Should Gardner's be read in order?
#1
Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:28 AM
But I have a question. Should I hold off until the Licence Renewed collection arrives? Or does it not really matter at which point I jump into the Gardner novels?
#2
Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:30 AM
#3
Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:32 AM
#4
Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:39 AM
Now what about his other ones, should I just get to those when I get to them?
#5
Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:42 AM
Personally, I would really try to read them in order for your first time. Wish I had when I first started reading them some years ago. They all should be easy to obtain.
#6
Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:43 AM
Licence Renewed
For Special Services
The Man from Barbarossa
Icebreaker
and have started Nobody Lives Forever, but yesterday I put it on the back burner to read Raymond Benson's Splinter Cell, which so far is great!
Edited by dinovelvet, 26 October 2005 - 03:45 AM.
#7
Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:46 AM
#8
Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:53 AM
dinovelvet makes a good point in that you should read License Renewed first as it sets up the Gardner/Bond world. The first three books really work well together and, IMO, should be read first and in order (I think of them as the Silver Beast Trilogy ). Then you can skip around. But make sure you read Never Send Flowers before Seafire...and I would have added COLD here but you've already read that. And, as I said, Role of Honor should be read before Nobody Lives Forever. Really, you can't go wrong reading the first five books in order.Awesome. As of right now I actually own all of those except for Never Send Flowers and SeaFire (and I've already read Cold...oops).
Now what about his other ones, should I just get to those when I get to them?
Oh, and don't listen to what people tell you about Brokenclaw. It rocks.
Have fun. Let us know how it goes.
#9
Posted 26 October 2005 - 04:06 AM
Licence Renewed (1981)
For Special Services (1982)
Icebreaker (1983)
Role of Honor (1984)
Nobody Lives Forever (1986)
No Deals Mr. Bond (1987)
Scorpius (1988)
Win Lose or Die (1989)
(Licence To Kill - novelization - 1989)
Brokenclaw (1990)
The Man From Babarossa (1991)
Death Is Forever (1992)
Never Send Flowers (1993)
SeaFire (1994)
(GoldenEye - novelization - 1995)
COLD (1996)
#10
Posted 26 October 2005 - 04:20 AM
#11
Posted 26 October 2005 - 07:28 AM
#13
Posted 26 October 2005 - 09:26 AM
I just recently won two collections of his stuff off eBay, one with Licence Renewed/For Special Services/Icebreaker and the other with Role Of Honor/No One Lives Forever/No Deals, Mr. Bond. The second one will be arriving first, and truth be told I'd really like to start reading it right away.
But I have a question. Should I hold off until the Licence Renewed collection arrives? Or does it not really matter at which point I jump into the Gardner novels?
What was the second prize? Three[I] collections of the complete Gardner...?
#15
Posted 26 October 2005 - 11:50 AM
#16
Posted 27 October 2005 - 03:00 AM
Hey, I got another question. Is LTK a straight-up novelization with no attempt to fit it into the book continuity or what?
#17
Posted 27 October 2005 - 03:01 AM
#18
Posted 27 October 2005 - 03:14 AM
Just finished Goldfinger myself, oddly enough. It was...alright, but no CR or LALD.
Hey, I got another question. Is LTK a straight-up novelization with no attempt to fit it into the book continuity or what?
There's some dumb chapter called lightning strikes twice or something. In the LTK novelization he gets his fake leg bitten off by a shark.
#22
Posted 27 October 2005 - 04:43 PM
Just finished Goldfinger myself, oddly enough. It was...alright, but no CR or LALD.
I'd say it's one of Fleming's lesser Bond novels compared to quite a few of his others.
Funny; I find it one of the stronger ones because it's so rich in detail and characterisation. And, as Raymond Benson points out in the Bedside Companion, Fleming's Bond is at his most likeable in Goldfinger. Fleming was at the top of his game when he wrote this one - and it shows.
#23
Posted 27 October 2005 - 04:46 PM
That said, it still is a very good read.
#24
Posted 27 October 2005 - 06:54 PM
Funny; I find it one of the stronger ones because it's so rich in detail and characterisation. And, as Raymond Benson points out in the Bedside Companion, Fleming's Bond is at his most likeable in Goldfinger. Fleming was at the top of his game when he wrote this one - and it shows.
I like Goldfinger too; GF is a wonderfully perverse and terrific character and I love how he has Bond completely under his thumb for the second half of the book and even has Bond help him in his scheme.
#25
Posted 27 October 2005 - 06:58 PM
Funny; I find it one of the stronger ones because it's so rich in detail and characterisation. And, as Raymond Benson points out in the Bedside Companion, Fleming's Bond is at his most likeable in Goldfinger. Fleming was at the top of his game when he wrote this one - and it shows.
Yes, it is one of Flemings better novels in my opinion. It has a solid structure and it is rich in detail. I know a lot of people prefer the movie, but to me the book is one of my favorite novels. I think it works much better structurally than some of Flemings other Bond books.
#26
Posted 28 October 2005 - 02:16 AM
I disagree. It lacks the real sense of pace and excitement that was in his earlier books. I actually like Diamonds Are Forever more than this one.
That said, it still is a very good read.
I honestly enjoyed Diamonds Are Forever! I really did! Being as I read most of the Flemings hopelessly out of order, I tackled it after YOLT and before Thunderball, and frankly there's parts of DAF I prefer to either of those.
Edited by Flash1087, 28 October 2005 - 02:17 AM.
#27
Posted 28 October 2005 - 02:21 AM
#29
Posted 28 October 2005 - 04:57 AM
My least favourite Fleming remains The Man With The Golden Gun.
#30
Posted 28 October 2005 - 05:32 AM
Funny; I find it one of the stronger ones because it's so rich in detail and characterisation. And, as Raymond Benson points out in the Bedside Companion, Fleming's Bond is at his most likeable in Goldfinger. Fleming was at the top of his game when he wrote this one - and it shows.
Yes, it is one of Flemings better novels in my opinion. It has a solid structure and it is rich in detail. I know a lot of people prefer the movie, but to me the book is one of my favorite novels. I think it works much better structurally than some of Flemings other Bond books.
I like it. I think it's pretty well structured and written, although the story was far more implausible than his other books (IMHO). The ending wasn't that good either; otherwise it's a fantastic book.