy. A must-read for those who enjoy conspiracy and espionage, as well as literature.

[Martin Herbordt · Rating 2 out of 5]

A waste if you’ve read the espionage classics. Which you probably have if you are interested in this book.

[Martin]

The Great Game: Review


There's a good deal of interest in this comparative analysis of spying as it appears in fiction and reality--Frederick P. Hitz had a long history of service in the CIA and the State Department, so he's able to speak as a knowledgeable insider. But is there something in the nature of secret service work that obliges its practitioners to wear blinders in perpetuity? even long after their official career terminates? It's not that Frederick HItz never touches on a moral issue related to the tradecraft of spying: it's that auxiliary questions seem to preoccupy him to the exclusion of fundamental ones.

It seems clear enough, by the length and detail of the list he compiles if nothing else, that he's unhappy with the many incursions by U.S. intelligence on the rights of its citizens--the buggings, long files on protestors and activists (the length and fanatically schematic detail providing one operative definition of anal retentive thinking), the whole wackily paranoid surveillance drill--that finally so outraged Congress that they demanded direct oversight of intelligence operations. What mainly troubles him however is a consequence of Congressional oversight that nags at his conscience to this day, that it forced the CIA to abandon its contra allies in the covert war against the government of Nicaragua. Forgive me if I point out that there are at least three ethical questions raised by the Iran-Contra business that are far more pertinent and central: 1) why was U.S. intelligence aiding and abetting such an army of rapacious thugs in the first place? 2) what excuse did they have for conniving at the military overthrow of a democratically elected government? 3) did it occur to anyone involved in the drug and gun running operations that financed this dirty caper, that the blowback from those deals would string corpses link by link in an ongoing chain from that day to this present one and beyond? or was that thought of secondary relevance compared to such a golden shot at abridging the freedoms of a sovereign state?

Nowhere is this blindered approach more evident, perhaps, than in Hitz' assessment of 911:

"Successful espionage is impossible without tight operational security.
The events of September 11, 2001, underscore this admonition. There were nineteen Arab men who hijacked the aircraft that struck the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon and crashed in the field near Shankstown, Pennsylvania. They were professionals, for the most part, without previous terrorist involvement, from so-called moderate Arab allies of the United States, i.e., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. They maintained tight operational discipline over a long period preparatory to the attacks. Some of them lived in the United States with their families during the two years prior to 9/11, keeping to themselves, going to flight school, and nobody came forward to report any suspicious behavior. It is still unclear whether all of them knew that their 9/11 mission entailed suicide, but they were remarkably discreet in their movements, and the organization that funded their preparations was highly sophisticated."
--p 72


'Discreet' wouldn't be my adjective of choice to describe somebody who prepares for a suicide mission by taking flight lessons and tells instructors he only needs to learn how to take a plane up, he doesn't need to learn how to land it. Frugal maybe, but discreet no. That this wasn't red flagged was no fault of U.S. domestic intelligence; the blame here rests solely on the insufficient intelligence, curiosity or sense of civic responsibility of whoever shrgged and booked these truncate lessons. But why does Hitz skip over completely what's become common knowledge since: that intelligence of an upcoming attack of major importance was circulating months before the event, which might have been prevented if these early warnings had been properly investigated. They weren't, primarily it seems because of rivalries between competing intelligence agencies. More importantly, there's an extensive backstory to this Al Qaeda operation which once again is silently overlooked, so that there's no possibility of attending to its lesson.

How far back Al Qaeda goes as an organization I don't know, but surely the point at which its power, presitge and visibility on the world stage received its biggest spike (before 911) was during the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, when they and the Taliban fought as allies alongside U.S. military and intelligence forces. Whether any Al Qaeda (or Mujahadeen who later graduated to positions in Al Qaeda) were actually flown to Langley for training in guerilla warfare and covert ops, they were certainly trained and armed by the CIA and the Pentagon, and heavily financed by the U.S. state department. Taliban rule in Afghanistan was a direct consequence of their participation in that war. Two wars being fought today at a huge cost in human life and other irreplaceables is only the most prominent and visible consequence of that long-ago alliance. It's probable Al Qaeda would never have grown to an organization capable of the Twin Tower attack without the seminal education of those early fighting years. And why was the war in Afghanistan fought?

Zbigniew Brzezinski was fond of boasting, once upon a time, that he set an Afghan trap for the Soviet Union. This was probably a considerable oversimplification and aggrandisement of his personal role, and I've no doubt the Soviets had their own bad reasons for making no effort to avoid war there. I do notice he's toned down such claims of late--perhaps afraid that awakening interest in Afghan ancient history would lead to too much inquiry, and affix firmly to his back the word debacle? (At best, I can think of far uglier words than that you could apply to starting a war whose ultimate toll was a million dead to get up the nose of a geopolitical rival. That a human being with beating heart and functioning breath could (even if he was hyperbolizing) boast of such an achievement is enough to make a body wonder if he wasn't overhasty rejecting his childhood belief in the existence of a literal devil.)

The reason all this matters is that many people still with considerable power and influence saw no possible downside in boosting the might and educating the coarse killing sensibilities of Al Qaeda if Al Qaeda could direct its force against Soviet Russia, over the bloody proving ground of Afghanistan, with none too much care taken of its civilian population, which has proved not only an evilly cynical but a hugely impractical calculation. New people coming up, hand picked by these genii of disaster, tend to mirror the attitudes that breed these results. Spy tradecraft is littered through its whole history with calculations of this kind, which are typically displayed as badges of superior ability to live in 'the real world'--but subject them to a shred of logical analysis and see if you can find one single point at which they differ structurally from the ravings of the clinically insane. Kafka was the great novelist of the spy genre--or maybe Lewis Carroll.

[James S. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Truly terrible writing:

"This question put to code name Goethe, a disillusioned Soviet physicist, by his British intelligence contact, when Goethe insists that his manuscript describing the latest Soviet nuclear weapon not only become the property of Western intelligence but also be published in the open scientific literature, thereby dooming his courier and lover, Katya, is a fitting literary introduction to the subject of terrorism."

[Mike Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

People who are well versed in the subject of spying or spy literature have industry-specific complaints that are probably valid, but as a lay person I found it to be very interesting as it broadened my knowledge base and taught me some new words.

[S. Kallahan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of interesting tidbits, but filled with spoilers on books I still want to read: Riddle of the Sands, Ashenden, Kim, etc.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite enjoyable, I liked Hitz' format incorporating quotes from the canon of spy literature. His own content was a little bit light, but that's likely by necessity.

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice comparison of literature to reality.

[catechism · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was developed out of an undergrad survey course on spy fiction vs spy reality, and it reads as exactly that: It consists of short, disconnected chapters with long excerpts from John Le Carré and Graham Greene, on a variety of topics like tradecraft, bureaucracy, sex, etc. If that's what you're looking for, cool -- and there are some interesting real-life tales here -- but it was way too much of a survey for me.

Also I got mad when the author was like, it wasn't until World War II that governments realized the benefits of reading mail during wartime!! Nope. Governments realized that at LEAST as long ago as the 17th century, and probably much earlier than that (I'm just swimming in the 17th century atm so I can back that one up). I realize this book had a very specific focus, and some of that focus was technology, but history did not begin in 1901 with Kim.

Anyway, I read this because of this article about how being a writer is the same as being a spy, and I recommend the article way more than the book.

[Todd · Rating 1 out of 5]

I think I grabbed this book from the give-away pile in my apt lobby but I'm glad I didn't pay for it. The title sounded awesome and it had such good potential, but it was more a summarization of other spy novels and some real-life spy stories. Even that could've made for a good book, but the format was so scattered. I honestly didn't enjoy this at all.

[Boozy · Rating 5 out of 5]

excellent discussion on the multiple facets that it takes to develop and become a professional in the intelligence field. The Author uses literary examples to highlight the differences between reality and popular beliefs.

[Carol · Rating 1 out of 5]

Comparison of real spycraft and history with fictional stories - an interesting idea but you would have to have a pretty good grasp of each to follow this easily and then it probably would be too simplistic

[Donald Dudley · Rating 1 out of 5]

I didn't care for this book. I thought the writing style to be jumbled and disorganized. I enjoy espionage as a non fiction and fiction genre. I had high hopes for this book. Alas my hopes were dashed.

[Bridget O'Connor · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is difficult to get through without a required reading book list. Sometimes the literary scene would be set up to explore the plot but many times it was not. There were some interesting points and facts but this material is better discussed in a class or seminar rather than book format.

[Katie]

This book is written for people fluent in spy literature. Extended passages of novels are quoted to compare and contrast fiction and fact. Spoilers included. Make sure you've read all the classic spy fiction first.

[colleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

read 02.13.06

[Clint · Rating 2 out of 5]

The reality of espionage versus the classic spy novels