Posted 30 April 2004 - 07:47 AM
Can you spot any inconsistencies with the first two books? Are there any continuity horrors?
Or look at it another way: what would the Bond series lack without it?
Posted 04 May 2004 - 02:41 AM
If Moonraker wasn't in the series, well I would miss it. I think has alot to offer with a truly down to earth, one location based, and richly developed characterization and plot. It's an important part of the literary legacy.
Posted 04 May 2004 - 11:20 AM
Posted 04 May 2004 - 07:30 PM
I feel that moonraker helps develope the james bond character, it makes him seem human. This is a failing in most of the films as they can't seem to get this right, however moonraker caputures this just right and seems to find the correct balance between super spy and average joe, enabling the reader to relate with the character.
I love the information and how this book, more than certain others concentrates on James Bond alot.