This is a novel of such depth, scope and critical analysis that I cannot possibly hope to offer any insight that hasn't already been aired, chewed over and turned about long since.

As a ten-year-old with an interest in the spy genre, I cut my teeth on the BBC radio adaptation of this fine work. It condensed the novel to 2 audio cassettes, and the acting was very good. I recently listened to it again, thus prompting me to dig out my copy of the book.

The drama inevitably changes a few things, but remains true to le Carré's story. Irina's diary becomes an audio tape. At the Camden Town house, in the drama, Smiley and Guillam are together with the recording equipment, with Peter in radio contact with his runners. In the novel, Smiley waits alone in the scullery, with Guillam outside. This change deprives us of one of Smiley's rare possible moments of danger, but this is perhaps made up for with Connie's dramatic comments about Bill. In any event, there's no denying that you lose a great deal of backstory without reading the book. The dramatised version is a superb retelling, unlike a movie I suppose there's no great pressure to adapt or modernise but there are necessary sacrifices.

What can I say about the book itself, though? the whole plotline is fascinating for an espionage lover. I'm too young to have witnessed the public unmasking of any real Mole's inside British Intelligence, and even if Le Carré's terminology is feigned, the world his spies live in is a far more plausible one than anything Bond had. A few things stood out, though.

Having done the drama, seeing guillam's love life was fairly interesting. I also liked the way in which both Smiley and mendel perceived Guillam's comparative youth, and how differently they reacted to it. Also, something about the name Mendel and Bees niggles at me from GCSE Biology class but I can't for the life of me figure out what. nothing to do with charles Darwin, is it?

The other interesting point for me, knowing the story in essence but not substance, as it were, was the way in which things were paced. much of the facts are revealed through interview and observation and that sometimes lent a degree of unreality to the story, as if some of the people and things they were saying were a little flat. is this simply because some of the characters were going over material, the details of which had faded in time? or perhaps because, already knowing the story in outline, I was just trying to hurry things along?

I can't argue a lack of dimensionality on one hand and prays character depth on the other, can I? But the way in which certain incidents and characters were portrayed were stunningly, intensely gripping for me. Guillam's theft of the files from the circus, Prideaux's testimony to Smiley, and Smiley's account of his meeting with karla were all very vividly done. The pride of max, who seems such a minor character was also quite interesting. But more than anything I thihnk the detail made this book a very rich and rewarding experience for me.

The BBC did a television adaptation which i've yet to see - I would submit that it's full of flashback and perhaps difficult to follow with no usable vision. Hopefully with both the novel and drama under my belt I'll manage to get as many nuances as my ears can handle when I eventually get to watching it. Bernard hepton (an actor who has my greatest respect) stars in both the TV and audio recordings, playing George Smiley in the latter and Toby Esterhase in the former. Michael Jayston plays peter Guillam in the television adaptation, and also reads unabridged BBC audio books of the novel, as well as its two sequels. I don't know who else stars in the audio recording, but whoever plays Guillam there also plays him in the radio Adaptation of [b:The Spy Who Came In From The Cold|19494|The Spy Who Came in from the Cold|John le Carré|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1274572664s/19494.jpg|1177001]. Information on these recordings is scarce, so if any reader happens to have further information I'd be glad to find out about it.