Can someone tell me why this book is considered to be a masterpiece of spy fiction??? I mean the reader gets "DROPPED" in the middle of nowhere called a "PLOT", with a protagonist who is too lazy or too laid back to care, along with me the reader, about whats going on. And by the end, when the mole gets pointed out, I dont know how or which points or clues pointed him out.
For me SPY FICTION = A FORM OF CRIME FICTION..
So, if these books don't have CRIME -> DETECTION -> CLUES SEARCH -> CATCHING THE MOLE, instead has confusing jargon, innumerable "spies" who have no link whatsoever to the plot, and a desperate attempt from the author to make spy fiction read like a booker winner, I call it PRETENTIOUS and tend to skip it, and make it a point of not reading the author's work again.
Give me a Bob Ludlum, or a Frederick Forsyth any day. Yes, unlike Le Carre their books might never be found in the hands of so-called serious readers, but atleast they live up to their name of spy thrillers. The books are thrilling.