[dclowd9901]

Slow Horses is so equal-opportunity with how it hands out ineptitude. About the only character on the show who isn't inept is Lamb (Gary Oldman), but is such a wretched character, you could actually hardly find a moment to root for him. It's fantastic.

[ndsipa_pomu]

I like to think of Lamb as an inverse Columbo - he's rude and horrible to people rather than Columbo's charm. They share the grubby look and intelligence.

[biztos]

Nooo, the character is such a wretched human that you can't help but root for him.

He's being an ass in order to push people to do better, and at the end of the day (over and over again) he cares about Justice or at least the National Interest, but he cares about the Slow Horses more (in his way).

The flatulanece (et al) works as a filter: can you see past the boorishness?

[PeterWhittaker]

I'd argue that Coe is more than competent, just, you know, detached most of the time. Lamb always knows what needs be done, just never shares, and often lets things happen until what needs be done happens on its own or is inevitable.

Coe has extraordinarily high SA and makes decisions immediately. They might seem impulsive, but when he acts, it is always with forethought.

(Yeah, Coe is our favourite character.)

[cryzinger]

Louisa too. Before Coe came along she was for sure the best agent of the bunch; between the two of them it's a tough call imo.

Although I think Standish might have a leg up on all of them, including (sometimes) Lamb... but I'm biased since she's my favorite :)

[DoughnutHole]

Coe is insightful and good at violence, but also (!spoiler for latest season) responsible for the most hilariously unfortunate cock-up of the show so far…

[stavros]

Lamb is more like a teacher, he'll let you make your own mistakes until the situation is about to go FUBAR, then he'll step in and save it and show you where you went wrong.

[dclowd9901]

As you described, because he keeps to himself, he comes off as a loose cannon, which feels to me like something you wouldn't want on a coherent spy team, but nonetheless is so fun to watch, which is the point, really.

[pinnochio]

> Coe has extraordinarily high SA

What does 'SA' mean? I'm not familiar with it.

[petesergeant]

Roddy's portrayed as very technically competent too, just, a knob.

[ragall]

I'm Italian and I was rooting for him all along. He's a good chap.

[petesergeant]

I would argue Taverner is meant to be very competent, although she of course has her own flaws, and his hardly a character for one whom is meant to feel sorry

[catlover76]

> such a wretched character, you could actually hardly find a moment to root for him.

Hmm really?

In the first couple episodes, he definitely is, but I think they level him out a bit later on so that the viewer actually ends up liking him.

In the books, he is much more consistently unlikable.

(Don't bother with the books, IMO--show is better while still hewing quite close to them).

[saispas]

Other way round, IMO of course …

For me the books have depth that the TV series doesn't – and can't – have: some of the plots are dumbed down a bit to give more visual impact, and of course you don't get the same depth of characterisation, or the insights into Lamb's and the others' pasts because much of it comes out in interior monologue, and it's much harder for the shows to, erm, show.

And you miss one of the glories of Herron's writing: as a stylist is on a par with Terry Prachett for cramming wisdom into short witty phrases. He is very good at memorable phrases skewering contemporary life, and particularly politicians. The shows bring some of this out, but there's only so much that you can do in dialogue.

Take this passage from the first book:

> Peter Judd. PJ to his friends, and everyone else. Fluffy-haired and youthful at forty-eight, and with a vocabulary peppered with archaic expostulations – Balderdash! Tommy-rot!! Oh my giddy aunt!!! – Peter Judd had long established himself as the unthreatening face of the old-school right, popular enough with the Great British Public, which thought him an amiable idiot, to make a second living outside Parliament as a rent-a-quote-media-whore-cum-quiz-show-panel-favourite, and to get away with minor peccadilloes like dicking his kids’ nanny, robbing the taxman blind, and giving his party leader conniptions with off-script flourishes. (‘Damn fine city,’ he’d remarked on a trip to Paris. ‘Probably worth defending next time.’) Not everyone who’d worked with him thought him a total buffoon, and some who’d witnessed him lose his temper suspected him of political savvy, but by and large PJ seemed happy with the image he’d either fostered or been born with: a loose cannon with a floppy haircut and a bicycle.

Herron, Mick. Slow Horses: The bestselling thrillers that inspired the hit Apple TV+ show Slow Horses (Slough House Thriller 1) (p. 187). (Function). Kindle Edition.

That is a brilliant piece of characterisation, and if you know anything about British politics, you know exactly who he's describing, and how accurate a character assassination this is. The TV show's Peter Judd goes out of its way to make the character a lot more generic – their Judd is merely 'typical cynical nasty venal politician' and it loses a bit of force accordingly.

Or take the set piece descriptions which start every book: they recreate the seedy world of Slough House in a way that the shows can only hint at.

Not to say the shows aren't very good – they are one of the best things on TV – but the books are even better.

IMO, of course…

[dclowd9901]

Yeah, I mean he has a lot of really strong flaws that almost seem purposefully to put one off (which could be his whole angle, who knows), but between his drinking, terrible health, horrid treatment of his team (who, yes I know, he actually does care for), you're often not on his side, but more eager to see how what he's put in place will unfold.