16 replies to this topic

[DavidJones]

I'm reading this for the first time at the moment and I'm really struggling with it.

What's everyone else think of it?

Edited by DavidJones, 22 January 2010 - 08:46 PM.

[zencat]

One of my least favorite Gardner books.

[[dark]]

When you have to look it up to remember which one it is, and even then it's only vaguely familiar, that's probably not a good sign.

[Qwerty]

If reading Gardner chronologically, then it's his first major misstep, in my opinion (although Role Of Honour is somewhat weak too).

[DavidJones]

I couldn't get to the end of it. I had something like sixty pages to go and I just was no longer interested in the story so I gave it up.

[DAN LIGHTER]

That doesnt sound good DavidJones. I had the same problem with LR, but it got better and was actually good. For Special Services is my next one.

[DavidJones]

That doesnt sound good DavidJones. I had the same problem with LR, but it got better and was actually good. For Special Services is my next one.

Although I did finished For Special Services, I didn't think that much of it.

What I'll do from now is read a few Fleming's, and then go back to Gardner, then back to Fleming - mix it up a bit. That way, I won't be getting tired ot the same writer.

[zencat]

Oh I really like For Special Services. One of my favs.

[sharpshooter]

I couldn't get to the end of it. I had something like sixty pages to go and I just was no longer interested in the story so I gave it up.

I found it a chore, too. I had it sitting around the house for a lengthy period of time, and finally willed myself to finish it.

[Jeff007]

I really enjoyed the beginning of this book when Bond goes on to the island to make a rescue and the one SBS or SAS guy has to sacrifice his life for Bond and the rest to live.

[Guy Haines]

I'm reading this for the first time at the moment and I'm really struggling with it.

What's everyone else think of it?

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but most of the John Gardner Bond novels were needlessly complicated. I liked some of the plot ideas he came up with - SPECTRE reborn, Neo-Nazi villains, a religious fanatic as a bad-guy (Scorpius), and even the idea of Bond foiling an attempted military coup in the US (COLD). But he couldn't leave well enough alone. Double-crosses and triple-crosses were thrown in, it seemed to me just for the sake of it, and most added nothing to the overall storyline. If you have to keep re-tracing the steps of the plot when reading a Bond novel then the fault doesn't lie with you but with whoever wrote it. Ian Fleming's Bond plots were, by contrast, relatively straightforward but well written. He set a pattern that worked. I can't understand why some of his successors worked against it.

[David Schofield]

I'm reading this for the first time at the moment and I'm really struggling with it.

What's everyone else think of it?

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but most of the John Gardner Bond novels were needlessly complicated. I liked some of the plot ideas he came up with - SPECTRE reborn, Neo-Nazi villains, a religious fanatic as a bad-guy (Scorpius), and even the idea of Bond foiling an attempted military coup in the US (COLD). But he couldn't leave well enough alone. Double-crosses and triple-crosses were thrown in, it seemed to me just for the sake of it, and most added nothing to the overall storyline. If you have to keep re-tracing the steps of the plot when reading a Bond novel then the fault doesn't lie with you but with whoever wrote it. Ian Fleming's Bond plots were, by contrast, relatively straightforward but well written. He set a pattern that worked. I can't understand why some of his successors worked against it.

I would agree with 100% of what you say.

I suspect the "why?" is pretty much in the quality of Fleming's writing. Neither Gardner nor Benson felt they could compete with Fleming's prose, which could overshadow a simple storyline, by over-complicating (Gardner) and overlengthening and over-padding (Benson).

I DO think Gardner started off well with Licence Renewed and For Special Services in which he did his best to minimise his natural method for as close to Fleming as he was capable. Pretty much after that his natural preference for the twisting spy story took over and away he went with his double cross and intrigue.

[Guy Haines]

I'm reading this for the first time at the moment and I'm really struggling with it.

What's everyone else think of it?

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but most of the John Gardner Bond novels were needlessly complicated. I liked some of the plot ideas he came up with - SPECTRE reborn, Neo-Nazi villains, a religious fanatic as a bad-guy (Scorpius), and even the idea of Bond foiling an attempted military coup in the US (COLD). But he couldn't leave well enough alone. Double-crosses and triple-crosses were thrown in, it seemed to me just for the sake of it, and most added nothing to the overall storyline. If you have to keep re-tracing the steps of the plot when reading a Bond novel then the fault doesn't lie with you but with whoever wrote it. Ian Fleming's Bond plots were, by contrast, relatively straightforward but well written. He set a pattern that worked. I can't understand why some of his successors worked against it.

I would agree with 100% of what you say.

I suspect the "why?" is pretty much in the quality of Fleming's writing. Neither Gardner nor Benson felt they could compete with Fleming's prose, which could overshadow a simple storyline, by over-complicating (Gardner) and overlengthening and over-padding (Benson).

I DO think Gardner started off well with Licence Renewed and For Special Services in which he did his best to minimise his natural method for as close to Fleming as he was capable. Pretty much after that his natural preference for the twisting spy story took over and away he went with his double cross and intrigue.

You are certainly correct about the first two Gardner books, and the twist in the tale at the end of For Special Services regarding the true identity of the new Blofeld was justified - we had, after all, been kept guessing all the way through about this. (although a reference early on to Blofeld glancing at a small wrist watch might have been a slight hint at this villain's gender.)

But starting with Icebreaker, storylines that could have worked well if plotted in a more linear way were cluttered with too many allies-turned-enemies-turned allies again, to say nothing of the good girls-turned-bad girls-turned good. So much so that a staple part of a Bond story - Bond's battle with a clearly defined enemy - became almost secondary as he spent time reeling from one double cross after another. After all this chicanery, it hardly mattered what the novel's main villain was plotting.

[godwulf]

I'm just finishing up No Deals, Mr. Bond, and am reading all of the novels in order. Yes, I have to admit, the double- and triple-crossing in the Gardner books - beginning with (and, at least so far, worst in) Icebreaker - is beginning to get on my nerves a bit. Still enjoying the books, though, and I think that License Renewed and For Special Services are both at least as good as any Fleming story in the canon.

[Guy Haines]

I'm just finishing up No Deals, Mr. Bond, and am reading all of the novels in order. Yes, I have to admit, the double- and triple-crossing in the Gardner books - beginning with (and, at least so far, worst in) Icebreaker - is beginning to get on my nerves a bit. Still enjoying the books, though, and I think that License Renewed and For Special Services are both at least as good as any Fleming story in the canon.

If you enjoy stories full of double and triple crosses you won't be disappointed with the rest of the Gardner canon, because they pretty much follow that pattern throughout. Personally, I found it tedious at times, a diversion from some pretty good villainous plot ideas that Gardner came up with.

LR and FSS would have made good Bond movies, LR in particular (FSS, I doubt, could have been filmed because of the ongoing legal row concerning the use of SPECTRE on screen).

[Bond... Raybond]

I remember reading somewhere that Gardner was not happy with the title (No Deals, Mr Bond), asserting that it was foisted on him by someone at the publishers. For me Gardner's novels went off the boil after Nobody Lives Forever and other than Licence Renewed I can't remember the villain's scheme from any of them (though something about ice cream does come to mind).

I'm surprised at how hard writers have found following Fleming's style - the journalistic attention to detail, somewhat minimalist but linear plotting and speed of writing that gave the stories a flow that kept you interested. This was something that Faulks tried to copy but he didn't do it well enough, I still haven't finished the book...

[Guy Haines]

I remember reading somewhere that Gardner was not happy with the title (No Deals, Mr Bond), asserting that it was foisted on him by someone at the publishers. For me Gardner's novels went off the boil after Nobody Lives Forever and other than Licence Renewed I can't remember the villain's scheme from any of them (though something about ice cream does come to mind).

I'm surprised at how hard writers have found following Fleming's style - the journalistic attention to detail, somewhat minimalist but linear plotting and speed of writing that gave the stories a flow that kept you interested. This was something that Faulks tried to copy but he didn't do it well enough, I still haven't finished the book...

The "ice cream" reference is from "For Special Services" - SPECTRE used drugged ice cream to incapacitate the personnel at the NORAD underground HQ. It was a first for Blofeld and Co, teaming up with "Mr Whippy" to advance their nefarious schemes!

I completely agree with you about the writers who have followed Ian Fleming. Did they deliberately avoid that style so as not to be accused of producing carbon copies of Fleming's work? Its a pity if they did.