Talk:The Spy Who Came in from the Cold

Fair use rationale for Image:JohnLeCarre TheSpyWhoCameIn.jpg
Image:JohnLeCarre TheSpyWhoCameIn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes Removed
I removed the section that just told about other people's quotes and reviews of the book. This is an encylopedia not Amazon where one posts a review, even if it's a review by a famous critic, that's opinon not facts 63.26.212.132 (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)eric

Removed Film Project related infobox
As the film has been split from the book I've removed the film infobox. --Shimbo 10:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Leamus and Bond
I chuckled when I read in the article that Leamus’s seedy alcoholism and cynicism was an antidote to the image of James Bond as the “perfect English gentleman”. I am old enough to remember the buzz surrounding the publication of Ian Flemming’s novels and the films based on them. In those more shockable days, Bond was regarded as anything but a gentleman. He had the sexual morals of an alleycat, and the sheer scale of his promiscuity was something not found in earlier spy literature, where spies tended to be dowdy and furtive. This makes sense, for a spy should hardly be drawing attention to himself by constant displays of lechery. The other factor that shocked early audiences was Bond’s sadism, and his nonchalant attititude to assassination and murder, and also the notion that the British Government gave certain agents the licence to kill at will. Times have changed so much that it is Bond now who is the “perfect English gentleman”, and no one bats an eye at the notion of a hero who does not fight by Queensbury rules, nor at the concept of the double O agents’ “licence to kill”. Myles325a (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, especially considering that the statement about Bond being a perfect English gentleman was unreferenced. I've replaced that with a quote from Alexander Cockburn about the Bond series: that it presented a romantic public fantasy of what a secret service should be, which is a true statement even if you believe Fleming's Bond to be a sadist. AyaK (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On a related matter, I think the article is incorrect to state that "whereas Leamas’s world features love as a problematic". In Fleming's work, Bond's fear of love is a running theme, especially in the later novels after his wife has been murdered by Blofeld. Also, Bond's character does degenerate morally over time, until he becomes a tool similar to Leamas. Basically, I think there is actually more in common between Bond and Leamas than either character is given credit for. (Benthec (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Bond is a fantasy character that really has nothing to do with spies and the cold war. To a great extent, the characters roots are in world war two and special operations in world war two rather than spying or any sort of secret service. Bond belongs to an era of little oversight, no restraint and near unlimited budgets where certain people could live the high life at government expense while producing no useful results. 75.17.124.137 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Eklund
Who is Marcus Eklund? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.20.157 (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the unreferenced and notability-challenged Marcus Eklund quote. Unless the original poster could provide a link and a reason that it is notable, it will be deleted. - AyaK (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Who killed Leamas/Gold
"It is not entirely clear which side in the Cold War had Liz and Leamas killed" - I disagree with this statement having just finished the book. It is clear to me that the death of Liz Gold was arranged by Mundt, especially as the method with which the wall should be scaled was detailed to Leamas (he should go first) - and that Liz could be lifted by him. The only reason, IMHO that Leamas was shot was that he descended on the Eastern side to check on her and had he not have been shot at this point, suspicion may have been raised for MundtGamesetmatch (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll disagree with your disagreement. We know Smiley didn't plan to have Liz killed (unless he's a better actor than we were ever led to believe), because he questions what happened to Liz after the shooting.  But we have no idea whether Mundt decided to kill Liz on his own, or whether Control told him to do it without sharing that information with Smiley.  Yes, Liz's death had been planned, as you point out -- but we don't know who was behind the plan.  (Leamas' death was obviously unintended, as you also point out -- that's why the guards didn't shoot Alec when he descended to Liz's body.)  When I get a chance, I'll post an update with a link to someone else's analysis of the ending, so that it doesn't look like original research. - AyaK (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Smiley doesn't question what happened, he says "The girl, what about the girl?" While I agree that he could be acting as if he doesn't know, he also could be seeking confirmation that she is definitely dead.  Either way, I agree with you that we don't know whether Mundt or Control or both were responsible (well, I suppose a "both" goes to Control).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The book leaves the responsibility unclear (unlike the film). In the book, the lights come up, she slips off the steps, then she is shot a few times while hanging in the air and then falls. There is a pause and then Leamas goes down. He is then shot as well. From the material in the book, its impossible to know if her death was planned by the information present the in the story. The book presents Leamas as thinking Mundt might take her back before they got away, but thats about it. The trap wasn't absolute because if Liz had not lost her footing, they might have both got away. The only other information in the book is the pause betwen Liz being shot and Leamas being shot. Its suspicious, but not definitive. In the film, everything is very explicit and points directly at Mundt as being responsible. 108.60.192.155 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Kim Philby Quote
This quote is especially interesting since -- if the WP page on Le Carre is to be believed -- it was Philby that ended the writer's career as a spy in the first place. Cattishness on Philby's part, perhaps? I can't think how to add the relevant information to the quotes section, though. 78.150.255.71 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, the quotes have now been removed from the article. But I always wondered whether Philby's reaction to this book didn't influence le Carre's treatment of his Philby character (Bill Haydon) in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. - AyaK (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just retrived the quote for those who might want to use it in the article somewhere:-


 * "Very disappointing. It was a relief to read a somewhat sophisticated spy-story after all that James Bond idiocy, and there are some well-thought out passages. But the whole plot from beginning to end is basically implausible, and the implausibility keeps on obtruding itself — at any rate, to anyone who has any real knowledge of the business!" (Kim Philby) (From "Kim Philby: The Spy I Loved", 1967, Eleanor Philby)
 * Testbed (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Liz Gold's ethnicity
I removed the description of Liz as Jewish. At one point, the novel mentions that "she used to go to church". It's true that when he meets her, Leamas guesses she is Jewish, and perhaps some of the East German characters assume she is Jewish, but that mention of her having attended church is definitive. Mathew5000 (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What about the end of the book, when Mundt enters her cell and she gets scared specifically because she has heard that "Mundt knows what to do with Jews"? Jews can go to church, especially Jews who are trying to hide the fact that they are Jews, so the "going to Church" quote to which you refer is quite far from definitive as far as specifying her religion. 47.23.40.34 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)thatguamguy


 * Yes, IP:47.23.40.34 (talk) thatguamguy is correct. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 11:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk page
I notice you have been keeping a watching brief on this article and are doing a good job of keeping the plot section on track. To my eyes, however, that section was much too long and, in the final para, too dramatically written. I have tried to slim down the outline, clearing it of redundancy and too much fussy detail. Ideally it could do with losing another hundred words, but that is probably impossible in view of the complication of the plot. I thought I would contact you to explain my thinking and leave future edits in your capable hands. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for coming to my Talk page and for what you have written above. Three points:
 * Good morning ,


 * 1) I think you are mistaken in your editing of the opening section, so I have restored the Lead.
 * 2) I do not have time right now to scrutinise your considerable revision of the Plot, so I shall leave it for a few days to allow other editors time to react.
 * 3) With that in mind, I shall copy this thread to the article's Talk page. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 12:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed Mzilikazi1939's plot edits, agreed with them, and trimmed a bit more myself, including removing mention of the peripheral character Peter Guillam. It could still use a bit more tightening. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The changes to the lead were reversed by Gareth Griffith-Jones and that action seems to disregard all stylistic guidelines on the purpose of a lead section, which is to sum up what is in the body of the article. The fact that a poll of readers of a couple of publications placed the novel quite high is hardly of encyclopaedic significance. I had moved mention of the polls down to the Cultural Impact section, but they don't warrant inclusion in the lead. Added to which, the Publishers Weekly did not say that this was "the greatest spy novel of all time", that was some brainless editor's interpretation. Finally, there's mention of the 1965 film in the Awards and Nominations section. The fact of film adaptation might just be noteworthy enough for mention in the lead, but not who directed or appeared in it, which properly belongs in the article on the film. It's redundant in the lead of an article on the book. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the film adaptation does belong in the lead. It appeared quite soon after the book and also received similar critical acclaim; given these facts, the two are inevitably entwined in subsequent commentary and in the public's—our readership's—recollection. Really, there should be more than one lousy sentence on it, but given how skimpy the entire lead is, perhaps it would be undue at this time. I'm not so against the admittedly misworded Publishers Weekly bit as you are, but I'm fine with seeing it gone. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mysterious "Margaret Compton" quote
This quote was added in May 2009 by an IP user, with incomplete bibliographic information (the bibliographic information, but not the quote itself, has somehow been removed from the article over the past seven years).

I am unable to find any independent evidence of Ms Compton, her alleged essay "Is Common Human Decency a Scarce Commodity in Popular Literature?", or the volume ("Essays on Moral Philosophy and Literature", ed. Theodore Brown, 1972) in which the essay is said to have been originally published. Perhaps a longstanding hoax or joke? Grover cleveland (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ... Oh dear: adding bullshit quotes cited to bullshit sources is something that's happened to this article more than once. DS (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Error in Capitalization of the Title
Isn't come in a phrasal verb, thus requiring in to be capitalized in the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.46.150 (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are right, although other than where every word is capitalized, "in" seems to be the almost universal choice by sources. I did notice this entry and edition of the book where it's "In from". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What "The Hague" airport?
In chapter 8 Leamas is flown to "the airport" at The Hague - the problem being that The Hague does not have an airport. I can't discover that Ypenburg airfield ever hosted commercial flights, and Rotterdam airport has only recently added "The Hague" to its name. So is this a simple failure of research by Le Carré? TobyJ (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)