I just finished watching the series Slow Horses on the excellent recommendation of my younger sister, and I enjoyed it a lot. What I truly loved, however, was the character of Jackson Lamb, masterfully portrayed by the brilliant Gary Oldman. I devoured the first four seasons.
When one thinks of British spies, James Bond—the suave, sophisticated agent 007—instantly comes to mind. Clad in tailored suits, sipping martinis, and armed with high-tech gadgets, Bond is the epitome of glamour and efficiency in the espionage world. Enter Jackson Lamb, the protagonist of Mick Herron’s Slow Horses series and its television adaptation. Lamb represents everything Bond is not, serving as a gritty, realistic counterpoint to the polished fantasy of 007. Let’s explore how these two characters embody vastly different archetypes of British intelligence operatives.
Appearance: Glamour vs. Grunge
James Bond is the pinnacle of elegance. His impeccable suits, groomed appearance, and ability to charm anyone in the room are integral to his identity. He moves through high-society circles with ease, blending into luxurious casinos and lavish parties. He was brilliantly portrayed by Sean Connery and with incredible elegance by Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan.
Jackson Lamb, on the other hand, is unapologetically disheveled. Overweight, perpetually unkempt, and often reeking of cigarettes and stale food, Lamb is the antithesis of a style icon. He’s more likely to be found eating a greasy takeaway than attending a black-tie event.
James Bond knows the rules of polite society and ambassadorial receptions, whereas Lamb takes irreverent pleasure in public displays of bad manners, such as farting loudly.
This stark contrast underscores the realism of Lamb’s world—where espionage is less about glamour and more about grinding through the murky underbelly of intelligence work.
Personality: Charm vs. Cynicism
Bond’s charm is legendary. He’s a master of witty repartee and seduction, exuding confidence in every interaction. Even under pressure, Bond maintains an aura of control, embodying the cool-headed hero.
Jackson Lamb, however, is irascible, sarcastic, and often outright rude. His interactions are peppered with cutting remarks and disdain for almost everyone around him. Yet, beneath his gruff exterior lies a razor-sharp intellect and an unwavering loyalty to his team of misfit agents.
Lamb’s cynicism feels earned, a reflection of years spent navigating the morally ambiguous and often thankless world of espionage.
Workplace: High-Tech HQ vs. Slough House
MI6 headquarters, as seen in Bond films, is a marvel of modern technology and sophistication.
Q’s lab is a playground of cutting-edge gadgets, and Bond’s missions are backed by vast resources and elite support teams.
In contrast, Jackson Lamb presides over Slough House, a dingy, dilapidated office where disgraced MI5 agents are sent to languish. There are no state-of-the-art gadgets here—just outdated computers, piles of paperwork, and a lingering sense of despair. Slough House is as much a purgatory as it is a workplace, underscoring the mundane realities of intelligence work.
Approach to Espionage: Action vs. Realism
Bond’s missions are action-packed, featuring car chases, explosions, and daring stunts. His ability to single-handedly dismantle entire criminal organizations borders on the superhuman. Bond operates in a world where the stakes are global, and his victories are as spectacular as his methods.
Lamb’s missions, by contrast, are rooted in realism. The threats may still be significant, but the approach is far more subdued and procedural. Mistakes are common, bureaucracy looms large, and victories are often pyrrhic. Lamb’s work highlights the unglamorous aspects of espionage, where success often hinges on dogged persistence rather than daring heroics.
Morality: Idealism vs. Pragmatism
Bond’s moral compass, while occasionally murky, is generally aligned with traditional notions of good and evil. He fights clear-cut villains, and his missions often have a straightforward goal: save the world.
Lamb’s world is far more morally ambiguous. He operates in shades of gray, where allies can be as treacherous as enemies, and decisions are driven by pragmatism rather than idealism.
Lamb’s actions may be unorthodox and even unsavory, but they are effective, reflecting the compromises inherent in real-world intelligence work.
Conclusion: Two Sides of the Same Coin
James Bond and Jackson Lamb are polar opposites, yet they each represent a facet of the espionage archetype. Bond is the idealized fantasy—a larger-than-life hero who embodies elegance, action, and unshakable confidence. Lamb is the unvarnished reality—a gruff, sardonic figure who navigates the murky, often tedious world of intelligence with grit and ingenuity.
In comparing these two characters, one gains a richer understanding of the espionage genre. Bond offers escapism, a vision of the spy as a glamorous savior. Lamb, in contrast, grounds us in the harsh realities of intelligence work, reminding us that heroism often comes in unexpected forms. Together, they paint a complete picture of the British spy—both as we wish them to be and as they likely are.
Since childhood, I’ve always loved James Bond, but I must admit that for the past few days, I’ve grown to love Jackson Lamb even more.
So, are you Jackson Lamb or James Bond?
Tell me in comments :)
Great article and a good idea to draw a parallel! ☺️