In preparation for my second read of "Karla's choice"
1, I reread "A legacy of spies"
2. I'm not sure whether I've read this book (Legacy) since reading it initially
several years ago and blogging about it. I feel like I'm writing a master's
dissertation on errors in the le Carré canon as I have noticed three
continuity errors that escaped me previously. As we know, JlC wasn't writing a
franchise and probably had forgotten some of the back story. I suspect that I
am influenced by the Reddit channel that discusses the Cormoran Strike novels;
most of the posters write as if the characters were real people, and any odd
behaviour is immediately noted.
1. In chapter 1, a description is given of Jim Prideaux: "I was being
debriefed, not by Jack any more but by a rugged fellow called Jim, of Czech
extraction and around my age" [emphasis mine]. As JP went up to Oxford
before the Second World War, he would have been at least 18 years old in 1939.
Peter Guillam was about 8 in the same year. Hardly the same age. I suspect
that the Jack mentioned was in fact Jack Brotherhood (if that is his name) who
appears in "A perfect spy". TTSS gives the impression that Jim grew up in France, not
Czechoslovakia, but that's a minor error.
2. In chapter 11, a description of Connie Sachs is given: "Connie Sachs, in
her early twenties [emphasis mine] already the unchallenged wunderkind
of research into Soviet and Satellite intelligence agencies, had recently
flounced out of Joint Steering in a huff, straight into George’s waiting
arms." In "Karla's choice", Connie is described as being
two years older than Smiley, and a similar age is implied in TTSS.
3. In chapter 13, some background of Jim Prideaux is given: "As a boy, he had
run messages and cut German throats for Czech Resistance.
Cambridge [emphasis mine] may have educated him, but it never tamed
him.". TTSS states that Prideaux went to
Oxford which is where he met Haydon, not to Cambridge, and he was "up" in 1938, so he wouldn't have been "a boy" in WW2.
Following is an explanation of the end of "Karla's choice" from the Le Carré
Reddit forum:
The great secret that Roka/Banati and Iren learnt, from their one-time
friend Bogdan, is that Karla is Bogdan's surrogate son, having once worked
with him on a train during the Russo-Japan war of 1905. As such, Bogdan is
one of the few people alive aware of Karla's true identity. When Banati set
out to find Bogdan in the hopes of learning Karla's identity in order to get
to Karla and demand that he release his son Leo from custody, Karla arranges
for Banati to be eliminated (and when that fails, eventually does the deed
himself), and in the end, eliminates his father-figure Bogdan himself. Thus,
Smiley, who'd been hoping to learn Karla's identity from Bogdan and use it
as leverage, hits a dead end. That's really what the 'Karla's Choice' of the
title is - Karla is so committed to his goals, and to the Soviet state, that
he chooses to eliminate every trace of his past, including Bogdan, to keep
his identity and history secret while he consolidates his power in Moscow
Centre.
It's been six weeks since I first read "Karla's choice", so I've been able to
forget my initial problems with the book and read it as new. I initially
thought that including many names known to us - Mundt, Haydon, Esterhase,
Collins and Prideaux, amongst others - was simply name dropping. As it
happens, all have a part to play in the book, so including their names is
actually foreshadowing. I found the book to be better this time around and
enjoyed the typical JlC slow burn of the middle section.
Whilst reading the book, I had the title in mind, and its significance only became clear right at the end. All the time I was wondering when Karla was going to appear and when he was going to make his choice. Whilst I understand titling the book so from a marketing point of view, it's a bit misleading - or misdirecting - from the story's point of view.
Is it a book to which I will return in the future? There are several JlC
novels that I have read repeatedly, especially TTSS, The little drummer girl,
A perfect spy, and The night manager. There are many novels, especially from
the 1990s, that I have read once and probably not even twice: Single and
Single, Absolute friends, A delicate truth, The mission song, Our kind of
traitor - the names don't roll off my tongue; instead I'm reading those names
from a directory listing. I suspect that this novel will sit more in the
second camp than in the first.
There was one metaphor that fully captured my attention:
Mundt felt possible worlds opening and closing in front of him like
teeth
(chapter 9). That's a comparison to conjure with.
Internal links
[1] 1857
[2] 1069
