21 replies to this topic

[glidrose]

Self-explanatory thread title. You may give reasons, but they're not essential. Nothing is these days. Oh dear, I sound a bit like Jim.

I pick FRWL, DN and TB. Get in there, TLD, you belong there too. May toss in FYEO (story, not the collection).

Edited by glidrose, 07 February 2012 - 01:51 AM.

[Bryce (003)]

Well, for my two pence.

"overrated" is sort of the 'eye of the beholder' - I think the novels and stories all hold something different to all. Sure I have my favorites, but I guess it comes down to what you like. I've never suggested that any of them are a must read but suggest that that you try whatever title grabs you. If you should, I'll offer an opinion on it without any spoilers. OHMSS is a very rich book in all aspects, LALD is a great slice of 50's Americana, FRWL is a gem in that it was the bridge between the films and novels inasmuch they were very much of the same era and took place within a few years of each other.

My Dad bought me Moonraker for our first trip to London with the film looming in '79. I enjoyed both the book and film and smiled at M's reference to playing bridge with Drax in the latter. I recall saying to my Mom that I wished they had done the bridge scene. CR proved you can make a card game interesting.

I guess I just took the books for what they were especially after I had them all and made a point to read them in order. My extra treat that spring of *gulp* 1980 was that I had picked up a copy of Colonel Sun. Also, I heard FYEO was in the works and that Gardner was picking up the pen to "bring Bond into the 80's".

So, as to rating or over rating Bond, I guess I just never took any of the hype from others.

[Dustin]

I'm going to play devil's advocate and pick one of my personal favourites, MOONRAKER. For some reason I recently took a closer and less forgiving look at this and was astonished at how many incredibly gigantic holes the story has. At the same time it's a testament to how awfully good Fleming's writing could get, being able to tell and sell a tale of such monstrous absurdity. The many many inconsistencies of this book in relation to its popularity with fans (me included) make it seem like the ideal candidate for "overrated" in Fleming's oeuvre.

As for the short stories, I don't feel any of those is overrated as such; not much anyway. Even the weaker ones offer an intriguing glimpse into Bond's world. If I absolutely had to pick one 007 IN NEW YORK probably would have to take the blame. It's become quite often mentioned recently, beyond its own importance for Bond and as a piece of literature. The idea EON absolutely must use every remaining Fleming title probably lead to that. Here overrated seems to fit the bill.

[SecretAgentFan]

Most overrated... hmm, I like them all. Sorry.

[Major Tallon]

I also like them all, but if forced to choose, I'd agree with Dustin and strongly disagree with glidrose, who has picked a bunch of my favorites!

[Miles Miservy]

I found THE HILDEBRAND RARITY to be stuffy & tedious. It was more of a memoir than a short story & moved with the speed of a glacier.

[lechero]

I have to say I didn't really care for most of Dr. No the first time around.

[Revelator]

The proper answer would be none, because Ian Fleming is still a criminally underrated writer. That said, Goldfinger is one of the most famous of the novels, and was even selected by Anthony Burgess as one of the 50 best novels in English published after 1939. But it's one of the few Bond books that's inferior to the movie.

[Dustin]

I agree that Fleming as a writer in general is quite underrated. But I think he had a weak spot that impaired on his oeuvre.

Some time last year I picked up Simon Winder's THE MAN WHO SAVED BRITAIN. It's a bit of a winding essay about Bond, Britain's society and politics and their correlation, all that interwoven with Fleming's persona and life. Consequently Winder also has to say the odd thing about Fleming's standard working routine:

"Fleming's first Bond novel, CASINO ROYALE, was written in 1952 and published in 1953 and the novels then came out at roughly year-long intervals. Indeed one of the points against Fleming is his mechanical approach to his own work - even down to length. DOCTOR NO for example is set up beautifully, with a compelling expressionist villain and lair and an incomparable picture of aspects of the West Indies, but all this elaboration comes to nothing as the story is hastily ended in rubbishy battles with giant squids and anaemic, under-realized rationales for No's wickedness. No's death, suffocated under tons of guano, provokes applause, but there is no way round the fact that Fleming simply has reached his word-limit and can't be bothered to go on. The pileof typed paper is nearly the right height - time for a big drink.

This style of output is a bit dismaying, as are almost all the books' uneven quality: if Fleming hit a dull patch he tended to keep plugging along rather than going back to fix it."

This part of Winder's book illustrates why I haven't come further than page 80 as yet, and it will not surprise you to learn that I don't agree with many of Winder's assessments. Nonetheless I suspect he actually may have a point here, especially the last sentence. Fleming did work by a certain schedule, and Fleming himself went to record as never looking back, lest he couldn't push on with his tale.

And on balance this may have been a mistake.

Take your example of GOLDFINGER here. The novel has numerous gaping holes in the fabric of its tale, and the various coincidences (Dupont spotting Bond, Bond getting the assignment to investigate Goldfinger's supposed method of smuggling - and hitting paydirt right away! - Bond then running into the sister of the dead girl) and inconsistencies (Goldfinger keeping both of them, even letting them work for his outfit) can spoil the fun of the whole book.

Here I think Fleming could have worked on getting a better result. If he just had invested more time into plotting and rewriting. If he had looked back and fixed the tricky parts.

Much the same can be said for MOONRAKER. This most captivating story with a brilliant villain, a surrealistic lair, one giant steele 'gunbarrel' complete with projectile, and a number of the best scenes in the whole series (bridge, Bentley-Mercedes chase, blowtorch, steam hose, shower-countdown) sadly also suffers from numerous terrible plotholes. Here the combined forces of MI5 and Secret Service miss not just one Nazi war criminal, they let a whole team of them work away on a prototype rocket right under their noses. Consequently, the term 'vetting' never is mentioned in Fleming's books. Still, this is entirely beyond belief and can't really withstand the light of day. Only conclusion here would be that numerous high-profile figures in the security services and the government are in on the plan and actively support its advance.

And the Russians hardly fare much better. If the Soviet Army (as suggested in FRWL) provided the means to this lunatic venture, why ever aren't they prepared to move right after Britain is decapitated? Surely the only gain of such a plot would have been a fast and relentless dash across Germany (in retaliation for the attack on a WW II ally) and further across Western Europe? Nothing hints to any moves of the Russians after Drax's attack. As if they didn't know of it.

Finally Drax himself seems a bit fixated on his V² weapon. When the Russians deliver the atomic warhead the logic move would have been to load it into the Mercedes (or a lorry provided by the War Ministry) and just stash it way in the flat in Ebury Street. And let it detonate right there on the spot. But that would have made all the effort with Columbite and the Moonraker and the site near Dover completely redundant.

I believe some of these problems could have been dealt with if the effort had been made. Personally I don't much care either way, I enjoy my GOLDFINGER and MOONRAKER just as well in their present form. But Fleming leaves himself unnecessarily open to critque where he could have avoided it.

Edited by Dustin, 07 February 2012 - 08:07 PM.

[Revelator]

Well, I think everyone agrees that plotting was never a strong suit of the Bond novels, and almost all of them are weak in that area. But Winder--whose condescending book received a massively overrated critical response--is almost wholly misguided. Lots of authors, god and bad, work by clockwork mechanical schedules--probably because writing requires discipline and routine. Winder's complaints about Dr. No are piffling (and I don't trust his attention span). The awesome giant squid battle (and the torture obstacle course that precedes it) are examples of Fleming writing at his best, with a sensual immediacy that induces vicarious physical pain and terror in the armchair-seated reader. And who would call Dr. No's rationales for his wickedness--his rip-snorting tale about randy German missionaries, Tong warfare, hearts on the wrong side of the body, and so on--anemic and under-realized? It's Fleming at his most imaginative. Pace and bizarre imagination are Fleming's great strengths, and they're directly tied to his working method--to how he sat down and wrote whatever was in his head each day without looking back. It gives his books the vividness, force and drive of dreams, and Fleming was always better at dream logic than plot logic. I agree with you that many of the plot deficiencies would have been solved by extensive rewrites. But I get the feeling that once Fleming had dreamed one book onto paper, he was creatively done with it (in the way that one cannot will a past dream into being). Had he been a more plot-minded writer, he might have been a less imaginative one.

I think the film of Goldfinger is better than the book not so much for plot but because it one-ups the imagination of the book. Instead of a buzz-saw, a laser. A more-tricked Aston Martin. Bond and Goldfinger getting inside Fort Knox instead of halting just outside of it. Goldfinger's death by strangulation being replaced by Oddjob's original death of getting sucked out the plane window, with Oddjob getting an ingenious and spectacular new death. Less of the dull Tilly and more of Pussy. All instances of Fleming's imagination being amplified.

Edited by Revelator, 07 February 2012 - 10:35 PM.

[glidrose]

Heresey. Goldfinger and The Hildebrand Rarity are among my two top picks.

Miles Miservy, on 07 February 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

I found THE HILDEBRAND RARITY to be stuffy & tedious. It was more of a memoir than a short story & moved with the speed of a glacier.

Revelator, on 07 February 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

The proper answer would be none, because Ian Fleming is still a criminally underrated writer. That said, Goldfinger is one of the most famous of the novels, and was even selected by Anthony Burgess as one of the 50 best novels in English published after 1939. But it's one of the few Bond books that's inferior to the movie.

Bryce (003), on 07 February 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

Well, for my two pence.

"overrated" is sort of the 'eye of the beholder'.

No kidding.

Bryce (003), on 07 February 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

I think the novels and stories all hold something different to all. Sure I have my favorites, but I guess it comes down to what you like. I've never suggested that any of them are a must read but suggest that that you try whatever title grabs you. If you should, I'll offer an opinion on it without any spoilers.

<long snip where you misunderstand this thread and list your favorite Fleming books>

So, as to rating or over rating Bond, I guess I just never took any of the hype from others.

Betcha I wouldn't have gotten this reply if I'd asked one and all to name Bond films they deem overrated.

Edited by glidrose, 08 February 2012 - 01:39 AM.

[Bryce (003)]

glidrose, on 08 February 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

<long snip where you misunderstand this thread and list your favorite Fleming books>

No. I understood it. I chose to respond as I did. Nobody ever hyped a Bond novel to me but I found the question curious. Take it or leave it.

[Dustin]

Revelator, on 07 February 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Well, I think everyone agrees that plotting was never a strong suit of the Bond novels, and almost all of them are weak in that area. But Winder--whose condescending book received a massively overrated critical response--is almost wholly misguided. Lots of authors, god and bad, work by clockwork mechanical schedules--probably because writing requires discipline and routine. Winder's complaints about Dr. No are piffling (and I don't trust his attention span). The awesome giant squid battle (and the torture obstacle course that precedes it) are examples of Fleming writing at his best, with a sensual immediacy that induces vicarious physical pain and terror in the armchair-seated reader. And who would call Dr. No's rationales for his wickedness--his rip-snorting tale about randy German missionaries, Tong warfare, hearts on the wrong side of the body, and so on--anemic and under-realized? It's Fleming at his most imaginative.

Just my thoughts. I was actually a bit surprised to find the Winder book so lauded, when in the 80 pages that I've read so far there is little indication of him understanding the nature of Fleming's appeal to most readers (IMO, of course). I'm willing to believe he enjoyed the read, but it's a bit of an effort to do so. It may be that his understanding of the books differs widely from my own - perfectly ok - but I also suspect the fun he's getting from them stems from entirely different elements. How one can feel DOCTOR NO was a lacking and/or middling effort is beyond me. It's the most escapist, closest-to-comic entry and surely does have a few problems. But none of them are addressed by Winder; and those points he does bring up are either petty or intentionally misread the work. DOCTOR NO isn't BRIDESHEAD REVISITED and never was intended to be.

Revelator, on 07 February 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Pace and bizarre imagination are Fleming's great strengths, and they're directly tied to his working method--to how he sat down and wrote whatever was in his head each day without looking back. It gives his books the vividness, force and drive of dreams, and Fleming was always better at dream logic than plot logic. I agree with you that many of the plot deficiencies would have been solved by extensive rewrites. But I get the feeling that once Fleming had dreamed one book onto paper, he was creatively done with it (in the way that one cannot will a past dream into being). Had he been a more plot-minded writer, he might have been a less imaginative one.

Very sound explanation. I suppose Fleming's subconscious did a lot of the plotting for him, the whole year around and wherever he found noteworthy material, curio and anecdotes. When the actual work on his next novel began he probably simply tapped this reservoir and didn't much directing any more beyond the odd specifics. The truly magnificent thing is that all the improbabilities, the utter ludicrousness and the open fantasy approach blends so perfectly within the tale. After we put down a book we may find some scenes - at times whole plots even - incredibly laughable. But within its own system of reason and logic the books always do work. There are snares and traps aplenty, yet Fleming maneuvres the whole ship with dreamlike assurence and never let's us drown in the sea of doubt we are sailing with him at the helm.

[Major Tallon]

This has been an excellent discussion. I've printed out copies of Dustin and Revelator's observations and placed them at the appropriate place in my copy of Winder's book. I found the spot easily. It's where I'd frothed all over the page.

[Messervy]

OK, this is the part where I get crucified!
To me, YOLT is... er... how should I put it mildly? Crap. The first half is Bond/Fleming vomiting on Japan, the second half is a LSD-induced trip into WTF-land. Really, nothing remotely bondian, interesting or enjoyable there. Even the plot is nonexistent.

[Mharkin]

I haven't read the novel yet, but I think it's safe to say that it will be a lot better than the film.

[Revelator]

Messervy, on 10 February 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

OK, this is the part where I get crucified! To me, YOLT is... er... how should I put it mildly? Crap. The first half is Bond/Fleming vomiting on Japan, the second half is a LSD-induced trip into WTF-land. Really, nothing remotely bondian, interesting or enjoyable there. Even the plot is nonexistent.

I got the feeling that Bond was quite entranced with Japan in the first half. (He certainly likes the Japanese more than the Koreans!) The second half is reminsicent of Dr. No, with Bond traveling into the isolated, death-trapped realm of an evil madman, and the Garden of Death is very Flemingian in its grotesqueness. And there's certainly something Bondian in 007 getting revenge against Blofeld for the death of Tracy. The rest of the novel lives up to his name--Bond dies, is reborn, and truly lives twice.

[Chief of SIS]

Revelator, on 10 February 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Messervy, on 10 February 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

OK, this is the part where I get crucified! To me, YOLT is... er... how should I put it mildly? Crap. The first half is Bond/Fleming vomiting on Japan, the second half is a LSD-induced trip into WTF-land. Really, nothing remotely bondian, interesting or enjoyable there. Even the plot is nonexistent.

I got the feeling that Bond was quite entranced with Japan in the first half. (He certainly likes the Japanese more than the Koreans!) The second half is reminsicent of Dr. No, with Bond traveling into the isolated, death-trapped realm of an evil madman, and the Garden of Death is very Flemingian in its grotesqueness. And there's certainly something Bondian in 007 getting revenge against Blofeld for the death of Tracy. The rest of the novel lives up to his name--Bond dies, is reborn, and truly lives twice.

Gosh, I'm going through YOLT again and it's truly a slog. The worst part is I feel obligated because I just read TB and OHMSS. I suspect my adverseness to it comes from never experiencing Japanese culture, especially culture post WWII. Fleming's descriptions, while vivid in the novel, are at times difficult to swallow. Tanaka's passion for Japan and his constant insistence on comparing West and East is actually quite annoying to the reader. Instead of immersing like Fleming does so well, I feel like half the time Fleming is using Tanaka to remind me that I'm in some new foreign land. I feel it often belittles Bond and the reader. It's going to be hard to finish.

[The Shark]

It get a lot better. Trust me.

[Chief of SIS]

It's my second time through. While it's been a few years, I do recall it getting immensely better. However, I am always frustrated that I have to get through so much material to get to the "better" part. I have that issue with all books.


I'm looking at you Harry Potter.

[glidrose]

Chief of SIS, on 09 May 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Revelator, on 10 February 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Messervy, on 10 February 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

OK, this is the part where I get crucified! To me, YOLT is... er... how should I put it mildly? Crap. The first half is Bond/Fleming vomiting on Japan, the second half is a LSD-induced trip into WTF-land. Really, nothing remotely bondian, interesting or enjoyable there. Even the plot is nonexistent.

I got the feeling that Bond was quite entranced with Japan in the first half. (He certainly likes the Japanese more than the Koreans!) The second half is reminsicent of Dr. No, with Bond traveling into the isolated, death-trapped realm of an evil madman, and the Garden of Death is very Flemingian in its grotesqueness. And there's certainly something Bondian in 007 getting revenge against Blofeld for the death of Tracy. The rest of the novel lives up to his name--Bond dies, is reborn, and truly lives twice.

Gosh, I'm going through YOLT again and it's truly a slog. The worst part is I feel obligated because I just read TB and OHMSS. I suspect my adverseness to it comes from never experiencing Japanese culture, especially culture post WWII. Fleming's descriptions, while vivid in the novel, are at times difficult to swallow. Tanaka's passion for Japan and his constant insistence on comparing West and East is actually quite annoying to the reader. Instead of immersing like Fleming does so well, I feel like half the time Fleming is using Tanaka to remind me that I'm in some new foreign land. I feel it often belittles Bond and the reader. It's going to be hard to finish.

I think the Tanaka chapters are - bar that brilliant final chapter - the best part of the book. Certainly the most readable. Oddly, I find the set-up and home stretch draggy.

[Peckinpah1976]

Revelator, on 07 February 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

The proper answer would be none, because Ian Fleming is still a criminally underrated writer. That said, Goldfinger is one of the most famous of the novels, and was even selected by Anthony Burgess as one of the 50 best novels in English published after 1939. But it's one of the few Bond books that's inferior to the movie.

Beyond Burgess it's not particularly 'rated' though, let let alone 'overrated' so...

Having said that the opening chapter with a bitterly reflective Bond at Miami Airport is among the best things Fleming wrote IMO and neatly sums up everything I love about him as a writer as well as underlining what the films have often (but not always) lacked.