Faulks interview (podcast) by Jian Ghomeshi from CBC Q
#1
Posted 01 July 2008 - 09:15 PM
Full program podcast is about 51 minutes, the Faulks interview starts 1 minute into the podcast, length 19 minutes.
Q program site: http://www.cbc.ca/q/
All podcasts (look for Q June 30 2008): http://www.cbc.ca/po...s.html?42#ref42
Direct podcast link:
#2
Posted 01 July 2008 - 10:34 PM
#3
Posted 02 July 2008 - 06:28 AM
#4
Posted 02 July 2008 - 07:42 AM
''Were you concerned about stepping into Ian Fleming's voice and style?'
'No. It was quite easy to work out how he did it. I mean, he writes as a journalist, really, and I trained as a journalist...'
I don't want to get too precious about it, but he seems to have confused working out how Fleming did it - which I don't think is all that easy - to doing it himself. A novel isn't something you simply reverse engineer. He also mentions having earned the right to do the Bond book, to taking 'six weeks off'. He's just talking off the cuff, of course, but I found his attitude a little arrogant, and rather naive. Fleming's success was not the result of a series of stylistic or tonal tics. To be sure, they were part of the package, but it's what he did beyond those elements that brought the adventures to life.
#5
Posted 02 July 2008 - 08:36 AM
It's odd listening to him saying all the same sort of stuff he did before the release now that it has been published. I found myself slightly troubled by his tone in places:
''Were you concerned about stepping into Ian Fleming's voice and style?'
'No. It was quite easy to work out how he did it. I mean, he writes as a journalist, really, and I trained as a journalist...'
I don't want to get too precious about it, but he seems to have confused working out how Fleming did it - which I don't think is all that easy - to doing it himself. A novel isn't something you simply reverse engineer. He also mentions having earned the right to do the Bond book, to taking 'six weeks off'. He's just talking off the cuff, of course, but I found his attitude a little arrogant, and rather naive. Fleming's success was not the result of a series of stylistic or tonal tics. To be sure, they were part of the package, but it's what he did beyond those elements that brought the adventures to life.
Reading DMC I got the sense that Faulks didn't take it seriously at all - like he was writing the book for a laugh, arrogantly thinking this was so easy that he'd have no problems doing it. Its amusing how wrong he is about that.
I wonder how serious he is about the six week thing. Surely he must have had the basic outline of the book ready in his head before he started writing (something Fleming certainly had, having had a year to think, prepare and make notes before hammering out a novel in six weeks).
#6
Posted 02 July 2008 - 03:43 PM
I don't want to get too precious about it, but he seems to have confused working out how Fleming did it - which I don't think is all that easy - to doing it himself. A novel isn't something you simply reverse engineer.
True. Sebastian Faulks has no idea how to write a novel.
#7
Posted 02 July 2008 - 03:46 PM
#8
Posted 02 July 2008 - 04:22 PM
#9
Posted 02 July 2008 - 04:51 PM
#10
Posted 02 July 2008 - 09:49 PM
#11
Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:09 AM
If Faulks had taken more time and more care , do you think DMC would be as good a novel as a Fleming? I don't think so . I don't think he cared or knew enough about the character. Higson does. That's why BRC will be the real centenary novel, closely followed by Final Fling. The much hyped DMC will be in last place
Great. The number one seller for a month, the most reviewed book of the summer, will come in last place compared to a children's book series in which James Bond battled pirates when he was ten, and a novel that won't sell as many copies as DMC's autographed edition. Thank you for putting it all in perspective.
Sheesh... Nice books, which I look forward to as well, but get a grip.
#12
Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:56 AM
If Faulks had taken more time and more care , do you think DMC would be as good a novel as a Fleming? I don't think so . I don't think he cared or knew enough about the character. Higson does. That's why BRC will be the real centenary novel, closely followed by Final Fling. The much hyped DMC will be in last place
Great. The number one seller for a month, the most reviewed book of the summer, will come in last place compared to a children's book series in which James Bond battled pirates when he was ten, and a novel that won't sell as many copies as DMC's autographed edition. Thank you for putting it all in perspective.
Sheesh... Nice books, which I look forward to as well, but get a grip.
Of course Faulks has sold more copies. The promotion has been exceptional. But Higsons books have more of the Fleming spirit than DMC does, as does Weinberg. I don't care how many copies it sells and what type of reader it's aimed at, Blood Fever is far superior to DMC. Don't confuse hype with quality
BTW i know Faulks is i good writer and i enjoyed DMC but expected so much more. Higson and Weinberg have done much better
Edited by quantumofsolace, 03 July 2008 - 01:05 AM.
#13
Posted 03 July 2008 - 01:04 AM
Don't confuse hype with quality
Or your opinions with the rest of the world's...
#14
Posted 03 July 2008 - 01:09 AM
Don't confuse hype with quality
Or your opinions with the rest of the world's...
Am i alone in thinking Higson is better at writng Bond than Faulks?
#15
Posted 03 July 2008 - 01:11 AM
Am i alone in thinking Higson is better at writng Bond than Faulks?
I don't know -- what does your eight-year-old say?
This is turning into one of those depressing fanboy arguments where you have to hate one thing to like the other.
"Of course, the Warner Brothers Batman cartoon is much closer in spirit to the orginal comic book character than the George Clooney movie!"
#16
Posted 17 July 2008 - 02:54 AM
A 'ten' year old Bond battling pirates was more exciting to me(an adult!) than the Faulks novel
Edited by quantumofsolace, 17 July 2008 - 02:55 AM.
#17
Posted 20 July 2008 - 08:07 PM
Am i alone in thinking Higson is better at writng Bond than Faulks?
I enjoyed DMC, but I do think Charlie is the superior continuation novelist and Blood Fever a better James Bond book (and I expect By Royal Command to surpass even BF).I said I enjoyed DMC so there's no hate from me , just disappointment
A 'ten' year old Bond battling pirates was more exciting to me(an adult!) than the Faulks novel