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

SPOILERS: Member Reviews of Carte Blanche


191 replies to this topic

Poll: What did you think of Carte Blanche - having read it?

This is a public poll. Other members will be able to see which options you chose

Having read it...

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

With which of the following statements would you agree?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

On a rating of 10 to 0, 10 being deliciousness and 0 being a bit like having one's face levered off with a claw hammer, I rate CARTE BLANCHE

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Were Jeffery Deaver to write another one, I would say...

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#121 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 12:15 PM


EDIT:
Erm, just so everybody knows, is there a reason that I can view the results of the poll with each member's votes? Is this a new feature? Or did I stumble upon this by accident while it's been there for, like, months? Years? Ever?


When a poll's set up, there's a box to tick (or untick, I forget) about whether the results can be viewed; probably not consciously I ticked (or unticked) it. No particular need for a secret ballot, on reflection.


No, absolutely not, quite agree. It's just peculiar that I find myself defending Carte Blanche while I'm one of the harshest critics in the vote.

#122 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 03:51 PM

I disagree with my vote on the overal score of CB. Must have been a bad day for me. 4 out of 10 I would give it. It's nice to be able to see others thoughts in the poll. With some surprises.

Perhaps I set the bar to high for Jeffery Deaver after being a fan if his books and knowing what he was capable of.

#123 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 22 June 2011 - 04:08 PM

And I'm thinking I may have been a bit generous - certainly enjoyed it at the time but now, a few weeks on, I can't recall that much about it. Ah well.

#124 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 04:33 PM

Well, I think my "Hello Mum" vote was probably a bit on the mean side.

#125 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 07:46 PM

Carte Blanche is at the same star rating as Devil May Care on Amazon, although Devil May Care has more reviews at present. Not that many pay attention to Amazon but it could be used as a clapometer.

One point when I thought Carte Blanche was taking a turn for the good was when Bond shot the man on Hydts land. It felt like the novel was picking up again after dropping off. Something new was breathed into the story and Bond as a character. I thought it was brave and bold having Bond shoot someone in cold blood. One man against a thousand life's. Then, bang. Next chapter and it was not real bullets and the mans alive having a laugh about it all. I felt robbed! And all this but Bond really knew they were bullets stuff really wasn't cricket. We always know where Bond is at, what he is thinking and there was to many examples of this slide of hand that doesn't suit my idea of Bond. Although I guess thats how Deaver rocks, and it suits his crime novels fine.

Edited by Jump James, 22 June 2011 - 08:44 PM.


#126 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 06:39 AM

Carte Blanche is at the same star rating as Devil May Care on Amazon, although Devil May Care has more reviews at present. Not that many pay attention to Amazon but it could be used as a clapometer.

One point when I thought Carte Blanche was taking a turn for the good was when Bond shot the man on Hydts land. It felt like the novel was picking up again after dropping off. Something new was breathed into the story and Bond as a character. I thought it was brave and bold having Bond shoot someone in cold blood. One man against a thousand life's. Then, bang. Next chapter and it was not real bullets and the mans alive having a laugh about it all. I felt robbed! And all this but Bond really knew they were bullets stuff really wasn't cricket. We always know where Bond is at, what he is thinking and there was to many examples of this slide of hand that doesn't suit my idea of Bond. Although I guess thats how Deaver rocks, and it suits his crime novels fine.

The F1 reference drawn from the local newspaper at Dubai stood out as just being shoved in as another advert for the Dubai tourist board. Don't forget we have F1 in Dubai.



#127 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 03:44 PM

SPOILERS for Carte Blanche (naturally)

I have just finished reading Carte Blanche and my initial reaction is simply this-I am overwhelmed. I am simply overwhelmed by the brilliance and intricacy of the plot, and by the ceaseless attention to detail that surpasses even that of Ian Fleming's perhaps. I truly feel that Jeffrey Deaver has succeeded not merely in 'reviving' an old iconic legend, but in completely reinventing him as a new modern-day character, in many ways totally distinct from ANY past versions, literary or cinematic.

The most striking aspect of this novel, and indeed Deaver's greatest literary achievement within it, is the character of James Bond himself. Ian Fleming, at least in his early novels, sought to present 007 as an enigma, an empty shell or persona that the reader could 'slip into' and enjoy all those fantastic adventures. Details about Bond's past, his family, his motivations were given sparingly, if at all. Deaver however leaves us with no doubts about who Bond is and where he comes from. One of the earliest chapters contains a flashback revealing Bond's military past as a Naval Reserve officer who undertook black ops missions in Afghanistan, his first meeting with M, and his recruitment into the 00 Section of the ODG. He is immediately presented as the perfect weapon-the consummate warrior ever-willing to kill in name of protection of the Realm, as well as the skilled infiltrator, able to blend into any environment and play different parts with the utmost skill ("a rare combination of both", as M says while recruiting him). Bond is not just a thug, or even a cold blooded killing machine-he is a sophisticated and highly intelligent and skilled operative who can think and plan and deceive as well as he can shoot and stab. Throughout the novel, Bond engineers situations to trap and/or manipulate other individuals, or manipulates hostile situations to his favor, while refraining from using lethal force (or any force for that matter)...yet towards the end, when the need arises, he is prepared to jump into action and maim, kill and torture whenever necessary, to complete the mission or to survive. Bond is both intellectual and killer-a man closer to perfection than others, which is what makes him unique (as opposed to his tastes in liquor, clothes and cars). The sub-plot involving Bond's parents, and the possible links of one of them to the world of espionage during the Cold War, adds greater depth to his character...Bond is not merely an unfortunate orphan, but he becomes, ironically enough, the grown-up child of a spy, who is troubled by his parent's deceit of him even as he continues to live and even flourish within that very world of deceit to which they belonged. The steel catridge on the mantlepiece in his flat is a nice symbol of this murky chapter of Bond's past, exemplifying how the deceitful world of espionage and conspiracy had affected him right from his childhood...

Another development of Deaver's, which I found surprisingly to my liking, was the replacement of MI6 with the fictitious 'Overseas Development Group'
(ODG) as Bond's employer. While Bond being an agent of 'Her Majesties' Secret Service' is an iconic aspect of his character, the truth be told, one of the inherent flaws of Bond belonging to the 'Secret Intelligence Service, in both the Fleming novels and the films (obviously to a much greater extent in the latter), was that Bond never really did much in the way of actual 'spying' or 'intelligence gathering'-he instead spent most of his time acting as a one-man commando unit of sorts in effect, eliminating threats, rather than investigating them. Deaver has addressed this age-old inconsistency of the franchise by making Bond an agent of a seperate agency, one that specıalıses not in intelligence gathering, but simply in eliminating threats and protecting the realm 'by any means necessary'. Bond has always been more of a one-man commando operative than spy; Deaver simply states this explicitly. In one illuminating passage within the novel, Deaver writes of how MI6 focuses on intelligence gathering and spreading misinformation, whereas the ODG simply acts on intelligence received from MI6 and other intelligence gathering agencies, and eliminates threats. So basically, Bond does what he's always been doing, except that now saving the day while killing the bad guys is PRECISELY his job description.

The novel has three female characters, and each of them is well-developed and plays a pivotal part in the novel. None of the female characters are mere eye candy that Bond simply devours, as he does in the films, and even some of Fleming's novels-each is a full-formed character in her own right, who impacts Bond on a personal level. By far the most intriguing of the three is the MI6 liason to the ODG, Ophelia Maidenstone...she is Bond's trusted friend and colleague, well aware of his dangerous professional life, and while there is clearly some sexual tension between them, she's not just a woman Bond goes to bed with. Their relationship truly seems far deeper and more meaningful than mere lust and I hope it is explored to a greater extent in future novels. Bond's own attitude to women is a refreshing change from the playboy who sleeps around with a few women per mission, and ends up with one by the end of the movie, only to get rid of her eventually and start over...it is telling that he ends up with neither of the three female characters in the books. While he seems to realise that his profession is not really compatible with a normal life and relationship, he doesn't really decide to become a mere serial womanizer either. I get the feeling that Bond's sexuality and his emotional quotient is one which is another area of exploration for future installments.

Lastly, the villain, Severan Hydt is a truly brilliant creation-he combines the classic Bond element of a villain with a particular obsession or speciality that is shaped into a deadly plot; along with the image of a 21st century entrepreneur involved in an industry of great modern relevance-recycling. Hydt's grand scheme, which could have been absurd, actually comes across as being highly plausible, and even brilliant, in an insane sort of way. The secondary character of Niall Dunne comes across as being a darker version of Bond virtually-a chessmaster who schemes against Bond and is eventually checkmated by 007. Felicity Willing however, when revealed as the ultimate mastermind in the a shocking denouement, comes across as the coldest and most manipulative of the lot...a white-collared mercenary using 'hunger' as a weapon, another 21st century global issue made chillingly relevant to the novel's plot.

Overall, this is truly a well-crafted, intricate, intelligent and highly enjoyable thriller that certainly demands to be read again

#128 Jack Spang

Jack Spang

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 493 posts

Posted 24 June 2011 - 11:29 PM

SPOILERS for Carte Blanche (naturally)

I have just finished reading Carte Blanche and my initial reaction is simply this-I am overwhelmed. I am simply overwhelmed by the brilliance and intricacy of the plot, and by the ceaseless attention to detail that surpasses even that of Ian Fleming's perhaps. I truly feel that Jeffrey Deaver has succeeded not merely in 'reviving' an old iconic legend, but in completely reinventing him as a new modern-day character, in many ways totally distinct from ANY past versions, literary or cinematic.

The most striking aspect of this novel, and indeed Deaver's greatest literary achievement within it, is the character of James Bond himself. Ian Fleming, at least in his early novels, sought to present 007 as an enigma, an empty shell or persona that the reader could 'slip into' and enjoy all those fantastic adventures. Details about Bond's past, his family, his motivations were given sparingly, if at all. Deaver however leaves us with no doubts about who Bond is and where he comes from. One of the earliest chapters contains a flashback revealing Bond's military past as a Naval Reserve officer who undertook black ops missions in Afghanistan, his first meeting with M, and his recruitment into the 00 Section of the ODG. He is immediately presented as the perfect weapon-the consummate warrior ever-willing to kill in name of protection of the Realm, as well as the skilled infiltrator, able to blend into any environment and play different parts with the utmost skill ("a rare combination of both", as M says while recruiting him). Bond is not just a thug, or even a cold blooded killing machine-he is a sophisticated and highly intelligent and skilled operative who can think and plan and deceive as well as he can shoot and stab. Throughout the novel, Bond engineers situations to trap and/or manipulate other individuals, or manipulates hostile situations to his favor, while refraining from using lethal force (or any force for that matter)...yet towards the end, when the need arises, he is prepared to jump into action and maim, kill and torture whenever necessary, to complete the mission or to survive. Bond is both intellectual and killer-a man closer to perfection than others, which is what makes him unique (as opposed to his tastes in liquor, clothes and cars). The sub-plot involving Bond's parents, and the possible links of one of them to the world of espionage during the Cold War, adds greater depth to his character...Bond is not merely an unfortunate orphan, but he becomes, ironically enough, the grown-up child of a spy, who is troubled by his parent's deceit of him even as he continues to live and even flourish within that very world of deceit to which they belonged. The steel catridge on the mantlepiece in his flat is a nice symbol of this murky chapter of Bond's past, exemplifying how the deceitful world of espionage and conspiracy had affected him right from his childhood...

Another development of Deaver's, which I found surprisingly to my liking, was the replacement of MI6 with the fictitious 'Overseas Development Group'
(ODG) as Bond's employer. While Bond being an agent of 'Her Majesties' Secret Service' is an iconic aspect of his character, the truth be told, one of the inherent flaws of Bond belonging to the 'Secret Intelligence Service, in both the Fleming novels and the films (obviously to a much greater extent in the latter), was that Bond never really did much in the way of actual 'spying' or 'intelligence gathering'-he instead spent most of his time acting as a one-man commando unit of sorts in effect, eliminating threats, rather than investigating them. Deaver has addressed this age-old inconsistency of the franchise by making Bond an agent of a seperate agency, one that specıalıses not in intelligence gathering, but simply in eliminating threats and protecting the realm 'by any means necessary'. Bond has always been more of a one-man commando operative than spy; Deaver simply states this explicitly. In one illuminating passage within the novel, Deaver writes of how MI6 focuses on intelligence gathering and spreading misinformation, whereas the ODG simply acts on intelligence received from MI6 and other intelligence gathering agencies, and eliminates threats. So basically, Bond does what he's always been doing, except that now saving the day while killing the bad guys is PRECISELY his job description.

The novel has three female characters, and each of them is well-developed and plays a pivotal part in the novel. None of the female characters are mere eye candy that Bond simply devours, as he does in the films, and even some of Fleming's novels-each is a full-formed character in her own right, who impacts Bond on a personal level. By far the most intriguing of the three is the MI6 liason to the ODG, Ophelia Maidenstone...she is Bond's trusted friend and colleague, well aware of his dangerous professional life, and while there is clearly some sexual tension between them, she's not just a woman Bond goes to bed with. Their relationship truly seems far deeper and more meaningful than mere lust and I hope it is explored to a greater extent in future novels. Bond's own attitude to women is a refreshing change from the playboy who sleeps around with a few women per mission, and ends up with one by the end of the movie, only to get rid of her eventually and start over...it is telling that he ends up with neither of the three female characters in the books. While he seems to realise that his profession is not really compatible with a normal life and relationship, he doesn't really decide to become a mere serial womanizer either. I get the feeling that Bond's sexuality and his emotional quotient is one which is another area of exploration for future installments.

Lastly, the villain, Severan Hydt is a truly brilliant creation-he combines the classic Bond element of a villain with a particular obsession or speciality that is shaped into a deadly plot; along with the image of a 21st century entrepreneur involved in an industry of great modern relevance-recycling. Hydt's grand scheme, which could have been absurd, actually comes across as being highly plausible, and even brilliant, in an insane sort of way. The secondary character of Niall Dunne comes across as being a darker version of Bond virtually-a chessmaster who schemes against Bond and is eventually checkmated by 007. Felicity Willing however, when revealed as the ultimate mastermind in the a shocking denouement, comes across as the coldest and most manipulative of the lot...a white-collared mercenary using 'hunger' as a weapon, another 21st century global issue made chillingly relevant to the novel's plot.

Overall, this is truly a well-crafted, intricate, intelligent and highly enjoyable thriller that certainly demands to be read again


I agree with alot of what you have said and I too liked how he never ended up with any of the women in the book. I loved how Deaver referred to Bond's background history and tastes but I thought this Bond really did lack personality though. The book itself however is most enjoyable.

Edited by Jack Spang, 24 June 2011 - 11:29 PM.


#129 Jack Spang

Jack Spang

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 493 posts

Posted 27 June 2011 - 11:51 PM

Does anyone know if IFP are planning on hiring other authors to write the adult Bond books? I thought that this was always their plan? Some people however think that the next Bond book will be written by Deaver again which won't be for around another 3 years.

Edited by Jack Spang, 27 June 2011 - 11:52 PM.


#130 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 27 June 2011 - 11:53 PM

Some people however think that the next Bond book will be written by Deaver again which won't be for around another 3 years!


Really? I don't think there's ever been anything to suggest that Deaver will do another one.

#131 Jack Spang

Jack Spang

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 493 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 12:05 AM


Some people however think that the next Bond book will be written by Deaver again which won't be for around another 3 years!


Really? I don't think there's ever been anything to suggest that Deaver will do another one.


Well, a couple of people made comments suggesting this. I'm not sure why. Deaver apparently did say he MIGHT do another one further on down the line.

Did IFP not say that they planned to have different authors write the adult Bond books? I'm sure I read this somewhere. In which case, if Deaver returns it won't be until we have had two or three more authors write Bond novels. If this is the case, I wonder how likely it is that we will get a new Bond book each year... What are people's thoughts on this?

Edited by Jack Spang, 28 June 2011 - 12:06 AM.


#132 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

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

Posted 28 June 2011 - 02:16 AM

I'm of two minds on this. Part of me wants Deaver to do say a 3-5 book run. Another part of me wants a new author for each book. While still I have dreams of authors jumping on for 1 book, or more, depending on the story they are telling. Can you imagine an author approaching it like the Blofeld trilogy? 3 or more complete novels that can be read on their own, but a nice little series in itself.

#133 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 June 2011 - 06:20 PM

As much as I loved Deaver's take, I think he did a fantastic job of laying the groundwork for a project that should be completed by multiple authors, most of which hopefully hailing from the thriller genre and as invested into the character as he was. The concept of Project X, ie a collaborative rejuvenation of the adult literary Bond for the 21st century, is too good of an idea to simply dispose of simply because Deaver did a good job.

#134 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 02 July 2011 - 07:03 AM

Hmmmmm. Not really happy about it. Could have done better, much better. There were so many places to go in rebooting Bond and Deaver does touch the surface but only briefly (too brief for my likings).

Anyway, it's Bond so I'm not going to knock it about. Just wanted to voice my slight disappointment. Wouldn't mind seeing Deaver write another though. As they say, better luck next time and all that.

HF

Loomis got it spot on when he reviewed it on this thread, a couple of pages back.

#135 Jack Spang

Jack Spang

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 493 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 10:36 PM

Hmmmmm. Not really happy about it. Could have done better, much better. There were so many places to go in rebooting Bond and Deaver does touch the surface but only briefly (too brief for my likings).

Anyway, it's Bond so I'm not going to knock it about. Just wanted to voice my slight disappointment. Wouldn't mind seeing Deaver write another though. As they say, better luck next time and all that.

HF

Loomis got it spot on when he reviewed it on this thread, a couple of pages back.


Briefly, the problem is that he writes fast paced books. Certain parts must be longer and more detailed though - character movement, describing landscapes, Bond's thoughts and the origins of the ODG. I hope the next book will go into more detail. I thought I read it somewhere that IFP were planning on having different authors or maybe it was a forum user who said it.

Initially I supported the idea of a reboot but now I am not so sure if I like the idea as much. If another author or Deaver can flesh out Bond's character more in a contemporary setting then I will be happier and will feel like I am reading about the literary chap I love. The chauvinism and xenophobia doesn't have to be present as there are many more facets to Bond's personality. I've been reading Christopher Wood's Moonraker and he really understands the character as does Pearson. Wood doesn't even like Fleming's Bond either apparently! He prefers Roger Moore's take on the character.

#136 JackUnion

JackUnion

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 47 posts

Posted 03 July 2011 - 01:39 AM

I'm probably going to hit on a lot of things mentioned already in this thread, but I've got to get it off my chest.

Beyond certain elements (as mentioned the Fleming-Box-Checking) there's nothing in here exceptionally Bondian here. This could be any random character's book. I felt like there was an attempt to cram a lot onto a rather linear plot that didn't really put much at stake. A few things that annoyed me.
1. Character role call! "Leiter, Mathis, Goodnight, M, Moneypenny, Q, May, you all here? Great now wait to be wheeled in and out as necessary!" I felt like these characters, though we all know them and their histories for the most part, were just cameo'd. Most of them weren't necessary. Mathis, why are you even mentioned in this book? Is it to give a Bond fanboy a little giggle or legitimacy? The same for Leiter, you could have been replaced by some random CIA op. I felt that Q was the only interesting take in the lot. Moneypenny is more or less a prop momentarily mentioned, a gateway piece. It's good, though, to have The Admiral back. We can get all uppity about gender equality and what not...but M in my head has always been the stern, fatherly, naval officer.
2. Deaver's Bond always knows the next move. This almost kills this book for me! Chapter after chapter this started to really piss me off. Bond had an answer for every bleeding situation! What the hell is that. He was never in any real danger except for the moment under the Army hospital. Every moment early on I though he was going to get caught, the next chapter he'd already figured out their plans from the start and had out witted them. Bond is not a super human thinktank, he makes mistakes and gets into some pretty brutal situations because of it. But not here, Bond's got it all figured out.
3. This book is dated. From iPhone to Harry Potter this book has a shelf life. These are some pretty hard name drops. I know Fleming did a bit of the same but anything I read in From Russia with Love or On Her Majesty's Secret Service isn't going to bang me over the head quite as hard as the constant reminders of the current date in this book. Plus know that you've mentioned all this stuff you've lowered the quality of the character and the book. I don't want to read the words Harry Potter and James Bond in the same book unless it's a book on film franchise history. And I don't want to know that Bond is now a spokes person for the iPhone and the use of apps.
4. Bond's Parents. Bond's parents and past get trolled out in this book. I loved the mystery and the lack of information on his past in the Fleming novels. Even the Young Bond don't truly trample the mystery, but this book just tramps it all out. I don't care that Bond blew his parents life insurance to by a gaudy over priced care. I don't need to know Daddy took him on trips. I don't even need this lame subplot about how the were killed. It's fine that it's there but it seemed heavy handed. It was like trying to drag the whole idea of Smiert Spionam back in from Casino Royale. I think it only helps give Bond motivation like Vesper's death did but it's a plot line thats so over used. "I have to avenge my parents!" "Pipe down, Harry!"
5. Bond needs to be loved. Bond wants it to work out too much with these women. He gets burned twice. Why is he looking for love? He knows his job won't warrant an intimate relationship. Bond doesn't seek out a domestic partner, since when does he want to settle down?!

There were things I did like about this book. The plot overall was interesting. There were a few good twists. But I shouldn't be this annoyed after finishing the book. There are definitely some fan fic writers here who could have done a better reboot. The key to retooling something is to keep the things people are hoping and excited to see in your back pocket until needed. Don't just truck them out when you think it will make for interesting reading!
I give it a 7 as a novel. A 5 as a Bond Novel.

Cheers.

#137 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 03 July 2011 - 06:54 PM

I'm probably going to hit on a lot of things mentioned already in this thread, but I've got to get it off my chest.

Beyond certain elements (as mentioned the Fleming-Box-Checking) there's nothing in here exceptionally Bondian here. This could be any random character's book. I felt like there was an attempt to cram a lot onto a rather linear plot that didn't really put much at stake. A few things that annoyed me.
1. Character role call! "Leiter, Mathis, Goodnight, M, Moneypenny, Q, May, you all here? Great now wait to be wheeled in and out as necessary!" I felt like these characters, though we all know them and their histories for the most part, were just cameo'd. Most of them weren't necessary. Mathis, why are you even mentioned in this book? Is it to give a Bond fanboy a little giggle or legitimacy? The same for Leiter, you could have been replaced by some random CIA op. I felt that Q was the only interesting take in the lot. Moneypenny is more or less a prop momentarily mentioned, a gateway piece. It's good, though, to have The Admiral back. We can get all uppity about gender equality and what not...but M in my head has always been the stern, fatherly, naval officer.
2. Deaver's Bond always knows the next move. This almost kills this book for me! Chapter after chapter this started to really piss me off. Bond had an answer for every bleeding situation! What the hell is that. He was never in any real danger except for the moment under the Army hospital. Every moment early on I though he was going to get caught, the next chapter he'd already figured out their plans from the start and had out witted them. Bond is not a super human thinktank, he makes mistakes and gets into some pretty brutal situations because of it. But not here, Bond's got it all figured out.
3. This book is dated. From iPhone to Harry Potter this book has a shelf life. These are some pretty hard name drops. I know Fleming did a bit of the same but anything I read in From Russia with Love or On Her Majesty's Secret Service isn't going to bang me over the head quite as hard as the constant reminders of the current date in this book. Plus know that you've mentioned all this stuff you've lowered the quality of the character and the book. I don't want to read the words Harry Potter and James Bond in the same book unless it's a book on film franchise history. And I don't want to know that Bond is now a spokes person for the iPhone and the use of apps.
4. Bond's Parents. Bond's parents and past get trolled out in this book. I loved the mystery and the lack of information on his past in the Fleming novels. Even the Young Bond don't truly trample the mystery, but this book just tramps it all out. I don't care that Bond blew his parents life insurance to by a gaudy over priced care. I don't need to know Daddy took him on trips. I don't even need this lame subplot about how the were killed. It's fine that it's there but it seemed heavy handed. It was like trying to drag the whole idea of Smiert Spionam back in from Casino Royale. I think it only helps give Bond motivation like Vesper's death did but it's a plot line thats so over used. "I have to avenge my parents!" "Pipe down, Harry!"
5. Bond needs to be loved. Bond wants it to work out too much with these women. He gets burned twice. Why is he looking for love? He knows his job won't warrant an intimate relationship. Bond doesn't seek out a domestic partner, since when does he want to settle down?!

There were things I did like about this book. The plot overall was interesting. There were a few good twists. But I shouldn't be this annoyed after finishing the book. There are definitely some fan fic writers here who could have done a better reboot. The key to retooling something is to keep the things people are hoping and excited to see in your back pocket until needed. Don't just truck them out when you think it will make for interesting reading!
I give it a 7 as a novel. A 5 as a Bond Novel.

Cheers.

I must say I think your spot on with your number 2.

Not something I thought I would write today.

#138 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

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

Posted 04 July 2011 - 01:55 AM

I disagree with your assertion that something is wrong with it being dated as per number 3. The Fleming novels were a product of their times talking about world culture at the time and in many respects those things date the books but we look back and call it nostalgic. From the Harlem and slang of LALD to the Beetles references and I could go on. If you find modern cultural references such a deal then they are all there in Flem's work too.

#139 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 04 July 2011 - 07:22 AM

From the Harlem and slang of LALD to the Beetles references and I could go on. If you find modern cultural references such a deal then they are all there in Flem's work too.


Well, if you can find me a reference to the "Beetles" in Fleming I'll admit Roger Moore was the best Bond. And if you can find me a reference to the "BEATLES" in Fleming, I'll admit Daniel Craig is over six feet tall.

#140 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 04 July 2011 - 07:48 AM


From the Harlem and slang of LALD to the Beetles references and I could go on. If you find modern cultural references such a deal then they are all there in Flem's work too.


Well, if you can find me a reference to the "Beetles" in Fleming I'll admit Roger Moore was the best Bond. And if you can find me a reference to the "BEATLES" in Fleming, I'll admit Daniel Craig is over six feet tall.


Well, there's the death-watch beetle of Goldfinger, but that's a singular...

Beatles I'm afraid we're out at the moment.

#141 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

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

Posted 04 July 2011 - 05:43 PM

It's in there, the point stands (notwithstanding the spelling of that awful band's name). But there were many contemporary cultural and political references to the time. Like That man down in Cuba, or the NASA Satellite launches or the whole cold war, or political changes in Jamaica around the time of the books.

#142 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 July 2011 - 05:16 PM


From the Harlem and slang of LALD to the Beetles references and I could go on. If you find modern cultural references such a deal then they are all there in Flem's work too.


And if you can find me a reference to the "BEATLES" in Fleming, I'll admit Daniel Craig is over six feet tall.


Honestly?

#143 chrisno1

chrisno1

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 931 posts

Posted 05 July 2011 - 11:37 PM

I haven't checked - but I thought the only Beatles / Beetles (?) reference was in Devil May Care.
I'm not sure Fleming was quite tuned into the Beatles, most of his writing was pre 1963, only 2 novels were written after the Beatles were famous.
He does however mention Ursula Andress in OHMSS (1963) which was published after the initial success of DR NO (1962), so I think it is fair to say Fleming (had he continued to write) would have noted some modern icons/products/fads/slang etc in the same way he uses very bad patois, mentions 1950s posh toiletries and expensive (now unavailable) wines.
Personally, this kind of product placement doesn't bother me at all in writing or in movies, it gives the book or film a reference point preventing it from misinterpretation as the years roll ceaselessly by and we all get a little bit nostalgic for a time we (many of us) never saw.

#144 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 06 July 2011 - 09:33 AM

He does however mention Ursula Andress in OHMSS (1963) which was published after the initial success of DR NO (1962), so I think it is fair to say Fleming (had he continued to write) would have noted some modern icons/products/fads/slang etc in the same way he uses very bad patois, mentions 1950s posh toiletries and expensive (now unavailable) wines.

This an interesting philosophical point.

I read OHMSS and this passage some time in the 70's and thought nothing of it. If I had read that 'current day literary Bond' had just spotted Eva Green, I daresay I would have uttered 'crass' or some similarly highbrow thought.

Which begs the question, why is one name check considered ok, and another not? For my part, I can only surmise that credibility is afforded after the passage of time. Reading a book that has eventuated into Lore offers it forgiveness and indeed status that a new release can only dream of.

On a similar note, this is perhaps why I specifically will not get upset about a Die Another Day type title and artwork. I know at some point, Time will give this a 'part of the canon' type status, no matter what.

#145 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 06 July 2011 - 09:45 AM


He does however mention Ursula Andress in OHMSS (1963) which was published after the initial success of DR NO (1962), so I think it is fair to say Fleming (had he continued to write) would have noted some modern icons/products/fads/slang etc in the same way he uses very bad patois, mentions 1950s posh toiletries and expensive (now unavailable) wines.

This an interesting philosophical point.

I read OHMSS and this passage some time in the 70's and thought nothing of it. If I had read that 'current day literary Bond' had just spotted Eva Green, I daresay I would have uttered 'crass' or some similarly highbrow thought.

Which begs the question, why is one name check considered ok, and another not? For my part, I can only surmise that credibility is afforded after the passage of time. Reading a book that has eventuated into Lore offers it forgiveness and indeed status that a new release can only dream of.


I think that in the days of Fleming and OHMSS, "name-dropping" was fresh and new in literature, while nowadays, since the likes of Bret Easton Ellis, it sounds a bit worn-off and just another trick to reach to the reader.

Another point might be that the creator of the Bond character dropping the name of a contemporary, recent actress in the film franchise looks like a token of appreciation and an homage to the said actress, while the mention of an equivalent actress by a continuation author commissioned by IFP inevitably sounds a bit more like an effort to tie-in with the film franchise, discreetly promoting Casino Royale latest 2-disc Blu-Ray collector edition, etc.

#146 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 06 July 2011 - 04:48 PM

And because there's a big difference between Ursula and Eva.

#147 everyman007

everyman007

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 July 2011 - 07:18 PM

I liked the beginning of the book. The Bond reboot history was interesting and as expected showed an immature Bond character. This could be developed over time to become the Bond we know and love. I thought Mr. Deaver wasted a lot of time buidling a villan, Hydt, only to have him become a side bit. I found the end around switcharoo with Felicity too trite. The writing was good and the story line was decent, but I expected a villan or organization i.e., SPECTRE that would become an ongoing foil. It will take a second book of strong character to have me convinced the reboot is a good idea. everyman007.com

#148 dogmanstar

dogmanstar

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 446 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 06 July 2011 - 09:41 PM

It was a fun read for me but the character of Bond seemed a little bland--I don't know if Deaver was trying to placate us, the fans, knowing that we'd complain if there were too many changes to the Bond universe or if he just kept on moving and was driven by plot rather than character. A little of the chauvanist Bond of Fleming would have been nice or more delving into his training/experience in Afghanistan. But as it is, I think you could pluck the Bond character out of the book and might not even notice.

#149 Jack Spang

Jack Spang

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 493 posts

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:12 PM

It was a fun read for me but the character of Bond seemed a little bland--I don't know if Deaver was trying to placate us, the fans, knowing that we'd complain if there were too many changes to the Bond universe or if he just kept on moving and was driven by plot rather than character. A little of the chauvanist Bond of Fleming would have been nice or more delving into his training/experience in Afghanistan. But as it is, I think you could pluck the Bond character out of the book and might not even notice.


Yeah, Bond almost seemed one dimensional. For me, this was the disappointing aspect of the novel. He seemed too perfect aswell. As someone else said, you never felt like Bond was ever in any real danger either.

#150 Joyce Carrington

Joyce Carrington

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4631 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Posted 07 July 2011 - 07:08 PM

Finished it today. I liked it for the most part - I certainly liked it better than Devil May Care. And I would like to see Deaver do another one. But to me personally, it wasn't great.

What I liked:
The female characters. There was effort put in to make them real, or 3D, and I really appreciated that.
The new section, ODG, etc. I like it, it felt fresh. And if Deaver does continue, he's set up a nice bunch of characters to work with.
The pacing.
Bond. Call me 'not a true fan', but I like him better when he's not being a dick. So I liked how he handled his Bond girls and appreciated his 'insecurity' about his parents, among other things.
Interesting villain in Hydt (sadly he didn't get the ending I would have hoped for).
The part where I believed
Spoiler


What I really did not like:
This is my problem with this book. And I can't find the right word for it now... Darn. Faking? Back-pedalling? I'm talking about every time we were led to believe something happened that actually didn't happen at all, or happened differently. Particularly when something bad (and therefore interesting) happened to Bond, at the end of a chapter. At the beginning of the next chapter we would find out Bond had anticipated this all along and had come up with a plan to counter it. Now, this was clever for the first couple of times. But it just kept on happening, and I started to hate it. Luckily it didn't ruin the tension for me, but that was merely because I myself was so royally stupid I kept falling for it - because I wanted things to get bad (and therefore intereesting) for Bond. But come on... this was just... not fun anymore by the end.

3 out of 5 stars.