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

Faulks hopes for Devil May Care adaptation


59 replies to this topic

#31 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

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

Posted 20 July 2009 - 06:36 PM

Come, come, Gentleman. All he did was write a book about James Bond. The way he is criticised on here is beyond belief sometimes. He hasn’t written ‘The Satanic Verses’ and had a fatwā issued against him.


There's a difference, The Satanic Verses was an awesome book that was up to the caliber one expected of the author. Not a passable book by a writer hoping to get by on the cache of his name.

#32 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 20 July 2009 - 06:55 PM

Come, come, Gentleman. All he did was write a book about James Bond. The way he is criticised on here is beyond belief sometimes. He hasn’t written ‘The Satanic Verses’ and had a fatwā issued against him.

I agree. I think the criticisms of Faulks and the book are way to harsh, and ill informed. I can't help but notice people who admit to not having read the book are now banging the drum. Well, I have read it, and I've all the James Bond novels by all authors multiple times, and I'm here to tell you DMC is by no means a terrible James Bond book. Maybe not the best of the continuation novels, but certainly not the worst. I happen to think the book has a lot of very cool Bondian elements, such as the tennis match, Iran as a location, and the Caspian Sea Monster. And it's a fast, breezy, fun read. Also a blast to have a Bond novel set in the 60s again. The problem is not the book. It's a good continuation novel. The problem is the expectations people had of Faulks. Get past it!


Agreed. The worst sin of Devil May Care was that it didn’t live up to expectations. It was passable to good if not put under the weight of its own PR. And quite frankly I think it could serve well as the skeleton of a really great screen treatment.

#33 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 20 July 2009 - 07:39 PM

Come, come, Gentleman. All he did was write a book about James Bond. The way he is criticised on here is beyond belief sometimes. He hasn’t written ‘The Satanic Verses’ and had a fatwā issued against him.

I agree. I think the criticisms of Faulks and the book are way to harsh, and ill informed. I can't help but notice people who admit to not having read the book are now banging the drum. Well, I have read it, and I've all the James Bond novels by all authors multiple times, and I'm here to tell you DMC is by no means a terrible James Bond book. Maybe not the best of the continuation novels, but certainly not the worst. I happen to think the book has a lot of very cool Bondian elements, such as the tennis match, Iran as a location, and the Caspian Sea Monster. And it's a fast, breezy, fun read. Also a blast to have a Bond novel set in the 60s again. The problem is not the book. It's a good continuation novel. The problem is the expectations people had of Faulks. Get past it!


I'd never even heard of Faulks before this and I still think it was the worst of the continuations I've read, which again is not all of them, but it's a fair number, and growing. My biggest issue with DMC is it never interested me. Never once was I engaged by the prose. Even the beginning was horrendously dull. Okay, sure, a book doesn't need to open with action to be entertaining. But even if a book is opening with a person, say, climbing into the shower, it should be at least mildly interesting. I actually started thumbing through the book after two pages it bored me so much. Had to stop myself and go back to where I was. On the whole I thought DMC had clever elements, it showed promise, it was just so dry I never cared about anything.

#34 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 08:13 PM

Come, come, Gentleman. All he did was write a book about James Bond. The way he is criticised on here is beyond belief sometimes. He hasn’t written ‘The Satanic Verses’ and had a fatwā issued against him.

I agree. I think the criticisms of Faulks and the book are way to harsh, and ill informed. I can't help but notice people who admit to not having read the book are now banging the drum. Well, I have read it....


But I believe you haven't read anything else by Faulks, zen. Were you to read some of his other novels I'm sure you'd finally understand why some people's expectations were so incredibly high.

#35 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 20 July 2009 - 08:16 PM

...and I've all the James Bond novels by all authors multiple times, and I'm here to tell you DMC is by no means a terrible James Bond book


True.

Rubbish Sebastian Faulks book, though.

Still, he wrote it "as Ian Fleming" - which is a bit of a backhanded compliment, frankly.

#36 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 20 July 2009 - 08:46 PM

I'd never even heard of Faulks before this and I still think it was the worst of the continuations I've read, which again is not all of them, but it's a fair number, and growing. My biggest issue with DMC is it never interested me. Never once was I engaged by the prose. Even the beginning was horrendously dull. Okay, sure, a book doesn't need to open with action to be entertaining. But even if a book is opening with a person, say, climbing into the shower, it should be at least mildly interesting. I actually started thumbing through the book after two pages it bored me so much. Had to stop myself and go back to where I was. On the whole I thought DMC had clever elements, it showed promise, it was just so dry I never cared about anything.


Very well said.

I hadn't heard much about Faulks before the novel either, but I would take any effort by Gardner or Benson over DMC. Every aspect of DMC was horrendously dull, and while it does have a few ideas that could have been interesting if someone who understood the Bond character had written them, that ultimately wasn't the case.

#37 MicroGlobeOne

MicroGlobeOne

    Lt. Commander

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts
  • Location:Connecticut, USA

Posted 20 July 2009 - 11:40 PM

I haven't read Devil May Care, and after all the terrible reviews on here, I have no desire too.


I have to concur with some of the more recent postings. Do keep in mind that some of these candid reviews are overly critical. Devil May Care is far from brilliant, but it also deserves far better than the over-the-top bashing it seems to be receiving here. As with any novel, I'd say that the only way to decide whether or not you appreciate it is to read it!

#38 Mr. Somerset

Mr. Somerset

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1760 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 20 July 2009 - 11:56 PM

Never read it either. I'm not against the idea, though if it turned out well. I do like the title....

#39 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 21 July 2009 - 02:52 AM

If you haven't read it, certainly do. Even if you wait a few years until it winds up in someone's bargain bin or something, read it. Always better to judge for yourself than immediately go along with the crowd. And if you happen to share the common consensus, so be it.

#40 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:08 AM

Excellent responses Dan Lighter and Zencat. I think you both get at the ongoing problems in the Bond community regarding any post-Fleming novels, and it is somewhat reminiscent of the patronizing attitudes I would get when I would tell people that Roger Moore was my favorite Bond, or that I find FRWL (the movie) boring and tedious. Some people have never been able to accept life after Connery, or Fleming....


So, then, how do you explain the fact that many of us here were hugely excited about DEVIL MAY CARE prior to its publication?

The fact is, we were let down by the content, not the concept. It's not that we couldn't let go of Fleming - it that's DEVIL MAY CARE proved to be a significantly worse book than any of us had expected.

If there are "ongoing problems in the Bond community regarding any post-Fleming novels", the problem is that people have read those novels and found that, by and large, they're total crap.

I believe there's an observation in The Bond Files by Lane and Simpson to the effect that IFP never produced the continuation novels to the same standard of quality as was the case (even at their worst) with the Eon films. Let's be honest: the continuation novels are largely just cheap cash-cow cash-ins (although I do appreciate that IFP's standards have risen somewhat in recent years). They're knockoffs, written quickly, and were brought into this world solely to keep a copyright going.

I think you'll find that "the Bond community" is far more open-minded than most authors, critics and regular members of the public to the notion that people other than Fleming can write decent Bond novels. The problem is, it hasn't happened very often.

I speak, by the way, as someone who considers Faulks' ENGLEBY and A FOOL'S ALPHABET among the most amazing books he's ever read, so it's not as though I wanted to dislike DEVIL MAY CARE. I had two big stakes in it: I was a Bond fan and I was also a Faulks fan. However, it just isn't very good, pure and simple. It's been bettered by some of CBn's own fanfic writers, such as clinkeroo and Jim.

#41 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:39 AM

Depends which approach one takes, I suspect.

If one approaches it as continuing Bond to the similar standard of the other continuation books, then sure, it's as good or bad as most and many of them. It makes more Bond to read / collect and that's fine, can't have enough

If one approaches it as a Sebastian Faulks novel, it's just so incredibly disappointing. If it had been anyone but Mr Faulks it may not have been so underwhelming.

Given the "writing as Ian Fleming" thing, we are being instructed not to approach it as a Mr Faulks novel, so I suppose it's OK.

#42 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:49 AM

Depends which approach one takes, I suspect.

If one approaches it as continuing Bond to the similar standard of the other continuation books, then sure, it's as good or bad as most and many of them. It makes more Bond to read / collect and that's fine, can't have enough


Certainly. Although that would seem to be a Quantity Over Quality™ attitude. Personally, I'd had enough of Gardner after somehow wading through his first three "novels".

"As good as the rest of 'em" is hardly a great selling point. Except to LitBond diehards. But in that case there's no point in even discussing quality, for the mere fact of DEVIL MAY CARE's existence will be enough to please.

If one approaches it as a Sebastian Faulks novel, it's just so incredibly disappointing. If it had been anyone but Mr Faulks it may not have been so underwhelming.


True. It would, of course, be foolish to approach DEVIL MAY CARE as part of the Faulks canon. Just as Greene split his output into "novels" and "entertainments", Faulks has made it clear (without ever being so crass as to actually spell it out) that DEVIL MAY CARE is not supposed to be viewed as one of his "proper" works.

However, this does not give DEVIL MAY CARE a free pass. Even if Faulks was just - how to put it? - goofing off, considerably more style, wit and, yes dammit, substance could still have been justifiably expected of his Bond adventure. And was. Hence the disappointment. DEVIL MAY CARE is closer to, say, HIGH TIME TO KILL than to COLONEL SUN. Which just won't do.

Given the "writing as Ian Fleming" thing, we are being instructed not to approach it as a Mr Faulks novel, so I suppose it's OK.


If one ignores the blatantly false advertising. If DEVIL MAY CARE accurately mimics the style of Fleming then so do my posts.

#43 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:52 AM

Excellent responses Dan Lighter and Zencat. I think you both get at the ongoing problems in the Bond community regarding any post-Fleming novels, and it is somewhat reminiscent of the patronizing attitudes I would get when I would tell people that Roger Moore was my favorite Bond, or that I find FRWL (the movie) boring and tedious. Some people have never been able to accept life after Connery, or Fleming....


So, then, how do you explain the fact that many of us here were hugely excited about DEVIL MAY CARE prior to its publication?

The fact is, we were let down by the content, not the concept. It's not that we couldn't let go of Fleming - it that's DEVIL MAY CARE proved to be a significantly worse book than any of us had expected.

If there are "ongoing problems in the Bond community regarding any post-Fleming novels", the problem is that people have read those novels and found that, by and large, they're total crap.

I believe there's an observation in The Bond Files by Lane and Simpson to the effect that IFP never produced the continuation novels to the same standard of quality as was the case (even at their worst) with the Eon films. Let's be honest: the continuation novels are largely just cheap cash-cow cash-ins (although I do appreciate that IFP's standards have risen somewhat in recent years). They're knockoffs, written quickly, and were brought into this world solely to keep a copyright going.

I think you'll find that "the Bond community" is far more open-minded than most authors, critics and regular members of the public to the notion that people other than Fleming can write decent Bond novels. The problem is, it hasn't happened very often.

I speak, by the way, as someone who considers Faulks' ENGLEBY and A FOOL'S ALPHABET among the most amazing books he's ever read, so it's not as though I wanted to dislike DEVIL MAY CARE. I had two big stakes in it: I was a Bond fan and I was also a Faulks fan. However, it just isn't very good, pure and simple. It's been bettered by some of CBn's own fanfic writers, such as clinkeroo and Jim.



Mostly agree here. I never had a problem with continuation writers and their product. In fact there are several that I like very much and a few that I'd even rate above some weaker Flemings. What I expected for Bond when checking out Faulks's other work (A Fool's Alphabet, Charlotte Grey) was a literary revisit of Bond that equals YOLT or at the very least tried to. But delivered was a very disappointing mixture that didn't at all pick up on Fleming's later period. This disappointment was so much worse for the hype around DMC and Faulks obvious capabilitiy when he really sets his mind to a project. As it is I wish he'd have turned down IFP and another writer would have had the chance, Stephen Fry or William Boyd or Charlie Higson.

#44 [dark]

[dark]

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:55 AM

Given the "writing as Ian Fleming" thing, we are being instructed not to approach it as a Mr Faulks novel, so I suppose it's OK.

But then we're left with no option but to approach it as an Ian Fleming novel, and it's not really up to par as that, either. Well, maybe the likes of Diamonds Are Forever or The Man With The Golden Gun, but even they had more intriguing ideas than Devil May Care.

#45 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:06 PM

Depends which approach one takes, I suspect.

If one approaches it as continuing Bond to the similar standard of the other continuation books, then sure, it's as good or bad as most and many of them. It makes more Bond to read / collect and that's fine, can't have enough


Certainly. Although that would seem to be a Quantity Over Quality™ attitude. Personally, I'd had enough of Gardner after somehow wading through his first three "novels".

"As good as the rest of 'em" is hardly a great selling point. Except to LitBond diehards. But in that case there's no point in even discussing quality, for the mere fact of DEVIL MAY CARE's existence will be enough to please.


One could take the view that this has worked for the films - I mean, I like as "a Bond fan" that they all exist but I'm not deluding myself that they're all of equivalent "quality". It's arguably "nice" to have a lot of them.

If one approaches it as a Sebastian Faulks novel, it's just so incredibly disappointing. If it had been anyone but Mr Faulks it may not have been so underwhelming.


True. It would, of course, be foolish to approach DEVIL MAY CARE as part of the Faulks canon. Just as Greene split his output into "novels" and "entertainments", Faulks has made it clear (without ever being so crass as to actually spell it out) that DEVIL MAY CARE is not supposed to be viewed as one of his "proper" works.

However, this does not give DEVIL MAY CARE a free pass. Even if Faulks was just - how to put it? - goofing off, considerably more style, wit and, yes dammit, substance could still have been justifiably expected of his Bond adventure. And was. Hence the disappointment. DEVIL MAY CARE is closer to, say, HIGH TIME TO KILL than to COLONEL SUN. Which just won't do.


Yes, it's the his Bond adventure thing. But this seems to have been clouded by the "writing as Ian Fleming" trick, as if somehow it shields from the ultimate criticism that this is a terrible Sebastian Faulks book and, if anyone read it and thought the rest of his stuff's like this, then that's a horrible conclusion to reach because he has written some beautiful things.

Given the "writing as Ian Fleming" thing, we are being instructed not to approach it as a Mr Faulks novel, so I suppose it's OK.


If one ignores the blatantly false advertising. If DEVIL MAY CARE accurately mimics the style of Fleming then so do my posts.


It is a slightly counterproductive label, certainly. A slightly ambivalent attitude to Ian Fleming on display.

Practically any other author attached to it would have made it so much less of a letdown. My own preconceived notions admittedly - I'd never heard of Mr Gardner and Mr Benson before their Bond stuff - and I haven't read any other fiction by them - so as far as I'm concerned they stand or fall on the quality of what they produced for Bond.

Devil May Care does look nice on the big Bond shelf though, and makes the shelf an inch or two longer. Cool.

On this premise it is ideal for a film because it's some more.

#46 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 21 July 2009 - 01:35 PM

Depends which approach one takes, I suspect.

If one approaches it as continuing Bond to the similar standard of the other continuation books, then sure, it's as good or bad as most and many of them. It makes more Bond to read / collect and that's fine, can't have enough


Certainly. Although that would seem to be a Quantity Over Quality™ attitude. Personally, I'd had enough of Gardner after somehow wading through his first three "novels".

"As good as the rest of 'em" is hardly a great selling point. Except to LitBond diehards. But in that case there's no point in even discussing quality, for the mere fact of DEVIL MAY CARE's existence will be enough to please.


One could take the view that this has worked for the films - I mean, I like as "a Bond fan" that they all exist but I'm not deluding myself that they're all of equivalent "quality".


Ah, but you see I am. I think this is where you and I part ways. I greatly enjoy every single last one of the films. Except TWINE, but even then I can thrill to the opening boat chase before - on a good day and in a good mood - somehow summoning the stomach to subject myself to the rest of the flick.

And when I say I greatly enjoy the films, I don't just mean "as a Bond fan". I genuinely believe - heaven help me - that 21 out of the 22 Eon outings are extremely well-made. Now, they're not all as good as each other - for me, CASINO ROYALE is the only one to truly knock it outta the park artistically. But, yes, I confess: I think that, relative to Most of the Other Stuff That's Out There™, and certainly to the vast majority of "franchise fare", Eon has always maintained quality to a when-you-think-about-really-rather-staggering degree. I'll never be a Simon Winder when it comes to the Bond films.

I don't think Eon has ever been guilty of standards-slippage on the scale of, say, THE FACTS OF DEATH, although I'm sure you'd disagree.

#47 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:39 PM

Well, looking at some of the previous films (AVTAK, DAD) clearly there was. Just not worth paying for or soiling your name with, apparently...

#48 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:48 PM

So, then, how do you explain the fact that many of us here were hugely excited about DEVIL MAY CARE prior to its publication?


That you have open minds? I mean, seriously, if my comments weren't relevant to your life experience, then ignore them. But it's not like there's not a contingent of fans out there who aren't going to hate everything post-Fleming and post-Connery...or post-Dalton or post-Craig. There are some people EON and IFP are never going to satisfy.


Maybe, but I think they're very, very few in number. Let's look at CBn - does this place strike you as a hotbed of Connery purism? And I've (somewhat surprising though this may be) yet to come across a single Bond fan who's posted here that he reads only Fleming and will not consider any other Bond novelist.

I actually think non-fans are, ironically enough, much pickier and much more puristic than us fans tend to be. You can't enter a discussion on Bond on Ain't It Cool News without having to wade through dozens of posts complaining that everything ground to an artistic halt after Connery, that Moore was a travesty, that Dalton was nothing but a terrible failure, etc. It's actually rather rare that people make such comments on Bond sites.

A friend of mine who's only seen a few of the films here and there on TV, who's never read a lick of Fleming or any other Bond novelist, and who'd believe that CASINO ROYALE had originally been filmed in 1974 with Roger Moore if I told him so.... this friend of mine once saw me reading a Benson and asked why I wasn't reading Fleming if I wanted to read a Bond novel. I mean, the nerve!

But it's only the fans - people like you and me - who buy and read the continuation novels. Joe Blow hasn't even heard of them. None of my friends even knew about DEVIL MAY CARE, despite it being the alleged publishing sensation of 2008.

#49 chriso

chriso

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 583 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:49 PM

that would be a great idea! but i dont think that the producers could put the story from the 60s to 20xx. it would have fitted as a Connery movie but lets see if this projet will come ture.

#50 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

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

Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:06 PM

So, then, how do you explain the fact that many of us here were hugely excited about DEVIL MAY CARE prior to its publication?


That you have open minds? I mean, seriously, if my comments weren't relevant to your life experience, then ignore them. But it's not like there's not a contingent of fans out there who aren't going to hate everything post-Fleming and post-Connery...or post-Dalton or post-Craig. There are some people EON and IFP are never going to satisfy.


Maybe, but I think they're very, very few in number. Let's look at CBn - does this place strike you as a hotbed of Connery purism? And I've (somewhat surprising though this may be) yet to come across a single Bond fan who's posted here that he reads only Fleming and will not consider any other Bond novelist.

I actually think non-fans are, ironically enough, much pickier and much more puristic than us fans tend to be. You can't enter a discussion on Bond on Ain't It Cool News without having to wade through dozens of posts complaining that everything ground to an artistic halt after Connery, that Moore was a travesty, that Dalton was nothing but a terrible failure, etc. It's actually rather rare that people make such comments on Bond sites.

A friend of mine who's only seen a few of the films here and there on TV, who's never read a lick of Fleming or any other Bond novelist, and who'd believe that CASINO ROYALE had originally been filmed in 1974 with Roger Moore if I told him so.... this friend of mine once saw me reading a Benson and asked why I wasn't reading Fleming if I wanted to read a Bond novel. I mean, the nerve!

But it's only the fans - people like you and me - who buy and read the continuation novels. Joe Blow hasn't even heard of them. None of my friends even knew about DEVIL MAY CARE, despite it being the alleged publishing sensation of 2008.


I hear that man. For non fans I hear the Connery and Fleming argument all the time and people sometimes get offended that as a fan I would have a favorite outside of the two! But then I get that all the time being a musician and dealing with non musicians, I always hear "Your a guitar player, wow man, can you play like Hendrix" or "Hendrix is the best." Or the same platitudes about Clapton, Page, King. I really don't care, there are certain names that those not in the know grab onto.

#51 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 09:41 AM

So, then, how do you explain the fact that many of us here were hugely excited about DEVIL MAY CARE prior to its publication?

The fact is, we were let down by the content, not the concept. It's not that we couldn't let go of Fleming - it that's DEVIL MAY CARE proved to be a significantly worse book than any of us had expected.


Completely agreed.

I hadn't heard of Faulks before DMC, but I had every reason to believe, from reading reviews of his novels from users on this site as well as others, that DMC would turn out to be, at the very least, a good entry in the series. That was all that I was expecting from the novel, but, as you said, the content of the novel was what let me down, not the fact that someone other than Fleming wrote it. DMC is a terrible novel, certainly the worst of the continuation novels that I've read to this point (and there's only a book or two that I have yet to get to, COLONEL SUN being one of them, and based off reviews of the book here, I can't imagine that I could find the novel to be worse than DMC).

#52 DAN LIGHTER

DAN LIGHTER

    Lt. Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPip
  • 1248 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 10:44 AM

While I might be only a few who enjoyed Devil May Care on here at least, I don’t understand why at every opportunity the ‘haters’ have to jump on the bandwagon and slag the book off. The thread was about the news story that Sebastian Faulks would like to see Devil May Care made into a film one day. Good on him! I am pleased to hear he still is happy to talk about the book. He was asked to write the book by IFP, which he did. They approved of it and it was released and I liked it as did many other people around the world. Maybe the people who dislike the book so much should just re-read the Fleming books until your eyes bleed. Or maybe he wasn’t good enough for some of you and you expected more?

Oh and that new Harry Potter film is crap if any of you are thinking of going to see it. I haven’t actually seen it but what does that matter? My friend Pablo said it was rubbish so that was good enough for me.

#53 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 July 2009 - 10:59 AM

‘haters’... bandwagon... Pablo said it was rubbish so that was good enough for me.


Auuugh!

#54 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 02:28 PM

The only thing I hate about CBN is that after joining, my copy of DMC will probably collect dust on my shelf for a very long time. I become less and less keen on reading it the more I read about it here. Maybe I should just not bother and save the time. It looks good on the shelf, anyway.

#55 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 22 July 2009 - 02:42 PM

The only thing I hate about CBN is that after joining, my copy of DMC will probably collect dust on my shelf for a very long time. I become less and less keen on reading it the more I read about it here. Maybe I should just not bother and save the time. It looks good on the shelf, anyway.


Read it. Just don't expect too much. Approach it as a new Bond story, written by a hack for cash - or a pretentious, over confident, self important so and so for cash (if you prefer). As some have pointed out already, it's probably no worse than some of the other continuity novels. I was personally hugely disappointed by it and wouldn't recommend spending your hard earned cash... but as you already own a copy you may as well.

#56 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 22 July 2009 - 02:47 PM

The only thing I hate about CBN is that after joining, my copy of DMC will probably collect dust on my shelf for a very long time. I become less and less keen on reading it the more I read about it here. Maybe I should just not bother and save the time. It looks good on the shelf, anyway.


Read it. Just don't expect too much. Approach it as a new Bond story, written by a hack for cash - or a pretentious, over confident, self important so and so for cash (if you prefer). As some have pointed out already, it's probably no worse than some of the other continuity novels. I was personally hugely disappointed by it and wouldn't recommend spending your hard earned cash... but as you already own a copy you may as well.


And there are a few things I find Faulks did better than the other adult continuation novels, writing in a Fleming-like voice for example. The book does a good job of that. It has some nice solid characters as well. And it’s one of the better ‘traveloque’ books. Give it a read and enjoy it for what it is.

#57 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 05:13 PM

I was personally hugely disappointed by it and wouldn't recommend spending your hard earned cash... but as you already own a copy you may as well.


Yeah, the damage (?) has already been done when it comes to buying the thing.

My expectations for it are already very low due to the overwhelming negativity against it here. Its bashing can seemingly only be rivalled by that of TWINE, it seems.

#58 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 05:37 PM

And there are a few things I find Faulks did better than the other adult continuation novels, writing in a Fleming-like voice for example.


He certainly didn't do it as well as Amis or Pearson, and I'm told that Wood and even Higson have their Flemingian moments that shame Faulks. I wouldn't mind, but there was so much play made by the publicity that Faulks was "Writing AS Ian Fleming™©All international rights reserved". A large vocabulary and decent penmanship skills do not automatically equate to coming across in the style of Fleming.

It has some nice solid characters as well.


That is actually true, but nothing interesting is done with them (or to them).

And it’s one of the better ‘traveloque’ books.


The Iran bits are okay in that department (albeit it's a pity that the Faulksmeister didn't actually go, and, yes, he could have done so), but Faulks never matches Benson's bringing to life of Hong Kong in ZERO MINUS TEN and Japan in THE DUDE WITH THE RED TAT.

#59 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 July 2009 - 05:48 PM

I was personally hugely disappointed by it and wouldn't recommend spending your hard earned cash... but as you already own a copy you may as well.


Yeah, the damage (?) has already been done when it comes to buying the thing.

My expectations for it are already very low due to the overwhelming negativity against it here. Its bashing can seemingly only be rivalled by that of TWINE, it seems.



No, really! READ IT!

I'm certainly no friend of DMC, but there is a chance that you may actually like it. I mean, it's horses for courses and it would be a damn shame if you missed out a read that you, YOU, really enjoy, just because some of us didn't. I for one envy every reader that gets his kicks out of DMC, or at least parts of it.

Go and check it out, see what it's all about. Come back and share your thoughts afterwards.

#60 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 23 July 2009 - 06:52 AM

DEVIL MAY CARE is closer to, say, HIGH TIME TO KILL than to COLONEL SUN. Which just won't do.

Hey, don't go comparing Devil May Care to High Time To Kill. That is a completely unfair comparison. High Time To Kill is a suspenseful, exciting book that is the best of the Benson novels and among the best of the continuations. Devil May Care is...not. DMC is closer to the lower rung of the continuations, more along the lines of Gardner's The Man From Barbarossa.

I feel much like tdalton does. I'd never heard of, much less read, Sebastian Faulks when it was announced he was the centennary author. Some people who had were really excited and hopeful for a terrific Bond adventure--a little too much I thought at the time--although they were no doubt egged on and encouraged by the massive P.R. hype. And so I remained guardedly optimistic, yet I still kept an open mind and hoped for the best. I read the novel and initially thought it was a decent adventure, but upon further reflection afterwards, utimately found it underwhelming and full of holes. Yes, there are some good things in the novel--the locations, some of the characters, and the ekranoplan to name three, but those parts (some of which do not reach their full potential) fail to overcome a lackluster writing effort by Faulks. The book is worth checking out, particularly by Bond completists, but don't expect much.