42 replies to this topic

[IanFleming007]

I don't to compare Amis, Gardner, and Benson to Fleming because there will never be another Ian Fleming. But I do expect them to do a decent job with there stories. Amis and Gardner succeded in doing so, but Benson failed. Benson's stories are dull and predictable. I rate the authors in the order they came....

1. Fleming
2. Amis
3. Gardner
4. Benson

I just hope the 5th author of the Bond series can break the trend (and Higson isn't the 5th author in my opinon. He is writing the yound Bond Stories...the position of the Adult Bond series is still open)

[deth]

I think Gardner has his ups and downs...... there isn't really a lot of consistency as far as the quality of the writting goes....... some are brilliant and vibrant, others feel like a chore.......

[Qwerty]

I think that sort of became the way of things, in my opinion, as he moved onto some of his later books. You could never tell if the next one would be excellent or horrible, No Deals, Scorpius, Win, Lose or Die, BrokenClaw....

Seemed to be in for either a good or bad surprise every time. The only time it was most ly bad for me was The Man From Barbarossa.

[IanFleming007]

I am one of the few who like The Man From Barbarossa. I wish Gardner would have done one or two more stories that revolved around the story instead of action.

[zencat]

I've just started re-reading ICEBREAKER and one thing I'm discovering about the Gardner books is how they now work as '80s nostalgia -- just as Fleming's work as '50s and '60s nostalgia. I like hearing all the '80s brand names and the geo-politics of the '80s. He even called VCRs VTRs! And, of course, there's that Saab. I always liked the Gardner books, but now I'm enjoying them on this new level. They've now become "period pieces." Interesting.

[Qwerty]

I've just started re-reading ICEBREAKER and one thing I'm discovering about the Gardner books is how they now work as '80s nostalgia -- just as Fleming's work as '50s and '60s nostalgia. I like hearing all the '80s brand names and the geo-politics of the '80s. He even called VCRs VTRs! And, of course, there's that Saab. I always liked the Gardner books, but now I'm enjoying them on this new level. They've now become "period pieces." Interesting.

Most bit of "period piece" style ever in any of his books I think, are computers known as micros.

[deth]

I've just started re-reading ICEBREAKER and one thing I'm discovering about the Gardner books is how they now work as '80s nostalgia -- just as Fleming's work as '50s and '60s nostalgia. I like hearing all the '80s brand names and the geo-politics of the '80s. He even called VCRs VTRs! And, of course, there's that Saab. I always liked the Gardner books, but now I'm enjoying them on this new level. They've now become "period pieces." Interesting.

Most bit of "period piece" style ever in any of his books I think, are computers known as micros.

lol......... I was rather confused at the beginning of that book......

[Qwerty]

Role Of Honour was always a bit confusing to me the first few times I read it, just didn't grab my attention like his other books did. I've grown to like it a bit more now.

[Brian Flagg]

I've just started re-reading ICEBREAKER and one thing I'm discovering about the Gardner books is how they now work as '80s nostalgia -- just as Fleming's work as '50s and '60s nostalgia. I like hearing all the '80s brand names and the geo-politics of the '80s. He even called VCRs VTRs! And, of course, there's that Saab. I always liked the Gardner books, but now I'm enjoying them on this new level. They've now become "period pieces." Interesting.

Yes, that's true for me as well! But part of the charm is the "ultra modern" 1980s technology, just as in the 1960s films with their gadgets and computers. Who knows how the time goes...

I do think that the Gardner books are a bit "dry", and I have to be in a huge Bond mood in order to get through them. But they do have their charm. One of the benefits for me in reading Gardner's books, is that I don't envision any of the actors as 007, even though it may seem impossible to do so. I've always imagined a kind of "literary Bond" when reading JG's work.

[Qwerty]

I'm hoping we go for a Gardner book in the Reading Club soon.

[Trident]

I didn't find them boring. At least not all of them. In fact, back in 1981 when I first heard about new Bond-books being written, I was pretty much ecstatic about the idea. In germany at that time there were only Flemings books available (which I had already read about a hundred times then). I had not heard about Amis book yet, and so I felt like it was my birthday when my father presented to me the article in a sunday-newspaper, claiming a certain Mr Gardner to be the author of a new Bond-novel.

Almost a year later (I think it was '82) his book (Licence Renewed) was translated and published in germany. I was one of the first to grab a copy and read the book within two days.
There were many things I liked about the book (and still do):
the Saab ist simply a great car, unobtrusive and yet potent! I still dream about owning one (though I'm perfectly content with my mini, mind you), and I remember the book every time I spot a Saab on the road. I found the working-out-Bond wearing Addidas-sneakers and a track suit very convincing. His survival-belt with emergency money stashed away rememberd me of his attache-case in FRWL. I even liked Bond with traces of grey in his hair and smoking less often (though low-tar-cigarettes seemed to me a waste of time back then).

Some other things struck me as odd. Why taking away Bonds PPK? Why taking away the 00-section? Why is Bond suddenly wearing a solid-gold-Rolex (IMHO he never would have taken to the gold model. Bond is a well-to-do kind of guy but nowhere near a millionaire.)? Why is he using his old cigarette-case (repaired after shot through in FRWL) but not his Ronson lighter? The Dunhill model seemed by far too flashy to me. The plot itself was great although I missed a proper climax in the Murcaldy castle.

Anyway, I simply loved the book and eagerly awaited new ones by Gardner. Some 15 months later, I was able to pick up both the original paperback-edition of FSS together with IB. I bought them on the assumption that they might not be translated ever (which later Gardners were not, I think NDMB was the last one to be published in germany). Gardner (and Fleming for that matter; I had to reread his works in English as the german editions had omitted a lot of things) had me hooked so much, that I had to improve on my English in order to be able tho read his books without constantly leafing in a dictionary (I still have to thank them both for this service they did to me!). I loved both books (not entirely, but still a lot) but was a bit disappointed by ROH (I hated the Bentley and still do!) and NLF. Gardners later works seemed (at least to me) not very ambitious. By the time of NDMB and SCORPIUS I was thoroughly angry with the works because I simply missed Bond in the stories (but still I bought every new book, hoping the next one would bring back the Bond I liked so much).

Maybe Gardner was just not content with writing Bond-books any more. I felt at times he would have liked to write more of a literary thriller in the leCarre/Deighton-style which were quite successful at that time. Maybe Gardner felt it was a mistake to take on the Bond-Heritage and therefore was no longer able to write convincingly (at least to me) about a modern Bond. Maybe he wanted to write more ambitious works instead and thus lost the essential things about Bond's character. I downright hated his last works, tough one can hardly call them badly written. They just were no longer Bond-novels.

Hope I didn't write to much. The topic always gets me started.

Edited by Trident, 06 July 2004 - 08:20 AM.

[Loomis]

Very nice post, Trident. Thanks.

You've pretty much nailed the reason why I'm not such a massive Gardner fan: "They just were no longer Bond-novels." (Mind you, I think the rot set in long before the likes of "Scorpius".)

I don't know. Maybe I'm being way too harsh. Probably am. Your enthusiasm is quite infectious, so I think I'll have to give Gardner another chance, without comparing him to Fleming the whole time while reading him.

Oh, and welcome to CBn, Trident.

[Trident]

Hi Loomis!

Thank you for the welcome! Its nice to be here!

No, the rot definitely set in before Scorpius. I sometimes think, it might have been better for Gardner if he had taken his hat after ROH or NLF. (I was still a kid in the mid-80's and I sometimes phantasised of a book written by Jack Higgins based on a Robert-Ludlum-kind-of-plot; ridiculus idea, I know and still feel ashamed about it).

And its not only Bond I was missing in later works. There seemed to be hardly a trace of M left in them (or otherwise M had taken to intentionally sending Bond into assignments without the proper briefing over the years).
The Secret Service did not do much better itself:
first they missed Bond having an uncle (by M stating Bond left no living relatives in YOLT),
next all kinds of Service-personal turns out to be traitors and double-agents,
even safe-houses protected by SIS-agents are utterly penetrable and so forth, and so on.

Gardner's books became more and more traitor-ridden and his later plots lacked most of the typical Bond elements. While trying to make the series "his", Gardner changed all kind of things. And most of them not for the better. It didn't help that Bond had to save the life of the President of the US again and again. Or that Gardner later tried to write Bond into another wedding (or at least a permanent relationship) with some of the dullest characters he ever invented.

Gardners Bond suddenly was no longer the living-on-the-edge guy I allways connected with Bond. But I'd even say its not so much Gardners changes in nearly all the details but his basical lack of understanding Bond's nightmare-driven character. I allways imagined a character who (as Amis put it) was drinking alone late in the night in his flat. Of course, in the 80's a man in Bond's position could no longer smoke 60 cigarettes a day or drink that much. And a 00-agent would certainly have to be thoroughly trained and in peak-condition. But Bond himself, his dark and brooding character, was missing in Gardners work. His agent seemed to be strangely unemotional and untouched by the world around him. Not the Bond that has to fight back his emotions (and fears at times) in order to complete his assignment and stay alive.

Still, as I said before, I enjoyed his first three books and some of Gardners inventions which pretty much were rooted in reality and even had a certain Fleming-touch to them at times (Did I say I love the Saab?) .
Other things I simply couldn't bring myself to accept in the Bond-world. But hey, one can't get all of them.

Edited by Trident, 06 July 2004 - 07:00 PM.