62 replies to this topic

[marmaduke]

I am currently a third of my way through my

[Qwerty]

I hope you enjoy it - there really are some excellent books in this series. I definitely urge you to check out these articles and add your reviews in the threads corresponding to them as you read.

[zencat]

Prepare yourself for more highs and lows, marmaduke, although following Nobody Lives Forever, it becomes more like rolling hills. Also, while most Bond fans are in agreement on the first 4 or 5 books, opinions vary wildly about the rest. I, for example, really like Brokenclaw, but most hate it. Most really love Win Lose or Die...I just think it's okay. Enjoy and keep us posted.

[marmaduke]

Thanks Zencat, i will.

[Flash1087]

To cast another varying opinion into the fire, I've always defended Scorpius. It's a lonely, thankless task.

[Qwerty]

To cast another varying opinion into the fire, I've always defended Scorpius. It's a lonely, thankless task.

Indeed it is! I'd say it (along with The Man From Barbarossa or Cold perhaps) are the two most universally disliked John Gardner adventures on the CBn forums.

[dinovelvet]

To cast another varying opinion into the fire, I've always defended Scorpius. It's a lonely, thankless task.

I gave Scorpius a mild thumbs up. It was at least something different and we got a good old-school Fleming style villain in it. Funnily enough when I posted about it a few weeks ago (its probably still visible a few threads below this one), I said that suicide bombers would be a good relevant issue for a Bond movie to deal with...and now after the CR plot details have emerged...well!

[K1Bond007]

Most really love Win Lose or Die...I just think it's okay. Enjoy and keep us posted.

Agree with you here.

To cast another varying opinion into the fire, I've always defended Scorpius. It's a lonely, thankless task.

I gave Scorpius a mild thumbs up. It was at least something different and we got a good old-school Fleming style villain in it. Funnily enough when I posted about it a few weeks ago (its probably still visible a few threads below this one), I said that suicide bombers would be a good relevant issue for a Bond movie to deal with...and now after the CR plot details have emerged...well!

They were in CR (novel).

Anyhoo. I liked Scorpius.

[Kronsteen]

Yes, John Gardners novels can be somewhat of a roller coaster. It will be very interesting to hear your views on the rest of his books.

His first novels seems to be the most liked, and even though I think both Licence Renewed and For Special Services are good reads I don't think it was Gardners peak. I'm more fond of his later books. Win, Lose or Die, The Man From Barbarossa and Never Send Flowers is Gardners very best efforts IMO, while I was bored by Icebreaker and Nobody Lives Forever (I must give them another read someday though).

[addyb]

Yes, Gardner's novels are quite definately a roller coaster of sorts. My personal favourite his 16 is without a doubt "Death is Forever". My least favourite is "Brokenclaw". (But as always, that's simply MY opinion!)

When John Gardner penned a good Bond novel, gawd, it was a HELL of a novel. But when he penned a bad one, ouch...it was bad.

They're a bit strange, in the first couple, I got the feeling that he's an aging Bond, getting close to retirment. And then somehow, Bond becomes suddenly younger, is promoted to Captain and stops smoking. (Not that that's a bad thing by any means!)

But in the end, no matter how you look at it, John Gardner saved the literary James Bond from extinction. And without his contributions, I doubt that Raymond Benson or Charlie Higson would've been able to "pick up the torch again"

Cheers,

Adam

[Tiin007]

But in the end, no matter how you look at it, John Gardner saved the literary James Bond from extinction. And without his contributions, I doubt that Raymond Benson or Charlie Higson would've been able to "pick up the torch again"

That's a good point which I never thought about before.

[Double-Oh Agent]

But in the end, no matter how you look at it, John Gardner saved the literary James Bond from extinction. And without his contributions, I doubt that Raymond Benson or Charlie Higson would've been able to "pick up the torch again"

That's a good point which I never thought about before.

I like Gardner's stuff and think he gets too much negative comments on this site, but I don't know that I would go so far as to say that he saved the literary Bond from extinction. I think there is the distinct possibility that Glidrose/IFP would have brought in someone else to write the Bond novels if Gardner had not done them. Although I suppose you could make the case that if his first couple of novels hadn't been successful, then we may never have had another Bond continuation novel because it may have been thought that the literary Bond was only relevant in the '50s and '60s.

You know, as I'm writing this, I see my last sentence and I'm leaning more toward your line of thinking addyb. That's it, John Gardner is the Roger Moore of 007 authors (different from all the others and somewhat lacking in respect but vital to the survival of the series). I suppose then that would make Ian Fleming the Sean Connery (original and best), Kingsley Amis the Timothy Dalton (small output but highly respected), John Pearson the George Lazenby (one-timer but solid performance), Raymond Benson the Pierce Brosnan (a combination of what's gone before--i.e. interweaving of the novels and film 007), and Charlie Higson the Daniel Craig (totally against the grain looks--Young Bond).

[addyb]

Double-Oh,

I'm glad that at least someone agrees with me on this one And what you've just said about comparing the authors to their cinematic version makes perfect sense!

If someone were to ask me, "Adam, why do you rate John Gardner's version so highly?" Well, I'll tell you.

Realism. No, I don't mean insane villians like Wolfie Weisan or the men from BAST, or neo-Nazi's living in a bunker on the Finnish border. I mean the little things:

1) The ASP 9mm. Gawd, it's a helluva pistol and quite possibly THE best choice for an agent (not just 007) to carry for self defense. The ASP is over twenty years old, and as far as I know it's still "Unseen in the Best Places." Gardner was absolutely spot on with this one.

2) Tradecraft. Fleming's Bond lacked this, and so does Bensons. Gardner's knows when he's being tailed, is able to memorize phone numbers, and how to slip the eyes of watchers. "Watch their shoes, they never have time to change their shoes." (Death is Forever)

3) Tools of the trade. Everything that Gardner's version used actually exists, or existed at the time of his novels. The CC-300 telephone scrambler, the modifications to the Saab 900 "Silver Beast", the escape and evasion kit used in Hong Kong, the money belt in "License Renewed", and even the small pieces of C4 inside of Bond's trouser waistband.

Those are just a few of the reasons why I really like (some) of Gardner's contributions to the cannon. No-will ever top "The Fleming Sweep" but I for one give the man a great deal of credit.

Adam

[Lazenby880]

That's it, John Gardner is the Roger Moore of 007 authors (different from all the others and somewhat lacking in respect but vital to the survival of the series). I suppose then that would make Ian Fleming the Sean Connery (original and best), Kingsley Amis the Timothy Dalton (small output but highly respected), John Pearson the George Lazenby (one-timer but solid performance), Raymond Benson the Pierce Brosnan (a combination of what's gone before--i.e. interweaving of the novels and film 007), and Charlie Higson the Daniel Craig (totally against the grain looks--Young Bond).

That is quite possibly the best analysis of the literary Bond I have seen.

Addyb, I agree with your reasoning regarding the Gardner era. Not all of it was good - heck, some of it was pretty bad - but he was different and individual. He did not go for the easy option, although there are times at which he did detract from the OO7 character too much for my liking. I am with you on your three reasons for liking Gardner's Bond, and although he cannot compete with Fleming (and is substantively divergent from Fleming in most respects) I do find much of his work eminently readable and entertaining. His books are more pedestrian and based to a greater extent in realism (the prose and plotting is less purple than Fleming) but they are also, for the most part, taut novels that hold the suspense throughout.

The Gardner era is a roller-coaster in terms of quality, but at the summit of that roller-coaster his work can be very enjoyable indeed.

[zencat]

That's it, John Gardner is the Roger Moore of 007 authors (different from all the others and somewhat lacking in respect but vital to the survival of the series). I suppose then that would make Ian Fleming the Sean Connery (original and best), Kingsley Amis the Timothy Dalton (small output but highly respected), John Pearson the George Lazenby (one-timer but solid performance), Raymond Benson the Pierce Brosnan (a combination of what's gone before--i.e. interweaving of the novels and film 007), and Charlie Higson the Daniel Craig (totally against the grain looks--Young Bond).

That is quite possibly the best analysis of the literary Bond I have seen.

Ditto. Great.

[marmaduke]

I have just completed reading No Deals Mr Bond.
This

[zencat]

Yeah, NDMB is not one of the better Gardner books, IMO. Afraid I'm not much of a fan of Scorpius either (the next book). You're in bit of a low point. You'll hit some highs again, but nothing will compare with the early books. Althought it does become more subjective from here on out, so, who knows? You may still find your favorite Gardner Bond among these later books.

[DLibrasnow]

To cast another varying opinion into the fire, I've always defended Scorpius. It's a lonely, thankless task.

Indeed it is! I'd say it (along with The Man From Barbarossa or Cold perhaps) are the two most universally disliked John Gardner adventures on the CBn forums.

Really? I've always thought that Scorpius was a very decent Bond book. One of my favorite Gadner novels is actually No Deals, Mr. Bond - now that is a lonely, thankless task.

Oddly enough a lot of fans don't seem to like Never Send Flowers, but I really liked it.

[spynovelfan]

One of my favorite Gadner novels is actually No Deals, Mr. Bond - now that is a lonely, thankless task.

Oddly enough a lot of fans don't seem to like Never Send Flowers, but I really liked it.

And your favourite Bond film is NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. Perhaps you just have very different taste from everyone else, Darren.

[DLibrasnow]

One of my favorite Gadner novels is actually No Deals, Mr. Bond - now that is a lonely, thankless task.

Oddly enough a lot of fans don't seem to like Never Send Flowers, but I really liked it.

And your favourite Bond film is NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. Perhaps you just have very different taste from everyone else, Darren.

That would appear to be the case in a number of instances. Another example - A View To A Kill is my third favorite Roger Moore 007 movie and number five on my all-time list.

[Trident]

But in the end, no matter how you look at it, John Gardner saved the literary James Bond from extinction. And without his contributions, I doubt that Raymond Benson or Charlie Higson would've been able to "pick up the torch again"

When Gardner started out writing continuations and I first heard about it I was really excited and craving the "new Bonds". And his first books (till, say, "Role of Honour") really made my day (being a teenager back then). He had many good ideas (Saab, Heckler & Koch P7, a working-out-routine, less drink and smoke and so on) and though his plots differed from Fleming he still was able to pull off a decent thriller at times. But over the years I got the feeling that Gardner had somehow lost his care for Bond. And at times I was wondering, if he ever was caring for the character at all.

There are so many inconsistencies in his books. The 00-section is abolished. Why? What's the reason? Political pressures are mentioned, but the whole tenure of Gardner's books from LR to Cold shows, how necessary a 00-section is. The PPK is taken away and replaced (in that order) by an even older Browning (not the high power model), an ungainly and conspicously bulky Heckler&Koch VP 70, a rather sensible P7, the very good ASP, a Browning Compact and so on. Practically a different gun every book, and at times Gardner even contradicts himself, such when (falsely) stating in a later book, the ASP had been developed from the Browning (and not from the S&W Model 39 as he himself had pointed out in ROH).

A similar treatment suffers Bond's car. First the Saab 900, as driving a Bentley Continental in the 80's seemed ridiculous for a secret agent in Gardner's opinion (and I'm inclined to agree with him on that matter). The 900 was described in detail during the first three books, and used in the fashion one expects Bond to use it (with maybe just a little more emphasis on the films than the books). A "sensible" car that incorporated both, performance and unobtrusiveness, yet not as bland and anonymous as so many other cars of that area. Why then the change to that big, conspicous, fuel-into-elegance Bentley Mulsanne Turbo? Was that necessary? Are Bentleys suddenly not ridiculous any more?

Smoking less, drinking less, working out, ideas of Gardners early novels, all seem to lend a certain credibility to Bond's life in the 80's. But none of it (with the notable exception of smoking a single cigarette in COLD) is mentioned in later books. Not smoking and drinking just less, but nothing at all. It reads as if Bond had never smoked and had never had a Martini, Bourbon or Vodka. Does that still sound like Bond? In contrast to that (still rather sensible) decision, Bond's work-out routine (from LR) is never again mentioned after NLF. Why not? It would have been a great chance to sell Bond's "drastically changed lifestyle" to the reader, but Gardner lets it pass without taking advantage of it. As if no change had happened.


On other things, unfortunately, Gardner was far more consistent. His plots became a tiresome, neverending succession of double/triple/quadruple crossings and traitors, endless briefings in hotel rooms and repeated attempts to hijack/kill/blackmail the US-president/the chairman of the USSR/ both of them. His villains became a faceless, anonymous mass of semi-religous
military fascists and terrorists, lacking any real distinguishing marks. Most of them after NLF I can't even remember.

Sorry if I sound extremely negative about the Gardners but partially this is because I used to (and still do so) love his early Bonds and partially because I think his books could have been a whole lot better if only he had cared more for them and for Bond's character.

As was already said, Gardner is a rollercoaster. Maybe I'm just not made for rollercoasters.

[zencat]

Wow. Excellent post there. Trident. Even though I consider myself a Gardner fan, I have to agree with you on your points.

[Jim]

But in the end, no matter how you look at it, John Gardner saved the literary James Bond from extinction. And without his contributions, I doubt that Raymond Benson or Charlie Higson would've been able to "pick up the torch again"

When Gardner started out writing continuations and I first heard about it I was really excited and craving the "new Bonds". And his first books (till, say, "Role of Honour") really made my day (being a teenager back then). He had many good ideas (Saab, Heckler & Koch P7, a working-out-routine, less drink and smoke and so on) and though his plots differed from Fleming he still was able to pull off a decent thriller at times. But over the years I got the feeling that Gardner had somehow lost his care for Bond. And at times I was wondering, if he ever was caring for the character at all.

There are so many inconsistencies in his books. The 00-section is abolished. Why? What's the reason? Political pressures are mentioned, but the whole tenure of Gardner's books from LR to Cold shows, how necessary a 00-section is. The PPK is taken away and replaced (in that order) by an even older Browning (not the high power model), an ungainly and conspicously bulky Heckler&Koch VP 70, a rather sensible P7, the very good ASP, a Browning Compact and so on. Practically a different gun every book, and at times Gardner even contradicts himself, such when (falsely) stating in a later book, the ASP had been developed from the Browning (and not from the S&W Model 39 as he himself had pointed out in ROH).

A similar treatment suffers Bond's car. First the Saab 900, as driving a Bentley Continental in the 80's seemed ridiculous for a secret agent in Gardner's opinion (and I'm inclined to agree with him on that matter). The 900 was described in detail during the first three books, and used in the fashion one expects Bond to use it (with maybe just a little more emphasis on the films than the books). A "sensible" car that incorporated both, performance and unobtrusiveness, yet not as bland and anonymous as so many other cars of that area. Why then the change to that big, conspicous, fuel-into-elegance Bentley Mulsanne Turbo? Was that necessary? Are Bentleys suddenly not ridiculous any more?

Smoking less, drinking less, working out, ideas of Gardners early novels, all seem to lend a certain credibility to Bond's life in the 80's. But none of it (with the notable exception of smoking a single cigarette in COLD) is mentioned in later books. Not smoking and drinking just less, but nothing at all. It reads as if Bond had never smoked and had never had a Martini, Bourbon or Vodka. Does that still sound like Bond? In contrast to that (still rather sensible) decision, Bond's work-out routine (from LR) is never again mentioned after NLF. Why not? It would have been a great chance to sell Bond's "drastically changed lifestyle" to the reader, but Gardner lets it pass without taking advantage of it. As if no change had happened.


On other things, unfortunately, Gardner was far more consistent. His plots became a tiresome, neverending succession of double/triple/quadruple crossings and traitors, endless briefings in hotel rooms and repeated attempts to hijack/kill/blackmail the US-president/the chairman of the USSR/ both of them. His villains became a faceless, anonymous mass of semi-religous
military fascists and terrorists, lacking any real distinguishing marks. Most of them after NLF I can't even remember.

Sorry if I sound extremely negative about the Gardners but partially this is because I used to (and still do so) love his early Bonds and partially because I think his books could have been a whole lot better if only he had cared more for them and for Bond's character.

As was already said, Gardner is a rollercoaster. Maybe I'm just not made for rollercoasters.

Oh spot on.

[Trident]

Wow. Excellent post there. Trident. Even though I consider myself a Gardner fan, I have to agree with you on your points.

Zen, I honestly wish I wouldn't have to agree with them myself. That's what spurs my anger: the disappointment of the disillusioned admirer.

[marmaduke]

I have just completed John Gardner

Edited by marmaduke, 28 April 2006 - 06:18 PM.

[dinovelvet]

[quote name='marmaduke' post='548349' date='28 April 2006 - 11:08']
The book has flaws, for example the scenes that take place in the villains HQ in Florida may well have taken place in Devon England for all or the effort Gardner puts on scene setting. No spoilers here, but also I found Bond

[marmaduke]

Re : Never Send Flowers . This was actually the first Gardner I read prior to License Renewed and then reverting to chronological order.Put it like this , I will be VERY interested in seeing your posted review of NSF on your completion of it Dinovelvet. I will say no more for now.

[dinovelvet]

Re : Never Send Flowers . This was actually the first Gardner I read prior to License Renewed and then reverting to chronological order.Put it like this , I will be VERY interested in seeing your posted review of NSF on your completion of it Dinovelvet. I will say no more for now.

Ha - OK, we'll see how it goes! I should be done with it in a week...

[marmaduke]

I have just completed Gardener

[zencat]

I really enjoyed WLOD when it first came out and thought it was one of the better Gardner books. But, for whatever reasons, a recent re-read made my opinion drop. Maybe it was just a timing thing. I didn't re-read the books in order and WLOD was one of the last. Maybe I just had enough by then.

Looking forward to your thoughts on Brokenclaw. Much maligned, but it's one of MY favorite Gardner books.