Extremely disappoined. Littered with errors. Clearly, a case of Faulks slumming it, and not taking the project seriously. Wouldn't have mattered had this not been sold as "writing as Ian Fleming". This is Faulks writing as Raymond Benson. Anyone who thinks this style recreates Fleming, or is evocative of Fleming, hasn't read Fleming. Still, its done what IFP hoped, I guess: loads of publicity and a, probably temporary, bestseller.
Sure, it is better written than Benson (though not as well plotted). But it is not in the class of Amis, Wood, Pearson and early Gardner. But ALL the continuation authors benefit by comparison with DMC.
One observation I would add that doesn't seem to have been made is that Faulks continually has Bond absent from passages, a constant failure of the continuation novels. Fleming's books were ABOUT James Bond - how many passages was he missing from? Little occured that Bond was not involved with (if you exclude the obvious intros of FRWL and TSWLM). Like most continuation authors (excluding Amis and Wood) Faulks seems afraid simply to WRITE about JAMES BOND!! Chuck out the aimless first chapter (shock horror - we learn drugs involves nasty people who come to bad ends, Chagrin's a nutter, Mathis has a mistress!) and go straight in with Bond. Take out the pointless Leiter, CIA, Persian chap (so unmemorable I can't recall his name!) subplot and the book is shorter and more taught. And, of course, have the book proof-read by someone who knows Bond (rather than can just spell). And about Bond.
But the one thing one does learn about DMC is that Ian Fleming was a better writer than Sebastian Faulks is. How does that sound, literary set?