30 replies to this topic

[Athena007]

From CBn's Main Page...

Looking Back: No Deals, Mr. Bond John Gardner's sixth James Bond novel

[Tarl_Cabot]

I started it but never finnished.I liked the title.

[Qwerty]

I never really cared for this one. A huge letdown after the terrific Nobody Lives Forever IMO.

[rogermoore007]

this was always one of my favorites because it really confused the hell out of me and it stayed that way until the end. The best Bond novels are the ones that keep you guessing in my opinion.

[Qwerty]

Perhaps with double-crosses to confuse you? The Gardner books are perfect then.

[JackLordIsFelix]

This sounds dumb, but the only thing I remember about it is the part where Bond makes his own salad dressing at Blades. It sounded like really good salad dressing;P.

[Qwerty]

LOL. Definitely don't remember that.

[Grubozaboyschikov]

Well, I guess I'll have to defend it again. Providing we have left behind the Gardner double-cross problem, are there any good features in the book yet? Yes, I'd say. It has lots of daring and noordinary twists like the GRU base in Ireland, Bond having a Russian ally (Colonel of GRU, mind you!), top KGB General coming to Ireland, Commander Bond onboard of a submarine (have you seen him there before in the books?), Bond making the salad dressing (as mentioned above), etc. Think about the year: 1987. The USSR still existed. I'm sure that the then NDMB was more daring and beyond-improbable than any of the today's Benson novels.

Edited by Grubozaboyschikov, 05 July 2005 - 05:54 AM.

[k13oharts]

Oh well, it's still a nightmare title for EON.
It could as well be the last title in the movie series.
*Heaven forbid!*

Gardner really did have a hard time naming this one.
And the publishers did not help one bit.

No Deals, Mr. Bond. You're too old to attract women!

To put it bluntly.

[zencat]

I don't understand why they didn't just call the book "Blackfriar". Okay, it's still not great..but it works with the story and it's a heck of a lot better than No Deals, Mr. Bond.

[k13oharts]

They should have stuck with "Tomorrow Always Comes".

I have a feeling though that if they did that, the title "Tomorrow Never Dies" would never have seen the light of day. And also TND would seem like a sequel.

[Grubozaboyschikov]

There seemed to be an article by Gardner where he compplains about the problem of naming his books. I definitely saw it in JPG format somewhere.

Edited by Grubozaboyschikov, 05 July 2005 - 08:21 AM.

[k13oharts]

More specifically, you can read it over at his website.
Here's the url:
http://www.john-gardner.com/bond.html

Paragraph 16.

I have always believed that the editor who begins a session with the words, "I'm not happy with the title," has nothing to say about the book. Many reviewers said that my titles were poor. Little did they know what I'd saved them from because publishers almost to a man (or woman) wanted title changes and the Americans in particular suggested the most appalling new titles: I recall such wonders as Oh No, Mr. Bond! And Bond Fights Back. Those two finally became, after many protests on my part, the dreadful No Deals Mr. Bond while my original title for Icebreaker was instantly turned down only to be picked up again a month later after turkey after turkey had to be rejected. My former agent is convinced to this day that he was responsible for Death is Forever, which was actually taken from some dialogue in a Stephen King book. I tried to explain it to him but he still claimed that he was the one. I can't think why because it isn't a very sophisticated title. Peter Janson-Smith came up with two of the titles, though by now I've forgotten which, and somewhere I have the original lengthy list of quite abominable titles suggested by publishers.

Edited by zencat, 05 July 2005 - 03:50 PM.

[Qwerty]

They should have stuck with "Tomorrow Always Comes".

Without a doubt. What were they thinking with this?

[Willowhugger]

I actually must confess that I love the title. It's SUCH A Bond villain line. I find myself actually repeating the title in day to day conversation. I love it so much.

Come on, say it with me in the biggest Russian voice you can muster "NO DEALS MR. BOND!"

Especially as a way of shutting down someone you don't like.

"No deals Mr. Bond!"

I must confess that this plot seemed more seemy than usual. A bunch of women used to seduce communists are being killed off by Smersh. Not a bad plot by itself but it doesn't seem the kind of thing Bond would really approve of (because of his chauvenism rather than in spite of it). Also, that is the dumbest title ever "Operation: Creamcake"? The Hell.

I also think that the agent being a genuine defactor was WAY out there. Why the hell would he over what amounts to a woman who doesn't even like him?

Plus, aren't you glad SMERSH is back and doing their job?

Edited by Willowhugger, 10 December 2006 - 02:09 AM.

[Gri007]

I don't understand why they didn't just call the book "Blackfriar". Okay, it's still not great..but it works with the story and it's a heck of a lot better than No Deals, Mr. Bond.

I always think that a Bond novel with Bond's name in the title is a bad move. IMO it just doesn't seem right. And Blackfriar sounds like a potential title for a Higson/Young Bond novel

[Genrewriter]

Read it for the first time in a while, not bad but it sort of loses its way in the final chapters. All of a sudden we go from an espionage piece to another rendition of "The Most Dangerous Game"? Not what I call good storytelling.

[Righty007]

Are there two different U.S. paperback covers for No Deals, Mr. Bond?

There's this Charter edition.

Half.com says there is a 1991 Berkley edition but I can't find cover art for it. Does this edition even exist or did it have the same artwork as the Charter edition?

Thanks in advance, zencat.

Edited by Righty007, 08 May 2010 - 09:56 PM.

[zencat]

Well, this is actually a touch tricky. I'm not aware of a 1991 Berkley edition. In fact, I think Charter had taken over for Berkley by then, so it's weird to even see that name on a later edition. I do have a Charter 6th edition from 1990. Cover art is basically the same, except the lettering/image is un-raised and Fleming's name is no longer on the cover. The seller could have messed up the listing. Or this could be something I don't know about. Is there an ISBN number?

Attached Files

•  No_Deals_1990.jpg   55.31KB   12 downloads

[Righty007]

Well, this is actually a touch tricky. I'm not aware of a 1991 Berkley edition. In fact, I think Charter had taken over for Berkley by then, so it's weird to even see that name on a later edition. I do have a Charter 6th edition from 1990. Cover art is basically the same, except the lettering/image is un-raised and Fleming's name is no longer on the cover. The seller could have messed up the listing. Or this could be something I don't know about. Is there an ISBN number?

Here's a link to the page on Half.com. I think it's one of those situations where the standard listing on Half.com may be a little inaccurate.

I think this 1990 edition is the answer I was looking for because I've never seen entirely different cover art for No Deals, Mr. Bond U.S. paperbacks.

[zencat]

So this edition also appears on Amazon. Maybe Charter/Berkley are the same thing. My guess is it's the edition I have above (unfortunately mine is packed away so I can't check the ISBN). Might be worth buying just to see.

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0425133532

[Righty007]

Might be worth buying just to see.

Already did. Will report back when I receive it.

EDIT: I called my sister to look at the No Deals, Mr. Bond paperback edition that I have at home. It's a Charter edition published in April 1988 WITHOUT Ian Fleming's name on the cover.

Edited by Righty007, 08 May 2010 - 09:57 PM.

[zencat]

You know what that is. That is the 1990 edition I posted here. For some reason it still has the April 1988 date on the copyright page. I noted this when I bought it. I'm guessing the 1991 is that edition with the copyright page finally updated. Glad you bought it. Have a good look and see if you can spot any major differences. If so, I'll pick one up too.

[Righty007]

You know what that is. That is the 1990 edition I posted here. For some reason it still has the April 1988 date on the copyright page. I noted this when I bought it. I\'m guessing the 1991 is that edition with the copyright page finally updated. Glad you bought it. Have a good look and see if you can spot any major differences. If so, I\'ll pick one up too.

Got it in the mail today. It's not in the best condition but luckily it's only a reading copy.

The copyright page says: Berkley edition / September 1991

The cover art looks just like the one you posted above except the top of the cover says:

THE NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER BY THE AUTHOR OF BROKENCLAW AND THE MAN FROM BARBAROSSA

This makes sense since those were the newest novels at the time.

[Righty007]

Is it just me or does No Deals, Mr. Bond have some pacing issues? This is the first Gardner I've read where multiple segments feel like a chore to read.

[OmarB]

I reread this book earlier this week and I gotta say, I think it gets better with every reading. The crosses and double crosses are pretty well planted in the text, sure they were a surprise when they happened, but going back it's all there plain as day.

Personally I think it could be a damn good movie. Think of it with DC. Pre-title sequence has him on the sub rescuing the members of Cream Cake. I would change him from a 00 to a Navy intelligence officer at that point so we can clearly see that it was years ago. Then after the titles we see Bond as a seasoned agent years later taking up the case again.

You see a good bit of London, England as a whole, Paris and Hong Kong. We have a villain turning good, a couple good people tuning bad, the end chase in the dark on the island can be punched up to ad a bit more action pretty easily. Them being followed around in HK through trains, the streets, etc could be a really tense sequence. Bond not knowing who to trust as he deals with all these people.

I know it'll never happen, but it's one of those stories I love.

[dlb007]

I agree! I actually think that most of the Gardner novels would make excellent films. A lot of people seem to hate all the double and triple crosses that occur, but I think they worked quite well.

[freemo]

Was flipping through this last night and during the Hong Kong sequence there's some (unintentional, of course) neat foreshadowing to Benson's Zero Minus Ten. That the handover is due in ten years time (this was 1987) is mentioned a couple of times, and the book ends with Bond saying something along the lines of "we'll be back (here) someday".

 

Alternative title: ZERO MINUS THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE

[Dustin]

Completely forgot about that little speck of prophecy, great find!

[Professor Pi]

I wonder if they considered the Fleming working titles The Rough with the Smooth or The Belles of Hell as titles given the Operation Cream Cake plot.  "No Deals" without mentioning Bond's name would have been preferable over the final title.  I liked this book better than Nobody Lives Forever, actually.  Heather Dare made a memorable impression on me.  Most of the rest of Gardner's titles I think are pretty good--Icebreaker, Win Lose or Die, Scorpius, Brokenclaw, Never Send Flowers, etc. though The Man from Barbarossa and COLD Fall were a bit mediocre. 

 

Don't remember Bond making a sald dressing, though I do remember him 'inventing' a computer language in Role of Honor and thought that was a load of Phu Yuck!