With A Mind To Kill - unknown man at the Stalnaya Ruka meeting
SeanIsTheOnlyOne
Posts: 407MI6 Agent
Hi everyone,
A little question about the last Horowitz (by far the best Bond novel he has written IMHO).
In chapter 5, during the Stalnaya Ruka meeting, there's a fifth man we don't know anything about and who is not present in the room listening to everything being said through the phone. He seems to be a very important member because it's him who finally validates the suggestion of having Bond involved in the operation.
Unless I missed something during my reading, the name of this person is never mentioned in the novel.
Does anyone have an idea ? Who can this man be and why did Horowitz created such a mystery at the beginning of the novel if not to reveal the identity later ?
Comments
Is it Alexander Shelepin, who apprently really considered the possibility of having Khrushchev killed in a "plane accident" ?
But in that case, it doesn't really fit with the way Khrushchev is supposed to be murdered at the opera. Bond relevantly thinks taking the risk of being involved in such a massive conspiracy would be inconceivable for Shelepin. Here, it's not a fake accident we are dealing with but an obvious assassination in a public place, with possible witnesses, and the investigations could lead to incriminate specific people within the party, especially Shelepin.
The fact Bond is a british spy is convenient to make people believe in a Western conspiracy, but the initial plot involved the russian agent later killed by Bond at the subway station. We can guess Shelepin, as the fifth member of Stalnaya Ruka, also approved this first choice which was a risky one because of its internal feature.
@Silhouette Man, as a specialist, I'm asking you. What do you think ? Do you believe the man I'm talking about is Shelepin indeed ? And if yes, isn't it a very dangerous move for him to be involved in such a consipracy with Khrushchev killed that way, and initially by a local operative ?
@Barbel I don't think this topic has been discussed in another thread, and it's a little bit frustrating to see there's still no answer. It's a mystery I'd like to unravel because I absolutely loved the novel and it's the only point I have an issue with, which is a shame because it's the central point of the plot.
Do you have any idea ?
No, not without reading the book again.
@SeanIsTheOnlyOne - Apologies, I've just noticed that you tagged me yesterday. Sadly I've not gotten around to reading this novel yet though I've had a copy since it was published. Things have been piling up a bit on the reading front.
What I will say is perhaps Horowitz intended for this person to be a shadowy figure to add some mystery and foreboding to the scene? Kind of like how Blofeld was unseen/obscured in the film versions of FRWL and TB or how the filmic Dr No was just a "Voice of Doom" at first and later faceless as he looked at Bond in bed. We, as humans, tend to fear that which we cannot fully see, imagine or quantify. Perhaps there is no real answer to this. It's either that or it's a mistake that wasn't picked up by Horowitz or his editor pre-publication. Such things are not unknown to happen in publishing and at the manuscript, galley or proof stage. It's all the more likely to happen with an unnamed or off-page character such as this. It could be as mundane an explanation as that.
Your point about a high-level Soviet official approving the mission recalls somewhat the plan in Colonel Sun to frame Bond and M at the scene of a British mortar bomb attack on a Russian summit meeting in Greece. If it had succeeded, would the Russians really have believed that M, the Head of the British Secret Service, would have been involved on the scene in such a risky and ultimately incriminating venture? That's to say nothing of their tortured and mutilated bodies. But then that would be to attribute sanity to a Bond villain, one of the main crucial features many of the best Bond villains are sorely lacking. It doesn't really matter in the end analysis as, in the event of their plan's success, the damage is still done and whether the villain is mad becomes academic and something of a side issue.
This may not really answer your question but hopefully there is some food for thought there at least.
P.S. Don't give up hope on other members here chiming in too with their thoughts. Sometimes it can take a little while. 🙂
@Silhouette Man thanks a lot for your answer, full of brightness as usual !
Your second hypothesis is exactly what I thought myself just after finishing the book. You're right. Such things do happen and it's quite possible Horowitz completely forgot about this character. Nevertheless, just before Shelepin's name appears, the author reminds us, through Bond's thoughts, the conspirators have a direct phone link to the Kremlin, which fits with chapter 5 and the Stalnaya Ruka meeting, with this unkown fifth member listening to everything being said...through a phone. That's why I don't believe he didn't take it into account.
What you say about Horowitz's intention is quite true. He wanted this unknown character to be involved because it makes the threat even more mysterious and has a thrilling effect on the reader. However, such a process is useless if we finally learn nothing about him. If I take your Blofeld example in FRWL and TB, you'll agree with me that despite the fact neither his face nor his name are revealed, we know he's the head of SPECTRE (number one), the most dangerous crime syndicate in the world. And that's enough, we don't need more.
In With A Mind To Kill, the only clue Horowitz gives is the fact this person is a man, and that's it. But is he a former Smersh member ? an official ? a foreign double agent ? Here, the comparison with Blofeld doesn't really work because Horowitz never explicitly refers to this man. We can only make suppositions and eventually guess it is Shelepin indeed, because of what I explained before.
About Colonel Sun, I see what you mean but the two books are very different. You'll realize it when you read it. WAMTK is a genuine spy thriller, closer to le Carré than any other Bond novel ever written, and Horowitz himself quotes The Spy Who Came In From The Cold in his aknowledgements. Furthermore, he underlines having Khrushchev killed was something really considered by his opponents at that time. The plot we are dealing with is much more realistic than Colonel Sun's, which is why I don't share the comparison.
@SeanIsTheOnlyOne This may be the reason why no one has replied yet. Like Barbel, I would need to re-read the passage (or the whole book). Off the top of my head, I can't even remember the scene you are referring to, so no hope from me a.t.m. I am afraid. Can you give me a page number(s) so I can jog my memory?
The "fifth man" of Stalnaya Ruka is mentioned in chapter 5, "Do as you're told...", page 52 of the Vintage softback edition released this year (the one with the Richard Osman sticker on the cover).
For Shelepin, it's in chapter 22, "The finger on the trigger", page 304.
Thanks
does the mysterious voice on the speakerphone need to be named?
its a convention in Conspiracy fiction to have the big baddy behind all the other baddies be a highly placed government insider who is untouchable and often unidentified. There is a whole visual vocabulary round representing such characters to keep them in the shadows, their presence hinted at but never ultimately revealed. Early 70s paranoid spy films used this trope, at the time of the Watergate scandal. The X-Files made great use of it, especially in the early seasons. Later seasons where we learned more about the Cigarette Smoking Man were never as satisfying as early seasons where he didnt even speak, and he had these connections who were even more mysterious, and implicitly higher ranking.
and With a Mind to Kill does borrow from classic Conspiracy thrillers as well as the acknowledged le Carre novel. The Manchurian Candidate especially, as well as the Doris Day version of the Man Who Knew Too Much. I tend to agree its the best of Horowitz's three books
@caractacus potts ok but let's suppose Horowitz does reveal the name of this man at the end of the plot. Do you think Shelepin would be the most likely ? That was my initial question actually.
like Barbel and ChrisNo1, I dont remember clearly enough to have an opinion. I vaguely recall discussion in the final chapters about the source of the conspiracy, the implication it was an internal coupe from someone in Kruschev's inner circle, but definitely don't remember names.
was Shelepin a real historical person? in which case, we should maybe consult @Number24 who probably knows obscure corners of Soviet history better than any of us. TwoFour, if you read With a Mind to a Kill, what do you think about Seans questions? if you havent, dont read this thread cuz its full of spoilers
Yes Shelepin was a real person. He served as First Deputy Prime Minister of Soviet Russia and didn't share Khrushchev's soft approach of communism. In the aknowledgements of the book, it is mentioned he seriously considered the possibility of having Khrushchev killed in a plane accident, which directly inspired Horowitz...
Shelepin was a member of the Politburo and the KGB. He also served in the >Winter War against Finland and in WWII. Among other things he organised partisan (guerilla) units. Shelepin was probably the most important participant of the successful coup against Kruschchev in 1964 where Krushchev was removed from power, but was allowed to live. Shelepin was a hardliner and stalinist and said after the coup "What was the point of overthrowing Krushchev if not to revert to Stalinism?" Maybe because of this Shelepin was gradually pushed out of power, mainly by Brezhnev.
Shelpin personally recruited Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya for partisan and sabotage work in 1941, only 18 years old. Zoya was captured by the Germans, then tortured and very publicly and brutally hanged by the invaders. According to Soviet accounts, her final words were:
"Hey, comrades! Why are you looking so sad? Be brave, fight, beat the Germans, burn, wipe them out! I'm not afraid to die, comrades. It is happiness to die for one's people!"
and to the Germans:
"You hang me now, but I'm not alone. There are two hundred million of us. You can't hang us all. They will avenge me."
In the Soviet accounts, before the moment of hanging, with the rope on her neck, she said:
"Farewell, comrades! Fight, do not be afraid! Stalin is with us! Stalin will come!"
The Germans let her hang in public for four weeks. She became a national hero. Many soldiers carried photos of her in their pockets as they went into battle. During the battle of Berlin in 1945 her name was written on some of the artillery shells that bombarded the German capital.
There are pictures of Zoya after she was taken down from the gallows, but the photos are too graphic for this forum.
Paintings were made of Zoya:
A movie about her was made as recently as in 2020 (probably saying something about how Putin wants Russians to see the world)
Erm, maybe that second picture is a bit too graphic for the forum as well....
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'll remove it.
Apologies, I meant to reply sooner but life gets in the way sometimes. Yes, it could've been a mistake but with an author like Horowitz that's less likely, as you say. Everything is surely included for some purpose or other.
The only other thing I can think of is that if it was indeed a reference to the real world figure Alexander Shelepin (as you have deduced) it might've been wise for Horowitz not to overtly advertise the fact. True, you probably can't libel the dead but, even so, discretion is sometimes the better part of valour. If he lets the reader decide who the mystery figure is for themselves that means he doesn't have to implicate a real world figure in his plot and thereby avoid any potential controversy that might result. 2022 was the year when the Cold War fully returned and heated up again with the Russian invasion of Ukraine so Horowitz could be keeping his powder dry by not explicitly identifying the mystery man. That would also be in keeping with the John le Carré tone of the book. Not every loose end in real espionage gets neatly tied up - duplicity and double-crossing are the order of the day there. It's just like in true crime where we know the police sadly don't always get their man or their woman. Sometimes things are messy in the real world and we don't always get the answers or the resolution that we're looking for or the sense of closure that we desperately crave.
Some more jottings from a madman. Make of them what you will! 😉