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

What would you change about the Gardner novels?


37 replies to this topic

#1 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:54 PM

In commemoration of the renewed interest in the Gardner novels, I've been re-reading them all and found them, for the most part, to be very enjoyable. Still, there are a few things that have bothered me as I've come across them.

For instance, I've just finished reading "Scorpius," and these two bits rubbed me the wrong way:

1. Bailey's character seemed a bit useless. Is it just me, or was his character unnecessary? I thought it was Pearlman who had been feeding Scorpius information the entire time.

2. I absolutely hated how Bond expected Pearlman to kill his own daughter at the end of the book. It's bad enough that Gardner couldn't have come up with some sort of happy ending (after having already killed off the primary Bond girl) with Ruth Pearlman somehow surviving, but there was absolutely no follow-up to the friendship between Bond and Pearlman afterward. B)

What do you dislike about the Gardner novels? What would you change?

#2 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 02 June 2010 - 10:43 PM

I'd change the medium with which Bismaquer intended to introduce his obedience drug in For Special Services. Ice cream just sounds so juvenile - better coffee or beer.

I would have liked to have seen Bond be more proactive in Icebreaker. He was constantly being captured and rescued, and never actually did anything on his own until the very end (a small complaint, as IB ranks highly with me, reminiscent of the best of Allistai MacLean).

The slow pacing of Role of Honour had me expecting a bigger climax as a payoff. Ditto No Deals, Mr. Bond (oh yeah, change the latter's title, too).

Wot I said about Icebreaker goes for Death is Forever too.

Never Send Flowers should have never happened. There's a saying: "write about what you know, not castles on the Rhine." Where was Dragonpol's home/museum?

Same goes for COLD. It seemed like a wrap-up which, like NDMB, needed a better title.

On the whole I admired Gardner's entries (the ones I didn't mention are the ones I liked the best). There were only two Bensons (ZMT & HTTK) that compare favourably. Coincidentally, they were his first and third, as LR and IB were Gardner's.

#3 Sockem

Sockem

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 05:04 AM

In general, I would have just removed Q'ute's character all together. She never developed and just seemed like a way to make Q female just so Bond could sleep with him.

LR: Can't think of anything.

FSS: 1) Left Leiter and his daughter out entirely because the fact is that, besides a reference to Fleming, they add nothing to the story and just serve to make Bond seem like a creepy old guy. Just have Nana be the main Bond girl.

2) I would have slowed down the ending. It felt very rushed.

IB: I wasn't impressed by the snowplows. Sorry, I know they're dangerous, but they're snowplows. It's like if Blofeld ran after Bond with a lawnmower.

Also would probably not make it 100% obvious that the Russian guy is a traitor. It was so played up that I thought it had to be a twist, but the twist never came.

Then there is the worst line in the entire Bond franchise.

The one with the carbuncle nose did not do as he was told. Instead, he suggested in bad Russian that Bond should commit incest with his female parent. [Chapter 3, page 33 US Hardcover]


Seriously?! Why not just, "And the one with the carbuncle nose swore an oath at Bond." It's so silly.

ROH: Give Bond something more to do in the first act rather than just dine and learn.

NLFE: Cut out the women entirely. This book's quality decreased a lot when they showed up.

NDMB: Change the title. Change the ending so it's not so much like Colonel Sun. Did a lot of scenes remind anyone else of CS?

S: The whole book is pointless. Wasn't the U.S. going to invade regardless of Bond's actions? Make it so Bond actually changes something with his involvement.

WLD: Make Bassam Baradj/BAST more threatening. Cut the pointless plot twists.

BC: Focus more on Lee's main plan. It felt like "Oh yeah, we're going to collapse the U.S. economy by crashing Wall Street. Oh wait, doesn't matter. The army already shut us down."

TMFB: Change everything.

DIF: Perfect as is.

NSF: Disney was pointless other than another 'exotic locale' for Bond to vist.

Seafire: Stupid Microglobe One drama needs to go. Flicka/Felissa/Freddy/Felicia just seems like filler. She never does anything. Ending needed to be longer. It seemd like Gardner had a page limit and had to wrap things up real fast. That's really weird since it seems like the Flicka and Bond scenes just seemed to be filler.

COLD: What was the point of Sukie Tempesta again? Flicka's death needed to be handled much better. It was like "Oh hey Bond, you know that woman you were going to marry and loved a lot? Yeah, she's dead." and Bond's like "Gee, that sucks. Oh well, on to the next girl."

Yeah, I know this is very tl;dr.

#4 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 07:08 AM

Overall, I did enjoy John Gardner's tenure, but there are a few things I would have changed. Those things are:

No Deals, Mr. Bond -- Change the title to Blackfriar. Don't blame Gardner for the real title--he didn't like it either.

Win, Lose Or Die -- I'd have had Beatrice da Ricci die in the car bomb and make Nikki Ratnikov be the Bond girl and have her survive.

Brokenclaw -- I would have eliminated the o-kee-pa finale and had Bond squaring off against Lee Fu-Chu somewhere near his Bay Area lair.

The Man From Barbarossa -- Changed The Scales Of Justice bit to something else that would still get Bond involved and played up his relationship with Stephanie Adore more.

Death Is Forever -- Would not have had Bond fall so hard for Easy St. John.

Never Send Flowers -- Would not have had Bond fall so hard for Flicka von Grusse and would keep David Dragonpol fighting Bond following the fireball instead of turning away.

SeaFire -- Had a different Bond girl than Flicka.

Cold Fall -- Had Toni Nicolletti survive into the second half of the book and have her replace Beatrice da Ricci. And I would not have included Sukie Tempesta at all. She was my favorite Gardner Bond girl before this book. He ruined her memory. B)

#5 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 June 2010 - 10:18 AM

Generally, I'd apply a little more logic to each book. Often they have elements and scenes that just don't add up at all. A few examples:

LR has Bond with a full electronic survaillance and alarm system inside the enemy's camp. He ponders even that, once he's sampled enough evidence against Murik, he can push the button and the SAS will 'smash their way into the castle'. So why didn't he?

My solution would have been Bond giving the alarm signal sometime before the escape, expecting to run into an SAS team outside the castle. The escape itself would be as written, only at the end Murik would order his aide Caber to turn off the interfering transmitter that was operative since Bond entered Murik castle. This way Bond would not come across as acting entirely irresponsible for not alarming his side.


FSS revolves around a SPECTRE plan to penetrate Cheyenne Mountain. Why ever make Bond, their worst enemy, a crucial part of this mission? It's completely incredible.

But, just for the sake of the argument, let's pretend it really is a good idea to instrumentalize Bond for this operation, to humiliate him/the SIS/the USA or whomever. If so, why then the attempts at Bond's life? Why the lift sabotage? Why the race with added fire-attack? If successful, these would have robbed SPECTRE of a key element in their plans.

Also, the hypno-drug seems riduculously effective, inducing a completely new identity into a subject in a matter of hours. I could buy a disoriented state, or even extremely vivid hallucinations within Bond's identity. But a whole new personality? With a different nationality, job and past? Sorry, that was a bit too far into Star Trek country for my liking.


IB suffers a similar lack of basic logic of most parties. And I don't talk about keeping Bond deliberately in the dark about Tirpitz, which is just need-to-know and perfectly justified. Another kettle of fish is letting Bond have a long-term casual affair with a member of a foreign intelligence service and not tip him off about it. And send him into an assignment together with another member of a foreign intelligence service they already know is a traitor and keep this fact also from him. Bond may or may not suspect the SIS has other sources inside the Icebreaker team. But he must absolutely know about the agents he cannot trust at all.

Once more there are also actions of the baddies that don't at all fit into their own plans. If the objective is to get Bond behind the iron curtain with the Icebreaker operation, why then assault him in Helsinki? Why then the assault at the SAAB on the road to Rovaniemi? Both actions could easily have killed Bond, so the NSAA's means to haggle with the KGB would have been lost. Simply doesn't add up.

ROH has basically the same problems. Would SPECTRE really hire Bond? Of all people? It's an interesting idea, playing that often heard (and wrongful) criticism of Bond, that in reality he might have taken after Burgess and Maclean and turned coat, just because the Russians had better caviar, or some such rubbish. But in ROH the resignation and subsequent work as mercenary/terrorist-for-hire never really sounds true and it's a mystery why ever SPECTRE would fall for it.

Again, the plans of the b addies are dependent on Bond, of all people. Again, the villains almost sabotage their own operation by placing Bond in potentially lethal situations. Why the assault on the Bentley in France (always assuming that was SPECTRE's doing; not sure if it's solved in the book)? Why the dangerous capture of Bond in the woods around Nun's Cross? Why the extremely dangerous shoot-out at Erewhon? If they needed Bond to get the codes from GCHQ? And why would Bond be able to provide them? Even while on active SIS duty Bond would have absolutely no business handling such material. After he resigned he'd not even be allowed into the vicinity of that installation, much less the actual gounds and extricate most sensitive data in the bargain. I would have preferred a more credible explanation here.


These and similar points could be made for most books. Of course some of this is simply due to the fact that a thriller needs some action and some unlikely ongoings, otherwise there would be no story to tell. Often the biggest holes don't really bother because pace and sleight-of-hand make them edible for readers. Many of my points above only started to bother me after reading the books for the fourth time or even more often.

#6 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 03 June 2010 - 03:49 PM

Overall, I would streamline pretty much every Gardner book. There's way too much plotting and overly complicated back-and-forths with characters rendezvousing with each other to no end. These books would have to be so condensed if they were ever adapted as films.

#7 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 June 2010 - 04:38 PM

Overall, I would streamline pretty much every Gardner book. There's way too much plotting and overly complicated back-and-forths with characters rendezvousing with each other to no end. These books would have to be so condensed if they were ever adapted as films.


Oh, if such changes specifically have films/adaptions in mind, then I think a lot of holes could actually stay and not bother too much, if the pacing and editing were right. The greatest concern would then be to cut the overlength of the hotel/briefing scenes and add considerable action in the bargain. The basic concept of the Gardners would have to be redrafted towards more spectacular visuals, for example add an attack of KGB Border Troops to the jet-fighter attack on the NSAA base in ICEBREAKER and a chase back to the Finnish border.

#8 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

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

Posted 03 June 2010 - 04:38 PM

For the most part I enjoy them all. Man From Barbarossa was really slow, but then that pacing was there for a reason.

#9 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 03 June 2010 - 05:04 PM

Overall, I would streamline pretty much every Gardner book. There's way too much plotting and overly complicated back-and-forths with characters rendezvousing with each other to no end. These books would have to be so condensed if they were ever adapted as films.


Oh, if such changes specifically have films/adaptions in mind, then I think a lot of holes could actually stay and not bother too much, if the pacing and editing were right. The greatest concern would then be to cut the overlength of the hotel/briefing scenes and add considerable action in the bargain. The basic concept of the Gardners would have to be redrafted towards more spectacular visuals, for example add an attack of KGB Border Troops to the jet-fighter attack on the NSAA base in ICEBREAKER and a chase back to the Finnish border.


What would you change for a movie adaptation of "Scorpius," "COLD," "SeaFire," etc.?

#10 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 03 June 2010 - 05:20 PM

coco, what's a Garnder novel?

#11 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 03 June 2010 - 05:48 PM

coco, what's a Garnder novel?


Shut up, m'booey. If only you still had mod privileges, I'd expect you to correct the title spelling.

#12 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 03 June 2010 - 06:17 PM

coco, what's a Garnder novel?


Shut up, m'booey. If only you still had mod privileges, I'd expect you to correct the title spelling.

Low blow. B)

#13 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 03 June 2010 - 06:23 PM

B)

#14 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 June 2010 - 07:38 PM

Overall, I would streamline pretty much every Gardner book. There's way too much plotting and overly complicated back-and-forths with characters rendezvousing with each other to no end. These books would have to be so condensed if they were ever adapted as films.


Oh, if such changes specifically have films/adaptions in mind, then I think a lot of holes could actually stay and not bother too much, if the pacing and editing were right. The greatest concern would then be to cut the overlength of the hotel/briefing scenes and add considerable action in the bargain. The basic concept of the Gardners would have to be redrafted towards more spectacular visuals, for example add an attack of KGB Border Troops to the jet-fighter attack on the NSAA base in ICEBREAKER and a chase back to the Finnish border.


What would you change for a movie adaptation of "Scorpius," "COLD," "SeaFire," etc.?



SCORPIUS
A bit late to adapt their behind-the-scenes scheme to manipulate bank accounts via the 'smart cards'. Then brand new up-to-date technology, now an everyday crime and the staple diet of countless small-fry criminals. Perhaps better dropped entirely or mentioned only in passing (it was not too prominent inthe book anyway). Highly topical present day headline stuff is the suicide-bomber scheme. Perhaps best intertwined with the religious sect backdrop that's also a bit short. Start the thing with a suicide attack that leaves a torn piece of skin from the attacker, with that Alpha/Omega design tattooed.

Make Pearlman one of the investigation team who stumbles over the piece. Show him then in the evening having a rare dinner with his estranged daughter. Who happens to have the same tattoo on her neck. Show her then leaving with her friend, the girl that later is found dead in the river. She is not just Emma Dupré, but MI5 operative Dupré who investigates a suspicious pseudo-religious sect. Her last report points to a trace outside the UK and to a link to a recent terrorist attack. Bond is brought in to handle the overseas SIS investigation.

Somewhere down the assignment either M sends Pearlman or Bond contacts the investigation of that terrorist attack and thus brings Pearlman into the picture, after which the opposition is informed about crucial steps in Bond's mission. The attack on the London safe house would go, instead the one on Moloney's clinic would be somewhat extended. Harriet Horner would have to go, making place for another female role, a member of the Society of the Meek Ones Bond seduces to learn about the location of their headquarter, after which she is killed by her fellow Meek Ones and Bond is chased in an action sequence.

Bond then penetrates the Scorpius headquarter where he observes Pearlman trading information to get his daughter back. Pearlman is then shot by the main henchman, Bond tries to prevent this but is too late. He goes for Scorpius but is attacked by his henchman. In the ensuing fight Scorpius can escape while Bond kills the henchman. All his leads are gone. Only Pearlman is still alive and tells Bond that his daughter is going to be at a major sports event, Olympics opening, Superbowl, ideally Wimbledon finals, which would give more reason for Bond being present, as he's one of the few people who have seen her and can identify her.

The aim of Scorpius' attack on this particular event would remain in the dark, until Bond spots an incognito head-of-state of an African country whose army pays Scorpius to do away the obstacle to a coup-d'etat. Close to him, Bond spots Pearlman's daughter [show the girls face, drugged expression on her face, not quite conscious; show a blinking light and wires under her blouse; show a male hand holding a remote control, playing with the single button the device sports; show Bond from the opposite terrace, observing the audience; show the finger on the remote interchanging with Bond's frantic search; show Bond suddenly groping into the blouse of Pearlman's daughter, tearing a bunch of wires from the cleavage, show the finger pressing the remote just that tic too late, and again and again; finally show Scorpius enraged face] whom he can neutralise and disarm. Across the Centre Court Scorpius and his entourage leave the terrace, heading for their cars. A furious African stops Scorpius, demanding an explanation why their head-of-state is still among the living. Scorpius' bodyguard stabs the African with a stiletto, but Bond notices the brief scuffle and takes up pursuit. Ensuing car chase, shoot-out, close combat, so on, you get the idea. B)

#15 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 08:43 PM

Hey Trident,

All you have to do is change all the characters' names and you have your own story. Don't give it away, flesh it all out yourself. And I'm not being sarcastic here.

I've never written a fan fic, but I have written three (unpublished) original novels. I start by being inspired by something I saw or read elsewhere, but by the time I finish I've erased any resemblance to my original source. You have the same makings here, but keep your intellectual property off the net.

(My second novel concerned an agent searching for a quad of stolen missiles, but he ends up on the vengeance trail when a friend is killed. How do you think I felt when I saw Licence to Kill?)

#16 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 June 2010 - 09:34 PM

Hey Trident,

All you have to do is change all the characters' names and you have your own story. Don't give it away, flesh it all out yourself. And I'm not being sarcastic here.

I've never written a fan fic, but I have written three (unpublished) original novels. I start by being inspired by something I saw or read elsewhere, but by the time I finish I've erased any resemblance to my original source. You have the same makings here, but keep your intellectual property off the net.

(My second novel concerned an agent searching for a quad of stolen missiles, but he ends up on the vengeance trail when a friend is killed. How do you think I felt when I saw Licence to Kill?)



Oh, thanks! It was really only a try to think of something more 'cinematic' to adapt the book, but I'm not particularly good at this, as I ordinarily focus more on logic, less on visuals, which would be crucial for a film. I used to be often critical about the way EON adapted the original novels, but it's really quite difficult to find visual counterparts to Fleming's (and not just his) originals. The way to tell a story in words and in visuals is really quite different and today I think I understand a whole lot better, why the adaptions of books have to take certain liberties, have to find their own way, pace, rhythm and so on.

If you've read my attempt and re-translate the plot (whatever scraps of plot there are) you may even find that the by far more interesting character in that story isn't Bond but Pearlman, the guy who covers a connection of his own daughter to a terrorist assault, breaches secrecy, betrays his superiors and colleagues and ends up between a rock and a hard place. Actually, there is a most interesting story there, I just don't know if it would be the one for a Bond film.

#17 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 03 June 2010 - 11:02 PM

How would your rewrite of Scorpius end, Trident?

#18 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 June 2010 - 11:32 PM

How would your rewrite of Scorpius end, Trident?


Well, by now it's really gone quite a way from the book. Must say I had to leaf through the thing again to remind myself of what happened to Scorpius. Have to say I don't really like that part, feels out of character with Bond somehow.

Let's see. Bond chases Scorpius to an airport (Heathrow probably) but Scorpius holds a diplomatic passport (of said African republic; is 'republic' the word I'm looking for?) and Bond is not able to follow him to his private jet. The plane immediately taxies to the runway. Bond comes close enough to squeeze himself into the undercarriage. The plane takes off with both Bond and Scorpius on bord, but travelling in decidedly different fashions. After an hour or so, Scorpius finishes his second drink, raises himself from his luxurious seat, enters the cockpit and order his crew to lower the landing gear.

END TITLES

Will Bond return?

(I always wanted to end a Bond with a cliffhanger) B)

#19 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 04 June 2010 - 12:00 AM

I'm starting to regret my encouraging comments. FYI the undercarriage compartment on a private jet isn't big enough to fit a man (or were you thinking of a private jet like Austin power's "jumbew?"

I rather liked the ending of Scorpius, minus Harriet Horner having to die. I could see John Malkovich or Kevin Spacey playing the self-ordained Father Valentine. The way Gardner wrote Pearlman put me in mind of Ray Lonnen fron The Sandbaggers. Opportunity missed.

#20 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 June 2010 - 03:40 AM

Any suggestions for "SeaFire" or "COLD", Trident?

#21 TheREAL008

TheREAL008

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1190 posts
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 04 June 2010 - 04:19 PM

Remove all the SPECTRE elements and Blofeld's daughter. Gardener should have been a bit more original in some of the earlier novels.

Flicka too. Bond should only have one woman...and her name is Tracy.

#22 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:29 PM

Quite simply, I wasn't happy with the car John Gardner had given him to drive. First of all, Any vehicle he has, modified or not, should be of British manufacture; period. Secondly, of all the cars to give him, a SAAB Turbo? Are you kidding me? I can't think of another motor vehicle that oozes "80's, Self-indulgent, Yuppy-Puke" than this car! Why not a Jag or maybe even a Porche Carrera? If I saw him passing me on the motorway, I'd wonder where his wife makes him keep the booster seat.

#23 Mark_Hazard

Mark_Hazard

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Location:UK Midlands

Posted 19 October 2010 - 09:16 PM

First of all, Any vehicle he has, modified or not, should be of British manufacture; period. Secondly, of all the cars to give him, a SAAB Turbo? Are you kidding me? I can't think of another motor vehicle that oozes "80's, Self-indulgent, Yuppy-Puke" than this car! Why not a Jag or maybe even a Porche Carrera?


Yep, that great British car manufacturer :lol:

#24 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 20 October 2010 - 06:30 AM


First of all, Any vehicle he has, modified or not, should be of British manufacture; period. Secondly, of all the cars to give him, a SAAB Turbo? Are you kidding me? I can't think of another motor vehicle that oozes "80's, Self-indulgent, Yuppy-Puke" than this car! Why not a Jag or maybe even a Porche Carrera?


Yep, that great British car manufacturer :lol:

Are there any great British car manufacturers left? I was under the impression that all our great marques are in foreign ownership now.

Overall, I would streamline pretty much every Gardner book. There's way too much plotting and overly complicated back-and-forths with characters rendezvousing with each other to no end. These books would have to be so condensed if they were ever adapted as films.

Agreed. From Icebreaker onwards the Gardner novel plots became overly elaborate when compared to the original Fleming stories. Double-crosses and double-double-crosses were thrown in almost for the sake of it, it seemed to me. Perhaps this explains why the books have never been transformed into films, save of course for Licence To Kill and GoldenEye which were derived from films in the first place!

#25 Simg

Simg

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 83 posts
  • Location:Hampshire UK

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:07 PM

I have not been on the forums for a while, and having just read some of the rubbish in this topic I might have to keep my distance again for a while. I do not have the time to mention individual comments (apart from one) but suffice to say (as my father would no doubt have said) "Everyone one is a critic, and everyone thinks they can write a bloody Bond novel" What is the point in discussing "What you would change" in a Gardner Bond? Everyone is entitled to make cbservations of why they like or dislike a JG Bond, however unless you have been asked to write a Bond novel by IFP, and have completed the task to their approval and sold thousands of copies and been top of the Bestseller lists in Europe and the US you have no right to say what my Father should or should not have written.

And as for Mr Haines who stated "...Double-crosses and double-double-crosses were thrown in almost for the sake of it, it seemed to me. Perhaps this explains why the books have never been transformed into films..." this is the sort of rubbish I refer to. One of the main reasons that none of my Father's books were made into films was that EON & Cubby B owned the character rights and it was cheaper to hire screenplay writers than to buy the rights to the Gardner Bonds. People do your research before you make assumptions.

Thank you for your time and on a not such a bitter and twisted note your continued support (most of the time) for my late Father's work.

Simon Richard John Gardner

Edited by Simg, 26 October 2010 - 03:47 PM.


#26 godwulf

godwulf

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 74 posts

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:51 PM

Since the first of the year, I've managed - in the time left to me by work, family, and reading other things - to enjoy, in order, all of Fleming, Amis, Pearson, and, now, Gardner, and have started on Benson...my goal being to have digested the whole canon before Jeffrey Deaver's entry appears in the Spring.

With Gardner, things looked very promising from the beginning. I really enjoyed License Renewed, and, with the exception of Icebreaker, the plot of which I thought unnecessarily convoluted, I was generally pleased with the stories and Bond's place in them - for the first six or seven volumes, at any rate. (My major problem with the series, to that point, as I've expressed elsewhere on the board, was and remains Gardner's following Fleming's bad example of causing far too many of his American characters to speak like half-witted stereotypes from a '30s B movie.)

Beginning, I think, with Win, Lose or Die, Gardner's books appeared to be far less James Bond stories, than simply thrillers - very loosely defined, in some cases - that happened to have a character named James Bond in them. All sense of who and what Bond is would disappear for long stretches, and he would be just one more bland, rather two-dimensional cog in the machinery. The Man From Barbarossa may have been the nadir, in that respect; I found it sad that virtually the only scene in that book in which the "old" Bond, the real Bond, seemed to make an appearance was one in which he kills an unconscious officer in order to steal his uniform and identity, and experiences a moment of moral unquiet and regret for having been forced to do so.

Gardner's other great and annoying fault, which seemed to grow worse as the series went on, was his tendency to pause in the middle of the action in order to muse upon some trivial oddity of culture or language, or to make a rather lame and juvenile joke about it. One example, from Win, Lose or Die, comes to mind: Bond, aboard a Naval vessel, is hurrying toward the scene of a gruesome murder, and uses the time to muse upon the difference in how British and American sailors designate their bathrooms. I hate to say it, but too much of the time Gardner sounds like (and, worse, makes Bond sound like) an elderly man beginning to lose his focus. I'm quite sure that Gardner, in the course of travelling around and researching his books, came upon much that interested and amused him; unfortunatly, too often he seems to be attempting to transpose those interests and proclivities onto 007, with embarrassing results for the character.

For what it's worth, Gardner's last, Cold (or Cold Fall, as it's known in the States) is probably the best of the latter half of JG's entries in the series. To be honest, I read Benson's short story, Blast from the Past the same night that I finished Cold, and immediately wished that I had more Gardner to read. :rolleyes:

#27 dlb007

dlb007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Tallahassee, Fl

Posted 27 October 2010 - 03:22 PM

I have not been on the forums for a while, and having just read some of the rubbish in this topic I might have to keep my distance again for a while. I do not have the time to mention individual comments (apart from one) but suffice to say (as my father would no doubt have said) "Everyone one is a critic, and everyone thinks they can write a bloody Bond novel" What is the point in discussing "What you would change" in a Gardner Bond? Everyone is entitled to make cbservations of why they like or dislike a JG Bond, however unless you have been asked to write a Bond novel by IFP, and have completed the task to their approval and sold thousands of copies and been top of the Bestseller lists in Europe and the US you have no right to say what my Father should or should not have written.

I don't think everyone here thinks they can write a Bond novel, far from it in fact. While some people may wish that changes could be made to your father's novels, others feel that way about Fleming's work, or that of Amis; in particular, I don't really enjoy Diamonds are Forever, and there is a lot of that novel I wished was different. That being said, as the paying public, we do have a right to express our opinions on a work, no matter how unpopular they may be. If you really want to see a writer being given a hard time, look no further than the Benson thread.

And as for Mr Haines who stated "...Double-crosses and double-double-crosses were thrown in almost for the sake of it, it seemed to me. Perhaps this explains why the books have never been transformed into films..." this is the sort of rubbish I refer to. One of the main reasons that none of my Father's books were made into films was that EON & Cubby B owned the character rights and it was cheaper to hire screenplay writers than to buy the rights to the Gardner Bonds. People do your research before you make assumptions.

True, most of us here do know that it was cheaper to have an original screenplay as opposed to buying the rights to your father's novels, just like we also know that several of his ideas have been used in said original screenplays.


Thank you for your time and on a not such a bitter and twisted note your continued support (most of the time) for my late Father's work.

Most of the people here enjoy your father's work. We wouldn't have purchased and read all 16 works without enjoying them. In fact, most of the threads in the Gardner forum generally have nothing but good things to say of his novels. I for one enjoyed most of them and was left unsatisfied by others, but that goes for every writer I've ever come across.

Simon Richard John Gardner


Edited by dlb007, 27 October 2010 - 04:16 PM.


#28 Simg

Simg

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 83 posts
  • Location:Hampshire UK

Posted 27 October 2010 - 06:23 PM

Thanks dlb007 for your comments. I was not saying that people should not make adverse comments about my father's work and you are right in saying that most people at CBn have been very very supportive of his tenure as continuation author. However I do find it annoying that people should be discussing how the books should have been written in their opinion. Whether it is Kingsley, Raymond,or even Fleming himself I cannot see the point of discussing 'What you would change' hey but that is just me and sometimes I get a little angry at seeing my father's work dissected and people saying how they would have done it. JG is dead and cannot answer back, as his son it is left to me to every now and again to shout up on his behalf. JG got the gig and sorry you cannot change anything he has written! :-)

Again thanks to all of you for your continued support

Simon Richard John Gardner

#29 dlb007

dlb007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Tallahassee, Fl

Posted 27 October 2010 - 07:17 PM

I definitely understand where you're coming from; in fact, I think the change most people would like to make to his books are replacing his name with theirs, and reaching that level of success as a writer. I rarely think people are saying how they would do it differently, but more to the point that they wish certain characters or situations worked out differently; I may be wrong, but I believe in various threads there are quotes by John himself saying that he wished various novels had turned out differently. I can also understand how it can be annoying seeing people discussing these things, but that's what makes these threads interesting. There were only 16 books and eventually everything will be discussed, which then leads to "What would you change. . . "

You might be surprised that the people on here making the most noise about various changes, are the same people that want to see his series reprinted.

I, as well as the many people who may have negative things to say, are happier that your father contributed to the Bond legacy than to have given us nothing at all.

#30 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

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

Posted 27 October 2010 - 07:22 PM

...I think the change most people would like to make to his books are replacing his name with theirs...

Ha! Exactly. :tup:

Note I have not contributed to this thread.