21 replies to this topic

[Jim]

Something that crossed my mind when reading through other JG-shaped threads - an observation posted that the Flemings were adventure stories set in the world of spies whereas the Gardners are primarily spy stories (or to that effect) - and I think that's quite a significant point.

Some of the "spying" in Fleming can be a little offhand to the point of querying whether Bond really is much of a "spy" at all; whereas the detail and exposition of the Gardners about the inner workings of the KGB/[insert new name here] and the hardware and the murky loyalties made his work a far darker, more secretive sort of world.

Basically, the question as per the title - are the Gardners better spy stories?

[Santa]

To me the Gardners read more like chick-lit.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Interesting topic. One I cant pass comment on as I haven't read enough Gardner books yet. The outcome would interest me. And if it was deemed that Gardner's were in fact better spy novels then I would get a kick out it. Depends on what level it is being judged I guess, hairs on doors, talc on brief cases was Flemings way of making Bond a spy. If Gardner made a darker world then all credit to him. Quite an achievement.

[Righty007]

To me the Gardners read more like chick-lit.

Sounds like you've only read Never Send Flowers. Just because Bond enjoys Euro Disney, doesn't make it chick lit!

[dlb007]

In a simple word: yes. Gardner gives us a Bond with trade craft, a more realistic version of the spy, while Fleming created a more fantastical version; Gardner's Bond would never fight a squid, whereas Fleming's Bond would never be able to spot a tail. Both different, both unique, both great stories featuring a man named James Bond.

[Santa]

To me the Gardners read more like chick-lit.

Sounds like you've only read Never Send Flowers. Just because Bond enjoys Euro Disney, doesn't make it chick lit!

No, unfortunately I have read the others. They are grotesque.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Isnt that a little extreme?

Mein Kampf was grotesque.

[Righty007]

Isnt that a little extreme?

Mein Kampf was grotesque.

The only thing grotesque about the Gardner novels is this line:

"For the first time Bond noticed a little mole on Percy's neck that almost made him jump with delight." - Role Of Honour

[David Schofield]

Dunno.

What is a "real" spy story?

The incompetent, depressed unattractive individuals of le Carre or Deighton?

Or the techno-documentary cut outs of Tom Clancy or Freddie Forsyth?

When I used to have time to read them many years ago, I always believed that if our secret services were as useless as those portrayed by le Carrre and Deighton, why weren't the Russians already running the UK government? I found their output less "believable" than Fleming. And with the Clancy and Forsyth school, I felt I'd ready a technical espionage manual, sure, but grafted on to some pretty thin, and therefore unbelievable, characters.

Gardner more spy-real than Fleming? Not with James Bond grafted into a John Gardner novel i.e. Gardner without Bond is a fine 80s spy novel; Gardner's "world" plus Bond is self-defeating and cancels it out. Fleming's approach was "this might not be everyday but I'll chuck in some "everyday" stuff to balance it out, but just go along with it as believable". So you do as a reader. Unfortunately, blending that in with what Garder tried achieve with real tradecaft - after LR and FSS which were fine Fleming-style continuations - just doesn't fit comfortably.

James Bond, fantasy figure, meets grubby world of modern espionage doesn't fit well.

[dutch_pepper]

I think Gardner is easier to read than Fleming's novels. Gardners first books are rela pageturners. Fleming explained everything in details. Not that I don't like fleming's writing.

Edited by dutch_pepper, 29 April 2010 - 09:58 AM.

[David_M]

Gardner's Bond would never fight a squid, whereas Fleming's Bond would never be able to spot a tail.

Oh, Fleming's Bond notices tail all the time. The problem comes when he admires it for resembling that of a "young boy."

Oh wait, you meant the other kind of tail.

The only thing grotesque about the Gardner novels is this line:

"For the first time Bond noticed a little mole on Percy's neck that almost made him jump with delight." - Role Of Honour

There's plenty that rubs me wrong. I remember in one of them (and of course I can't remember the title) Bond is going over paperwork related to his desk job while riding in the passenger seat of his Saab with his fiancee Flicka driving. There is so much wrong in that one sentence, I don't even know where to start...paperwork, desk job, Saab, woman driver, fiancee named after a horse...make it stop!

[Single-O-Seven]

The Gardner books may be better spy stories in the sense that Gardner adds some Clancy-esque detail to bring the reader into the world of how agencies may really work, complete with up-to-date acronyms and real world gadgetry. I think the actual stories and the villains, are still closer to Fleming than real spycraft-type plots/enemies (with a strong possible exception being the Man from Barbarossa. I think Gardner was trying to mesh the more real world of spies and politics with the Fleming fantasy world, with mixed results. But yes, the recognisable spycraft is there far more than it is in Fleming.

[Righty007]

The only thing grotesque about the Gardner novels is this line:

"For the first time Bond noticed a little mole on Percy's neck that almost made him jump with delight." - Role Of Honour

There's plenty that rubs me wrong. I remember in one of them (and of course I can't remember the title) Bond is going over paperwork related to his desk job while riding in the passenger seat of his Saab with his fiancee Flicka driving. There is so much wrong in that one sentence, I don't even know where to start...paperwork, desk job, Saab, woman driver, fiancee named after a horse...make it stop!

Post of the Day.

[zencat]

Icebreaker is a pretty darn good spy story.

[MarkA]

Icebreaker is a pretty darn good spy story.

I agree, a pity he constantly repeated it after. Fleming's stories will always be above the imitators. He lived the life that fed into his books. Others can only copy.

[Agent Leiter]

I personally don't see how they're comparable... Gardner's world is utterly different from Fleming's in the end.

I personally prefer Fleming, but to each their own. Just about anyting Bond can be good in my book.

[Trident]

Something that crossed my mind when reading through other JG-shaped threads - an observation posted that the Flemings were adventure stories set in the world of spies whereas the Gardners are primarily spy stories (or to that effect) - and I think that's quite a significant point.

Some of the "spying" in Fleming can be a little offhand to the point of querying whether Bond really is much of a "spy" at all; whereas the detail and exposition of the Gardners about the inner workings of the KGB/[insert new name here] and the hardware and the murky loyalties made his work a far darker, more secretive sort of world.

Basically, the question as per the title - are the Gardners better spy stories?

A most interesting question. From another angle I was pondering the Flemings re: professionalism, but this topic is certainly related. Right at the moment I'm short of time, but I'll give my thoughts about this a little more detailed within the next few days.

Great topic!

[godwulf]

James Bond is an SIS field agent - and, as we have all seen, that could entail his being used as an assassin, a bodyguard, an investigator, an intelligence gatherer (a "spy" in the classic sense, I guess you'd say), a commando team leader, an air marshall, an other-service liaison, etc. He might tangle with the intelligence agents of some unfriendly nation in a given story, or he might not. As long as he is James Bond, and the author permits him to act and think as such, I don't really care what he's got 007 doing, or how one wishes to categorize the story - as a "spy novel", or as something else all together.

My personal preference, when it comes to storylines, is for a situation where Bond is on the run, usually alone, perhaps hurt, living by his wits from minute to minute, laying traps and snares for his pursuers - those are the times in which his distinct character really shines, and we are left to marvel at his ability to survive anything an enemy chooses to throw at him. (The escape from Blofeld's mountain in Switzerland in OHMSS comes to mind.) There seems to be somewhat less of that kind of thing in Gardner's books; Fleming, as I recall, had 007 in the hospital at or near the end of practically every one of his books.

[Santa]

My dislike of Gardner is less to do with his plots than his prose. I find his writing clumsy, banal, uninspired. He doesn't seem to have the facility with language that Fleming had. I think he enjoyed the storytelling but not the writing, he didn't have a love of words for their own sake, if that makes any sense.

[Safari Suit]

I think it makes sense, his writing was efficient rather than passionate or romantic. Then again, I think that has its advantages; Fleming got quite carried away with his writing at times. Benson not only got carried away but didn't really have the talent to get away with it.

[OmarB]

It's funny that a person may view Gardner's straight ahead, no nonsense language as a drawback. I studied Journalism and Literature in college and I always preferred writers with a more of an economical style like a journalist. It's nice when I a writer can use all kinds of "curly words" (Terry Pratchett's Unseen Academicals), but sometimes you can really see the author being in love with himself and his (in his opinion) mastery of words.

[Santa]

It's funny that a person may view Gardner's straight ahead, no nonsense language as a drawback. I studied Journalism and Literature in college and I always preferred writers with a more of an economical style like a journalist. It's nice when I a writer can use all kinds of "curly words" (Terry Pratchett's Unseen Academicals), but sometimes you can really see the author being in love with himself and his (in his opinion) mastery of words.

Oh, no doubt, but funnily enough one of the things I like about those I consider good writers is what I see as their economical way of phrasing things - but one can be economical and elegant, whereas I find Garner's economy of phrase workmanlike. I really dislike overly wordy texts (I hate Dickens, for example) but I feel it's not a two-party situation. It's not as if the only choice were between flowery and working class, but I feel the difference between reading Fleming and Gardner is a bit like the difference between reading The Times and The Daily Mail. Which was probably an overly wordy way to explain .