10 replies to this topic

[Digitarius]

Have anybody read this. I read this last year and I think it's the worst Bond novel I've ever read. There's no action, no thrills, and although there're plenty of bedroom scenes between Bond and Flicka, there's little chemistry. The villian is absolutely useless, and the plot is bored and tired. I'm sorry, but I think this spelled the end for Gardner and paved the way for Benson.

[bridge]

I read it and I didn't like it. All that time in the castle I expected some kind of thrilling adventure, and a failed attempt at suspense on the writer's part came instead. The book was not organized well. I think the story wasted a villain who could have been one of the best.

[zencat]

I really hated NSF when it first came out. Another Gardner disappointment, I thought. But I recently re-read it (as I did all the Gardner books) and while I still think it's a weak entry in the Gardner canon, I found it was not as bad as I remembered. I sensed that Gardner was going for a Bond horror story with this book. At least that's how it starts out. There

[RossMan]

I actually enjoyed NSF the first time I read it. The "serial killer" plot was a nice break from the usual Bond formula and I thought that Dragonpol was one of Gardner's better villains.

[Jim]

Gardner leaps on the mid-90s serial killer craze. Really quite an odd book (although not quite as weird as The Man from Barbarossa, nor quite as bad (just) as Brokenclaw). The novels plumb a pre-Benson depth with the comment about Bond's admiration for the Disney corporation, which is one of the oddest things I've read in any of the books and doesn't seem to fit in with the 007 of (say) Diamonds are Forever and his views on American culture

[Blue Eyes]

I've never read it but I have heard a similair review before. But isn't it called Never Send Flowers???

[The Admiral]

I've never read it. But I also thought it was titled Never Send Flowers.

[Digitarius]

But all the characters were so plastic, with Dragonpol as the main villain (a major disappointment), lack of action (only two major fight scenes) and underinventiveness (Bond girl's name could be more exotic than Flicka von Grouse). The ending was a poor flick as well, with the whole book seemingly relying on its last line, 'Never send flowers, sir', to make its impact.

[zencat]

All very valid criticisms there Digitarius. In fact, I think this could be said about most of the late term Gardners. That's why I so disliked NSF when it first came out. I saw the series going down hill and with each book I hoped he would turn it around. But no. This was also during the 6 year "gap" in the movies so it was a VERY dark time for Bond fans.

But now, with the 007 renaissance in full swing, I can re-read the Gardner books and accept them for what they are. Weak Bond...but still Bond.

[Digitarius]

Yeah, it's called Never Send Flowers, but I always compare this with the unofficial Bond film Never Say Never Again, for both exhibited Bond as a slow-moving, useless, lack of action man who's reason in the MI6 remains a mystery.

[White Persian]

Jim (02 Aug, 2001 08:51 p.m.):
The novel plumbs a pre-Benson depth with the comment about Bond's admiration for the Disney corporation, which is one of the oddest things I've read in any of the books and doesn't seem to fit in with the 007 of (say) Diamonds are Forever and his views on American culture

I guess having secured Disney's assistance in the research phase, Gardner felt obliged to give Disney an endorsement, no matter how out of character the sentiment is.
But Gardner's Bond is mostly out of character anyway.
Whatever Benson's literary limitations compared to Fleming, at least he makes a genuine effort to keep "his" Bond consistent with Flemings.