82 replies to this topic

[Gothamite]

Right.

Well, I was unsure whether to buy JB:TSWLM from Amazon.

Now I feel like an idiot for hesitating.

Edited by Gothamite, 09 January 2009 - 07:36 PM.

[Gothamite]

So I finally decided to sit down and give this a read, today, after buying it on Amazon just about two years ago (see above post). I'm 52 pages in and I can safely say that I far prefer it to License Renewed.

Maybe this isn't the 'trendiest' thing to say, but I've been looking for a book that combines the macho, cut-throat deadliness and elegant descriptive prose of Fleming with the high-concept action and plots of the movies. So far, Doctor No (and arguably Thunderball) are the only novels that have provided that for me. I read License Renewed and was irritated by Gardner's doddery, happy, smiley-face Bond and his bumbling villain. Granted, I've never read any Benson, but by all accounts, the content matches what I'm looking for in theory, the execution is quite lacking.

JB:TSWLM is absolutely what I've been searching for, all these years. The Bond in this novel is sort of a pastiche, a celebration of everything I loved about the character in the Fleming books; without being that specific character in a specific period in the chronology of the original series. I love how M is frustrated and confused by Q Branch and their insistence on gadgets being used in the field, for example. It almost reads as a traditional Bond fan's frustration with Eon's repeated penchant for shoving outrageous gadgets into the films.

Thus far, the only problem I have with the book is that the opening ski escape is changed. Perhaps (or rather, probably) this matches Wood's original script more and it's certainly a lot more akin to something from an Ian Fleming novel, but I preferred the simplicity of the movie's opening. Plus, in the movie, Bond got laid.

Can't wait to finish this.

[Guy Haines]

I bought both Christopher Wood novelisations when they were released to tie in with their respective films, back in 1977 and 1979. As I recall, they came out just before the films, so by the time I saw TSWLM and MR I had a good idea what to expect on screen. I agree about Wood's writing - he certainly goes to some lengths to capture the Fleming style - a typical example being that he takes the best part of a chapter introducing his arch villain, Sigmund Stromberg, in TSWLM the novel, something Fleming did with Red Grant in FRWL and Blofeld in TB.

I can't help thinking that if the finished film scripts had a little more of Christopher Wood's input from the books, and a little less of the "great ldeas" dreamt up by the informal committee of producers and director on set, then both TSWLM and especially MR would have been even more enjoyable for me.

(On the subject of Bond novelisations, I also enjoyed the two by John Gardner for LTK and GE - there was a lot more to the LTK story in particular the way Gardner wrote it than came across in the film. As for GE the book - I was lucky enough to buy a copy of it, in the Birmingham branch of Waterstones, a good five or six weeks before the film's release. The PR build up for the film hadn't even started yet, but there the book was, on sale! Whether it had been sent to the branch too early I don't know, but I couldn't resist buying it and reading it, thereby getting confirmation of GE's worst kept secret plot twist, that 006 wasn't really dead but was in fact the arch villain of the piece.)

[David Schofield]

Gothamite and Guy Haines, I am not sure Wood's script that was delivered to the set was anything like the eventual book, though I agree there would have been the obvious bits of smart- alteration made by those who thought they knew better before the cameras were finally turned on.

If you read Wood's autobiography "James Bond, the Spy I Loved" he confirms his script was altered on set, a fact he was unhappy with, but accepted because of the great privalage of working for EON, the SSSs he was being paid and the great life he was enjoying on the payroll.

However, in that book, he claims that when he read Fleming's originals he didn't like Fleming's Bond - morally, particuarlarly - but felt he could do the scipt because he as writing for Roger Moore's comedy version, which he quite enjoyed, and therefore his Bond script was do-able. Therefore, what he handed EON, I suspect, was pretty much the Rog-romp we have on screen.

He then goes on to explain that upon being asking to novelise the film, he felt he had to revert to Fleming's Bond and try achieve Fleming's style. He does not elaborate, sadly, so the only conclusion I can draw is that Wood was VERY aware of the difference between movie Bond in 1977 and the character presented in Jonathan Cape hardbacks.

I recommend Wood's novelisations. Spy is the best continuation of them all. But his autobiog is essential reading for a Bond fan, even if you only want the snippets about the two books.

[Gothamite]

I finally finished this. Very good, although at times I kind of wished it would be closer to the movie in terms of the action sequences.

Throughout the novel it felt like I was reading a heightened, evolved Fleming. Wood was a spectacular Bond writer and I desperately wish there was more of his work to enjoy than just two novelisations. The final passage (completely different from the film) was excellent and suitably hilarious.

EDIT: After some consideration, this may actually be my favourite Bond novel, Fleming or otherwise. Simply because it takes everything I love about Bond and just celebrates it (similar to what the film does, except with the literary Bond rather than the cinematic one); rather than feeling the need to 'shake things up' as other continuation novelists have attempted in vain. Perhaps this is rather a shallow way to look at literature, but Bond is about wish-fulfillment. And this book had me wishing I was James Bond more than ever.

Edited by Gothamite, 23 January 2011 - 02:56 PM.

[David Schofield]

EDIT: After some consideration, this may actually be my favourite Bond novel, Fleming or otherwise. Simply because it takes everything I love about Bond and just celebrates it (similar to what the film does, except with the literary Bond rather than the cinematic one); rather than feeling the need to 'shake things up' as other continuation novelists have attempted in vain. Perhaps this is rather a shallow way to look at literature, but Bond is about wish-fulfillment. And this book had me wishing I was James Bond more than ever.

Well, I wouldn't agree its better than Fleming, but it's certainly better than anything OTHER than Fleming.

I think had Wood been given the continuation gig in 1981, we'd have all been happier bunnies than we became with Gardner and subsequently Benson: Wood seemed to understand Fleming's Bond with far great clarity. And as you rather cleverly say, Wood doesn't try "shake things up" as G. and B. did - and his Bond is the better for it: Gardner and Benson shifted Bond away from Fleming, and hence Fleming's Bond got lost along the way. Wood - possibly boringly - pastiched Fleming and, boy, did it work better than the others have achieved. v

[Mr. Blofeld]

Anyone else wish IFP or someone would re-release this book, preferably in a Fahey-style edition?

[Gothamite]

EDIT: After some consideration, this may actually be my favourite Bond novel, Fleming or otherwise. Simply because it takes everything I love about Bond and just celebrates it (similar to what the film does, except with the literary Bond rather than the cinematic one); rather than feeling the need to 'shake things up' as other continuation novelists have attempted in vain. Perhaps this is rather a shallow way to look at literature, but Bond is about wish-fulfillment. And this book had me wishing I was James Bond more than ever.

Well, I wouldn't agree its better than Fleming, but it's certainly better than anything OTHER than Fleming.

I think had Wood been given the continuation gig in 1981, we'd have all been happier bunnies than we became with Gardner and subsequently Benson: Wood seemed to understand Fleming's Bond with far great clarity. And as you rather cleverly say, Wood doesn't try "shake things up" as G. and B. did - and his Bond is the better for it: Gardner and Benson shifted Bond away from Fleming, and hence Fleming's Bond got lost along the way. Wood - possibly boringly - pastiched Fleming and, boy, did it work better than the others have achieved. v

I never said it was 'better', it just combines and borrows a lot of the elements of particular Fleming books that I enjoyed and places them in one neat narrative. It's a "Greatest Hits" book, just as the film it was based on was for the film series.

[David Schofield]

EDIT: After some consideration, this may actually be my favourite Bond novel, Fleming or otherwise. Simply because it takes everything I love about Bond and just celebrates it (similar to what the film does, except with the literary Bond rather than the cinematic one); rather than feeling the need to 'shake things up' as other continuation novelists have attempted in vain. Perhaps this is rather a shallow way to look at literature, but Bond is about wish-fulfillment. And this book had me wishing I was James Bond more than ever.

Well, I wouldn't agree its better than Fleming, but it's certainly better than anything OTHER than Fleming.

I think had Wood been given the continuation gig in 1981, we'd have all been happier bunnies than we became with Gardner and subsequently Benson: Wood seemed to understand Fleming's Bond with far great clarity. And as you rather cleverly say, Wood doesn't try "shake things up" as G. and B. did - and his Bond is the better for it: Gardner and Benson shifted Bond away from Fleming, and hence Fleming's Bond got lost along the way. Wood - possibly boringly - pastiched Fleming and, boy, did it work better than the others have achieved. v

I never said it was 'better', it just combines and borrows a lot of the elements of particular Fleming books that I enjoyed and places them in one neat narrative. It's a "Greatest Hits" book, just as the film it was based on was for the film series.

I'm sorry, your comment that it "may actually be my favourite Bond novel, Fleming or otherwise", had me fooled that your believed it "better"....

[Loomis]

I finally got ahold of this in an old, used bookstore (as well as picking up countless Signet paperbacks of the Fleming novels and a 1st US Edition of TMWTGG with cover intact for all of $3.25).

But I've been reading it. This novelization is superb. It's not what you'd expect - it's far more than that. This novelization is as good as post-Fleming Bond writing gets. The character's down pat, the characters are great and well fleshed-out, and the prose is delightfully detailed.

If you can find this, get ahold of it. It puts the Gardner and Benson novels to shame and is worth of standing alongside the Fleming novels!

Well, I'm only a few pages into this book, so I guess it's premature for me to make any comment, but what the heck - I couldn't agree more, Harms!

After years of reading about Wood's TSWLM being the best of the continuation novels and up there with Fleming, I finally decided to spring for a copy, and was fortunate enough to receive a "used" copy from Amazon for a few pounds that has certainly never been read and seems to be in mint condition. It's bizarre to see a paperback that's nearly as old as I am looking as though it's just come off the printing press. But enough about the excellent condition - what about the content?

Well, right from the first page I was almost convinced that I was reading Fleming. It puts Sebastian Faulks' so-called exercise in "writing as Ian Fleming" to shame. Other than COLONEL SUN, this is the only continuation novel (although I guess it's more accurate to call it a novelization) I've ever picked up that feels like the real deal.

As I say, I'm only a few pages in, but so far Wood has blown me away.

[David Schofield]

I finally got ahold of this in an old, used bookstore (as well as picking up countless Signet paperbacks of the Fleming novels and a 1st US Edition of TMWTGG with cover intact for all of $3.25).

But I've been reading it. This novelization is superb. It's not what you'd expect - it's far more than that. This novelization is as good as post-Fleming Bond writing gets. The character's down pat, the characters are great and well fleshed-out, and the prose is delightfully detailed.

If you can find this, get ahold of it. It puts the Gardner and Benson novels to shame and is worth of standing alongside the Fleming novels!

Well, I'm only a few pages into this book, so I guess it's premature for me to make any comment, but what the heck - I couldn't agree more, Harms!

After years of reading about Wood's TSWLM being the best of the continuation novels and up there with Fleming, I finally decided to spring for a copy, and was fortunate enough to receive a "used" copy from Amazon for a few pounds that has certainly never been read and seems to be in mint condition. It's bizarre to see a paperback that's nearly as old as I am looking as though it's just come off the printing press. But enough about the excellent condition - what about the content?

Well, right from the first page I was almost convinced that I was reading Fleming. It puts Sebastian Faulks' so-called exercise in "writing as Ian Fleming" to shame. Other than COLONEL SUN, this is the only continuation novel (although I guess it's more accurate to call it a novelization) I've ever picked up that feels like the real deal.

As I say, I'm only a few pages in, but so far Wood has blown me away.

As I've said through this thread and others on the book, Wood's Spy IS the best continuation of the lot by far. Why, in 1981,
Glidrose looked at Gardner when they had Wood available and seen his ability is beyond belief.

I'm sure your early enthusiasm won't be dampened as you progress, and your views of the film, with the major differences in the novel Wood introduces, might well change also...

[Loomis]

As I've said through this thread and others on the book, Wood's Spy IS the best continuation of the lot by far.

I'm already 99.9% sure you're right, David. Give me a couple more pages and I'm confident I'll be 100%.

I can already see that JAMES BOND, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is more Flemingian than COLONEL SUN.

If only Wood had also novelized THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.... I'd be in Double-O Seven Heaven!

[David Schofield]

I can already see that JAMES BOND, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is more Flemingian than COLONEL SUN.

Based on your views on things "Flemingian" in the forthcoming CARTE BLANCHE you and I hve debated on other threads, is this a good thing here in Wood's book, in your opinion?

[Loomis]

I can already see that JAMES BOND, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is more Flemingian than COLONEL SUN.

Based on your views on things "Flemingian" in the forthcoming CARTE BLANCHE you and I hve debated on other threads, is this a good thing here in Wood's book, in your opinion?

It's a great thing. Obviously.

The difference is that (and with no disrespect intended towards Deaver) I doubt that Deaver could be truly Flemingian even if he tried (heck, Faulks - allegedly - tried, and fell so far short of the mark it isn't even funny).

So I'd far rather Deaver went his own way and gave us his own, all-new 007 for these politically correct times. It would, at the very least, be something fresh and therefore interesting.

Consider the following line from JAMES BOND, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME: "She had, Bond supposed, a typically French face. A dark gypsy sluttishness tamed into sophistication." Very Flemingian, you'll agree, but it's impossible to imagine the contemporary 007 having such a reaction to a woman from one of our partner countries in the European Union. Frankly, it wouldn't be, well, allowed. I can picture today's literary 007 being more like Nick Clegg with a gun.

[The Shark]

Consider the following line from JAMES BOND, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME: "She had, Bond supposed, a typically French face. A dark gypsy sluttishness tamed into sophistication." Very Flemingian, you'll agree, but it's impossible to imagine the contemporary 007 having such a reaction to a woman from one of our partner countries in the European Union. Frankly, it wouldn't be, well, allowed. I can picture today's literary 007 being more like Nick Clegg with a gun.

Sad but true. He lives not in Chelsea, but in Pimlico. His morning routine consists of Weetabix, Pilates and scan reading his copy of The Guardian.

[David Schofield]

I can picture today's literary 007 being more like Nick Clegg with a gun.

Christ. You don't know what effect you've just had a my expectation of both CARTE BLANCHE and Nick Clegg.

I will cherish both these views of James Bond 2011 and the implications for British politics.

But you are probably spot on. And doesn't old "20 or 30 odd, I've lost count Nick" have a Pakistanianian maid servant, too...

[Loomis]

Well, I've so far read up to the visit to Max Kalba's club. What's most striking about JAMES BOND, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is that one of the most outlandish of the Eon films has somehow been turned into one of the grittiest and grisliest of the novels. I certainly never expected that torture scene! Wood gives us a colder, darker and more haunted James Bond than I think I've encountered anywhere else (with the possible exception of Jim's JUST ANOTHER KILL).

A fascinating read.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Haven't read it... but have been told by a reliable source that Wood, like the notorious Jim Hatfield, cribbed numerous descriptive phrases from Fleming... so...

[Loomis]

Well, to be fair, that is true. I did wince a bit reading things like "Bond looked at M's lined sailor's face" in TSWLM, but I can forgive Wood the odd obvious Fleming steal.

In any case, TSWLM is an infinitely superior book to Hatfield's THE KILLING ZONE, which is an utterly unreadable piece of trash with no redeeming features whatsoever.

It may well be that, once I've finished TSWLM and my excitement has died down a little, I won't view it as the best continuation, but I'll be amazed if it ends up slipping out of my personal top three.

No, it probably isn't perfect, but so far it strikes me as being damn near as good as a Bond continuation novel has ever been, as well as by far the best of the novelizations.

[David Schofield]

Haven't read it... but have been told by a reliable source that Wood, like the notorious Jim Hatfield, cribbed numerous descriptive phrases from Fleming... so...

Blowers, perhaps you should just read it and decide for yourself rather than rely on unreliable sources?

[RufusCobb]

I enjoyed reading both of those novelisations when they were first released, (so I'm a bit hazy on the details now, but yes the torture scene was a shock - if you'll pardon the pun). If you enjoy them, I can heartily recommend "James Bond, The Spy I Loved" by Christopher Wood. It covers the period of his involvement in the writing and production of the films.

[Loomis]

If you enjoy them, I can heartily recommend "James Bond, The Spy I Loved" by Christopher Wood.

Might have to get that. I've heard it's good.

Reading TSWLM, it's interesting to note the differences between the film and the book. I'm somewhat surprised that the bit where Bond visits his wealthy Arab friend ("We don't only have oil, you know") isn't in the novelization, and it's curious that Stromberg's Christian name in the film is Karl, whereas in the novelization it's Sigmund.

David, what are your views on Wood's MOONRAKER?

[David Schofield]

David, what are your views on Wood's MOONRAKER?

You still get the same quality and feel for Fleming in Wood's writing in MOONRAKER, but apart from the major changes to the PTS in the novel and one or two alterations later on, the book is, sadly, far more of a mere retread of the film script (which most novelizations are intended to be, of course).

With THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, Wood neutralises a lot of the film's absurdities (where he can, naturally) and these will become evident as you progress through the novel, and brings in many Fleming influences. In MOONRAKER, Wood gives a lot less attention to this; he makes no attempt to address the "coincidence" of the names Hugo Drax and the title of the project, Moonraker, having already appeared in Bond's world. In his SPY, Wood squarely sits his story in Fleming's world with the FRWL references you will come across.

Clearly, much originality, and the good fortune for SPY sitting neatly in Fleming's world, has to do with the fact that the movie script has nothing to do with the Fleming novel of that name, whereas Moonraker at least borrows the Drax and Moonraker names; would it have been feasible for Wood to have published the novelisation of the 1979 James Bond film and at the same time changed its title, the name therefore of the space shuttle project, and its main protagonist? I guess not.

But if you can forgive these issues, it is a damn fine novel, helped a long by Wood's quality writing and real feel for Fleming. Wood's style and feel for Bond, at least, give the book an edge over all the other contunuation novelists, with perhaps the exception of Amis and Pearson (both Fleming 'types', as Wood would appear to be after reading his autobiog). The novel does improve on the film, and the novel's version of the PTS is classic Fleming Bond with not a raised ginger eyebrow, polo neck, blazer nor flared flannels in sight.

But if Fleming hadn't written his Moonraker and decided to put James Bond into space in 1979, the novel he'd have written wouldn't have been that vastly different from Wood's book, if you'd like to look at it that way. And I can't give Wood any higher a compliment.

You'll certainly enjoy it after SPY.

[Loomis]

With THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, Wood neutralises a lot of the film's absurdities (where he can, naturally) and these will become evident as you progress through the novel, and brings in many Fleming influences. ... Clearly, much originality, and the good fortune for SPY sitting neatly in Fleming's world, has to do with the fact that the movie script has nothing to do with the Fleming novel of that name

Indeed. It almost reads as though the film TSWLM was adapted from Wood's book (with enhanced absurdity) and not the other way round.

Thanks for the MOONRAKER info. Re: Pearson, I guess I should give THE AUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY a re-read. I've only read it once, when it came out in paperback a couple of years ago, but while I found it well-written and quite amusing in places I confess that I hated all the post-modern stuff with Fleming as a character. Still, it sure beats something like HIGH TIME TO KILL.

[Safari Suit]

Haven't read it... but have been told by a reliable source that Wood, like the notorious Jim Hatfield, cribbed numerous descriptive phrases from Fleming... so...

But isn't a novelisation by it's very nature going to be a bit, er, crib-y? I don't think it's significantly worse than EON using bits of Fleming's Live and Let Die (for example) in films where it wasn't directly credited.

[chrisno1]

With THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, Wood neutralises a lot of the film's absurdities (where he can, naturally) and these will become evident as you progress through the novel, and brings in many Fleming influences. ... Clearly, much originality, and the good fortune for SPY sitting neatly in Fleming's world, has to do with the fact that the movie script has nothing to do with the Fleming novel of that name

Indeed. It almost reads as though the film TSWLM was adapted from Wood's book (with enhanced absurdity) and not the other way round.

Thanks for the MOONRAKER info. Re: Pearson, I guess I should give THE AUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY a re-read. I've only read it once, when it came out in paperback a couple of years ago, but while I found it well-written and quite amusing in places I confess that I hated all the post-modern stuff with Fleming as a character. Still, it sure beats something like HIGH TIME TO KILL.

I haven't read Wood's autobiographical take on his two 007 adventures, but as I understand it he's at pains to talk about 'making movies by committee' where by even a shooting script wasn't considered the finished article if a better stunt could be organised.
I also understood the novel is based on Wood's phase 1 draft - taking some of Maibaum's original screenplay and working in ideas provided by the production team - see what i mean about committees? The exclusion of Naomi always surprised me, as does the inclusion of a very gory death for Sandor (unnamed in the novel). The torture scene is very good, but i'm glad it isn't in the film. having said that, the alternative is a very lame fistfight. The best fight in the movie (the one on the train) is quite rightly excluded from the novel as it doesn't really serve any purpose. In Wood's original scenario, Bond and Anya's relationship is chaste.
I like JB,TSWLM. It is certainly the best novelisation. JB&MR is very slight in comparison and relies on Wood's trademark schoolboy smut to succeed, which most of the time it doesn't. Having said that, his PTS is far better than the one we have on film.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Blowers, perhaps you should just read it and decide for yourself rather than rely on unreliable sources?

My dear fellow, I would not consider this man an unreliable source.

...and, look at your peril.

[David Schofield]

Blowers, perhaps you should just read it and decide for yourself rather than rely on unreliable sources?

My dear fellow, I would not consider this man an unreliable source.

...and, look at your peril.

Haven't a clue who he is. Nor why his opinion should have any unusually major validity. Nor why you hold this person in particular awe.

Besides, it is purely his opinion. What I was suggesting is that you simply read and decide for your self, rather than have your opinions set by others.

[Jack Spang]

I have a question to ask, directed at anyone who has read Christopher Wood's TSWLM and Moonraker. I only found out about these books in 2006 and I can't believe I only ordered them from Amazon a few weeks ago. Still, better late than never. I plan to read them when I have finished Carte Blanche. My question is, is there much continuity in Moonraker? It's just that I usually like to read a series of books in chronological order even if in this case Wood only wrote two Bond books. However, people have raved about TSWLM saying it's up there with Pearson's biography of Bond which I love and have read 4 or 5 times. In terms of MR however, the general enthusiasm seems to be less so. Therefore, I feel like leaving the best for last and reading the latter first. Is there much continuity (I suspect not)? Should they be read in order? The thing is even if there are only one or two small references in MR to TSWLM then I still feel like they should be read in order.

"I think Woods Spy is excellent. In fact, I think it could be put over Amis. I'm not sure why Colonel Sun is instantly considered the best of all the continuations novels. Have you read it lately? It's good...but I'm not sure it's the Best. Woods Spy, Blood Fever, Pearson's Bio, even License Renewed I think are worth considering over CS."

I agree, though I can't comment on Woods's TSWLM as I haven't read it yet. I would add Gardner's For Special Services to that list too. I think CS is a little on the dull side in parts. Amis is a good writer but I think his writing style suits dramas more than thrillers not unlike Faulks. Amis did however do a much better job with CS than Faulks did with DMC.

Edited by Jack Spang, 07 June 2011 - 01:46 AM.

[Dustin]

It's a bit ago since I last read them both, so I'm not a hundred per cent sure. But I don't remember any reference to TSWLM in MR. Beyond the obvious fact that Bond knows Jaws from that adventure and is of course surprised to see that killer alive.

Edited by Dustin, 07 June 2011 - 05:05 AM.