I'd recommend it. Narrative wise it's not too different, but tonally it's almost the opposite at times.
The major difference is that the entire book is written as if it's a autobiography by Redmond Barry himself. All those lines of narration were spoken by Barry himself, with some altered to suit the change in perspective. Here's a quote from Kubrick
"I believe Thackeray used Redmond Barry to tell his own story in a deliberately distorted way because it made it more interesting. Instead of the omniscient author, Thackeray used the imperfect observer, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the dishonest observer, thus allowing the reader to judge for himself, with little difficulty, the probable truth in Redmond Barry's view of his life. This technique worked extremely well in the novel but, of course, in a film you have objective reality in front of you all of the time, so the effect of Thackeray's first-person story-teller could not be repeated on the screen. It might have worked as comedy by the juxtaposition of Barry’s version of the truth with the reality on the screen, but I don’t think that Barry Lyndon should have been done as a comedy."
Some of the book was actually laugh out loud funny, and the satire was much more biting. I also found Barry in the book to be way more unlikable, especially after he marries Lady Lyndon. His treatment of her is appalling, much worse than the film depicts, and in general his dishonest character is greatly expanded upon throughout the entire novel. I admit the book is probably affecting how I see the relationship between the two in the film.
