Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Was it Necessary?


27 replies to this topic

#1 danielcraigisjamesbond007

danielcraigisjamesbond007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2002 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:52 AM

Not the book. I'm talking about the "WRITING AS IAN FLEMING" on the cover. <Sigh>. Really? Was it necessary? We all know that Bond is Fleming's creation. But "WRITING AS IAN FLEMING" was never emblazoned across the cover of any of the other continuation novels...

#2 mccartney007

mccartney007

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3406 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 10 March 2009 - 06:04 AM

Probably because none of the other continuation novelists were trying to be anything other than they were?

#3 [dark]

[dark]

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6239 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 10 March 2009 - 07:32 AM

Officially, it's probably to do with the fact that the book is a direct continuation of Fleming's work (in the year of Fleming's centenary).

I suspect another reason may be to separate Devil May Care from Faulks' other, "more serious" output.

#4 DAN LIGHTER

DAN LIGHTER

    Lt. Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPip
  • 1248 posts

Posted 10 March 2009 - 08:19 AM

I thought it was to tie in with the 100th year celebration of Flemings birth? Otherwise would the genral public of know what Devil May Care was done in aid of?

#5 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 10 March 2009 - 08:32 AM

No it wasn't necessary. In fact it's cheap and corny.
Marketing is probably largely to blame for this eccentric claim of literary channeling. Possibly they were so nervous about the quality of the product that they thought they could rope in a few more punters by attaching IF's name to it...

Then again, I'm willing to follow the notion that it is, intentionally or not, a disclaimer of sorts. After all, a "serious" writer doesn't want to carry the can for "pulp" now does he?

But to even associate it with IF is an insult because no Bond novel has ever been as dreary, dull, predictable or derivative as DMC.
What's worse many parts that were just plain wrong for a Bond novel and there were several obviously Eon-influenced action sequences that read like a (gratefully) long-lost Brosnan scene..
At best it is poor pastiche that doesn't even rise above middling fanfic.

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 March 2009 - 08:36 AM.


#6 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 10 March 2009 - 12:12 PM

I agree, the "writing as Ian Fleming" was not necessary. It was even very lame, and IMO this claim was the reason of the harshness of some critiques.

#7 Della Leiter

Della Leiter

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 07 April 2009 - 12:52 AM

I agree; completely unnecessary. If you don't know that Bond is Fleming's creation, you shouldn't be reading the book. Plain and simple.

Edited by Della Leiter, 07 April 2009 - 12:52 AM.


#8 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 11 April 2009 - 04:59 PM

Yes, it was necessary to prepare readers that this was not a Sebastian Faulks Bond novel, this was Faulks writing a Bond novel as if it were written by Ian Fleming. He was doing an impression. At some points, he even used actual Fleming sentences. The "writing as Ian Fleming" explains this (somewhat odd) style choice.

#9 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 11 April 2009 - 05:13 PM

Yes, it was necessary to prepare readers that this was not a Sebastian Faulks Bond novel


Yes, but it ended up preparing readers to the idea that this was (like) a Fleming novel, and I really believe that a lot of the disappointment had its origin in this inadequation between expectations and the actual novel. And I agree, it was an odd style choice, between pastiche and continuation novel.

#10 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 11 April 2009 - 05:21 PM

I agree; completely unnecessary. If you don't know that Bond is Fleming's creation, you shouldn't be reading the book. Plain and simple.

I can't agree with that Della. I think it's fine to enjoy a James Bond book or film or video game without knowing exactly who created the character. I'm sure most kids who read Superman have no idea who Siegel and Shuster were. It's good to know these things eventually, but it shouldn't be a prerequisite.

#11 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 11 April 2009 - 05:53 PM

BTW, kind of interesting to look back at the original thread (started by me) when we first noticed this and speculated on what it could mean.

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=43457

#12 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 11 April 2009 - 06:25 PM

Yes, it was necessary to prepare readers that this was not a Sebastian Faulks Bond novel


Yes, but it ended up preparing readers to the idea that this was (like) a Fleming novel, and I really believe that a lot of the disappointment had its origin in this inadequation between expectations and the actual novel.

You know, not all the Fleming novels are masterpieces. Have you given them a fresh re-read lately? Some of them are truly unformed and downright dull. Now, they are all still appealing...but some of them purely because they capture the period and are so unlike anything we'd expect in a "James Bond thriller" (three chapters devoted to every detail of an commercial airplane flight?).

If DMC really was written by Fleming, I think we would all place it above the likes of Diamonds Are Forever, Goldfinger, Thunderball, or TMWTGG (I'm not going to pick on TSWLM because I appreciate the experiment). Set aside all the expectations and who Faulks is and the hype and what you wanted it to be (and maybe have a look back at those novels you deify), and it really isn't that bad. It is certainly not deserving of the hate it gets.

#13 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 11 April 2009 - 07:34 PM

Yes, it was necessary to prepare readers that this was not a Sebastian Faulks Bond novel


Yes, but it ended up preparing readers to the idea that this was (like) a Fleming novel, and I really believe that a lot of the disappointment had its origin in this inadequation between expectations and the actual novel.

You know, not all the Fleming novels are masterpieces. Have you given them a fresh re-read lately? Some of them are truly unformed and downright dull. Now, they are all still appealing...but some of them purely because they capture the period and are so unlike anything we'd expect in a "James Bond thriller" (three chapters devoted to every detail of an commercial airplane flight?).


Oh I totally agree about the Fleming novels not being masterpieces (and I've read the all recently)! But they have a style of their own, as you point out.

If DMC really was written by Fleming, I think we would all place it above the likes of Diamonds Are Forever, Goldfinger, Thunderball, or TMWTGG (I'm not going to pick on TSWLM because I appreciate the experiment). Set aside all the expectations and who Faulks is and the hype and what you wanted it to be (and maybe have a look back at those novels you deify), and it really isn't that bad. It is certainly not deserving of the hate it gets.


Except that really Fleming would never have written DMC as it is written.
And please, I'd like to make something clear: I don't deify Fleming. Maybe there are some novels that I "deify", but none of them is a Bond one.
That said, DMC is not worse than some other continuation novels (dont ask / don't tell B)): personally, I find the beginning and end of the novel underwhelming, but the middle not that bad. But what I find particularly disappointing is that this book doesn't really decide what it wants to be: a pastiche, a tribute, or a continuation.
  • If a pastiche, it fails because it's not funny (although Bond taking showers every 10 minutes was kind of a running -water- gag).
  • If a tribute, it fails because it contains some very visible mistakes (invisible maybe to the average reader, but "shocking" to Fleming buffs).
  • If a continuation, it fails because it doesn't present us with Faulks's take on the James Bond character, but Faulks's take on what he thinks was the Fleming take on Bond's character.

Only "my opinion", of course :tdown:

#14 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 11 April 2009 - 08:23 PM

Was it necessary? I guess it was necessary for publicity purposes. "Writing as Ian Fleming" sure created plenty of hype. A pity, though, that it was false advertising. If DEVIL MAY CARE is Flemingian, so is Sylvester Stallone's script for ROCKY II.

#15 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 11 April 2009 - 10:56 PM

Yes, it was necessary to prepare readers that this was not a Sebastian Faulks Bond novel


Yes, but it ended up preparing readers to the idea that this was (like) a Fleming novel, and I really believe that a lot of the disappointment had its origin in this inadequation between expectations and the actual novel.

You know, not all the Fleming novels are masterpieces. Have you given them a fresh re-read lately? Some of them are truly unformed and downright dull. Now, they are all still appealing...but some of them purely because they capture the period and are so unlike anything we'd expect in a "James Bond thriller" (three chapters devoted to every detail of an commercial airplane flight?).


Oh I totally agree about the Fleming novels not being masterpieces (and I've read the all recently)! But they have a style of their own, as you point out.

If DMC really was written by Fleming, I think we would all place it above the likes of Diamonds Are Forever, Goldfinger, Thunderball, or TMWTGG (I'm not going to pick on TSWLM because I appreciate the experiment). Set aside all the expectations and who Faulks is and the hype and what you wanted it to be (and maybe have a look back at those novels you deify), and it really isn't that bad. It is certainly not deserving of the hate it gets.


Except that really Fleming would never have written DMC as it is written.
And please, I'd like to make something clear: I don't deify Fleming. Maybe there are some novels that I "deify", but none of them is a Bond one.
That said, DMC is not worse than some other continuation novels (dont ask / don't tell B)): personally, I find the beginning and end of the novel underwhelming, but the middle not that bad. But what I find particularly disappointing is that this book doesn't really decide what it wants to be: a pastiche, a tribute, or a continuation.
  • If a pastiche, it fails because it's not funny (although Bond taking showers every 10 minutes was kind of a running -water- gag).
  • If a tribute, it fails because it contains some very visible mistakes (invisible maybe to the average reader, but "shocking" to Fleming buffs).
  • If a continuation, it fails because it doesn't present us with Faulks's take on the James Bond character, but Faulks's take on what he thinks was the Fleming take on Bond's character.

Only "my opinion", of course :tdown:


Completely agreed with all that, MkB. I don't deify Fleming either, and I don't deify any of his books (apart from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, which I find beautifully written, haunting and deeply moving). zen is quite correct that some of the Flemings are "truly unformed and downright dull". But I don't think it's that the people complaining about DEVIL MAY CARE are Fleming fiends who think the man walked on water. It's more than DMC is not even the Fleming impersonation it purports to be.

And I'm not sure why. Faulks is a more than brilliant and versatile enough writer to be able to pull off a truly convincing imitation of Fleming's style (that languid clubland drawl with its snobbish digressions, devoting three chapters to an airline flight). Indeed, in his wonderful A FOOL'S ALPHABET, published in the early 1990s, there's some spookily Flemingian prose (by accident, one assumes) that would have gone down a treat in DMC. Also, I believe that Faulks knows and loves his Fleming. (Didn't he cite MOONRAKER as one of his favourite books in a recent interview?)

I think he was more than up to the job, but for some reason didn't do it. Or perhaps bowed to a degree of commercial pressure (after all, would a novel that was genuinely in Fleming's voice wow many readers nowadays?), or took the gig too lightly, or rushed the job, or tackled it from the wrong end, or whatever. I think DMC could really have used a polish or two (like many of the continuation novels, in fact). Not that I've got any actual experience of reading first drafts of novels, but I think DMC reads like one.

#16 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 11 April 2009 - 11:06 PM

If DMC really was written by Fleming, I think we would all place it above the likes of Diamonds Are Forever, Goldfinger, Thunderball, or TMWTGG (I'm not going to pick on TSWLM because I appreciate the experiment). Set aside all the expectations and who Faulks is and the hype and what you wanted it to be (and maybe have a look back at those novels you deify), and it really isn't that bad. It is certainly not deserving of the hate it gets.

I would certainly not place it above any of the above. Really you have got to be kidding. Goldfinger and Thunderball I really like and rate, they have some really superb passages way above anything in DMC. Diamonds or TMWTGG are, I accept some of Fleming's weaker works, but I thought DMC committed the ultimate sin of any creative work. It was boring and mediocre. At least I can have a laugh at how bad the Benson's are.

#17 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 11 April 2009 - 11:19 PM

I think he was more than up to the job, but for some reason didn't do it. Or perhaps bowed to a degree of commercial pressure (after all, would a novel that was genuinely in Fleming's voice wow many readers nowadays?), or took the gig too lightly, or rushed the job, or tackled it from the wrong end, or whatever. I think DMC could really have used a polish or two (like many of the continuation novels, in fact). Not that I've got any actual experience of reading first drafts of novels, but I think DMC reads like one.

Even though I liked DMC, I have to agree with you on that, Loomy. Your points are always very well made.

#18 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 08:55 AM

Thank you, zen. So are yours. B)

As a Bond fan and a Faulks fan, I do want to love DEVIL MAY CARE. I intend to buy the British paperback when it's released (next month, right?) and give it a re-read. Just as people sometimes say of a film, "It plays better on DVD", I'm hoping DMC will read better in paperback, as it were. I'd like to make my peace with it as it's an important footnote in the history of Bond (regardless of its quality as a novel), and those London events last year sure were fun.

Here on CBn, someone posted recently (was it this thread or another one? Can't seem to see it on this thread, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place) that DMC has a poor start and a poor finish but a decent enough midsection. I'd agree with that.

#19 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 02:21 PM

Here on CBn, someone posted recently (was it this thread or another one? Can't seem to see it on this thread, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place) that DMC has a poor start and a poor finish but a decent enough midsection. I'd agree with that.


Maybe you're referring to my earlier post in this thread, but anyway I agree with that too B)

#20 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 12 April 2009 - 09:12 PM

I thought it was totally unnecessary to have "Writing As Ian Fleming" on the cover. My thinking is, you have Flem's name on the cover, or you have Sebastian's name on the cover, not both.

I'll put it this way. Don Pendleton has not written a Mack Bolan novel in forever but his name is on the cover. The author who does the work is usually credited inside the jacket with "Special Thanks and Acknowledgment to insert name here for his contribution."

See, it's simple. They could have had Flem's name on the cover, Sebastian getting the mention and thanks on the inside and we would not have to deal with the "writing as" thing because he does not write like Flem. When I see "writing as" I expect a carbon copy, that it was not. The other way allows for deviation.

#21 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 12 April 2009 - 11:54 PM

See, it's simple. They could have had Flem's name on the cover


What's with this Flem, why can't you spell his name out it's only three more letters?

#22 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 13 April 2009 - 12:23 AM

No, no I cannot. Sue me.

#23 dogmanstar

dogmanstar

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 446 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 13 April 2009 - 12:52 AM

Nope, not necessary. It would have been much more interesting to me (but not to the general public) to have Faulks write as Robert Markham . . . . thereby leaving it open for others to follow on what Faulks had written and so on.

#24 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 13 April 2009 - 01:42 AM

That's what I thought too man. I still think Markham needs to be brought back and we can have a rotating stable of writers, either they would alternate or they do a 4-5 book run then move on to the next guy.

#25 Della Leiter

Della Leiter

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 April 2009 - 05:11 PM

I agree; completely unnecessary. If you don't know that Bond is Fleming's creation, you shouldn't be reading the book. Plain and simple.

I can't agree with that Della. I think it's fine to enjoy a James Bond book or film or video game without knowing exactly who created the character. I'm sure most kids who read Superman have no idea who Siegel and Shuster were. It's good to know these things eventually, but it shouldn't be a prerequisite.


You're definitely right. Mine came out wrong... I think that most people reading Devil May Care already are Bond fans, and they know that Ian Fleming created Bond, so they don't need to see 'writing as Ian Fleming' written on the cover. And if they're not, but get hooked on 007, they'll discover Fleming in time. So you made a very good point. Again, sorry for that one.

And I do love this book, writing as Ian Fleming or not.

Edited by Della Leiter, 13 April 2009 - 05:11 PM.


#26 [dark]

[dark]

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6239 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 April 2009 - 01:40 PM

If DMC really was written by Fleming, I think we would all place it above the likes of Diamonds Are Forever, Goldfinger, Thunderball, or TMWTGG (I'm not going to pick on TSWLM because I appreciate the experiment).

Diamonds Are Forever and The Man With The Golden Gun, sure. Goldfinger and Thunderball? Nah. And I rank The Spy Who Loved Me quite highly, actually.

The "Writing as Ian Fleming" tag probably wasn't necessary, but as a tribute to the man on the centenary of his birth, it's rather fitting. I suppose the disappointment is that the book would rank in the lower tier of Fleming's work, which, for a centenary novel, is a pretty poor showing.

#27 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 15 April 2009 - 02:12 PM

Was it necessary?


From a marketing point of view, I should have thought it essential...

#28 dogmanstar

dogmanstar

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 446 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 15 April 2009 - 02:45 PM

Was it necessary?


From a marketing point of view, I should have thought it essential...


Really? I don't have a quibble with Ian Fleming being on the title page as the movies do. As you say, marketing. But I think the 'writing as' bit wasn't needed. . . .