17 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

Just finished this one. Ho-hum, another Gardner trip through Dullsville. The story never really took off, too many double-crosses (as usual), and a rather mundane and decidedly un-exotic main location, Ireland. It did threaten to perk up a bit towards the end when the action shifts to Hong Kong, but the book I'd read prior to this one was Zero Minus Ten, and Benson's descriptions of Hong Kong are richer and more evocative IMHO. I liked the last few chapters where Bond is hunted and the villain gives him a sporting chance to win, but this was too little too late really, after all the Gardner business-as-usual non-action in the cold damp backwaters of Ireland. And Cream Cake is just a silly, Austin Powers type name for an operation

So my Gardner tally is now :

Yay : Licence Renewed, For Special Services, Nobody Lives Forever, Scorpius
Nay : Icebreaker, Role of Honor, No Deals Mr.Bond, The Man from Barbarossa

So how do the six other Gardner books I haven't read stack up? Are they all the same old thing?

[Jim]

Just finished this one. Ho-hum, another Gardner trip through Dullsville. The story never really took off, too many double-crosses (as usual), and a rather mundane and decidedly un-exotic main location, Ireland. It did threaten to perk up a bit towards the end when the action shifts to Hong Kong, but the book I'd read prior to this one was Zero Minus Ten, and Benson's descriptions of Hong Kong are richer and more evocative IMHO. I liked the last few chapters where Bond is hunted and the villain gives him a sporting chance to win, but this was too little too late really, after all the Gardner business-as-usual non-action in the cold damp backwaters of Ireland. And Cream Cake is just a silly, Austin Powers type name for an operation

So my Gardner tally is now :

Yay : Licence Renewed, For Special Services, Nobody Lives Forever, Scorpius
Nay : Icebreaker, Role of Honor, No Deals Mr.Bond, The Man from Barbarossa

So how do the six other Gardner books I haven't read stack up? Are they all the same old thing?

The remainder are more nay than yay. You've read the ones worth reading.

I would agree that he didn't do Ireland justice.

[Qwerty]

Yay : Licence Renewed, For Special Services, Nobody Lives Forever, Scorpius
Nay : Icebreaker, Role of Honor, No Deals Mr.Bond, The Man from Barbarossa

So how do the six other Gardner books I haven't read stack up? Are they all the same old thing?

Rating them (roughly) in the style you do:

Yay: Win, Lose Or Die, Death Is Forever, Never Send Flowers, SeaFire
Nay: Brokenclaw, Licence To Kill, GoldenEye, Cold

[addyb]

I strongly disagree with the above statements. And also completely agree. There's a problem inherant with all James Bond novels: It's formula writing; it's not difficult. Call it "Top Down Processing." So in a way, they're all repetitive. I think Fleming's are horribly repetive:

Bond seems to go to Jamaica a bit too often for my liking.

The plots are completely outlandish

The villians are sadistic perverts

The women constantly have some sort of crippled feature: Honey Ryder's nose, Domino Pettachi's short leg, Tracy's suicidal depression.

I hate to say it, but that sounds like formula writing to me!

(Not that there's anything wrong with that, I am the proud, proud owner of 5 vintage first edition Fleming's, two happen to be in hardcover) I truly enjoy Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang's strange exploits.

But honestly, give Gardner a break!

Cheers,

Adam

[spynovelfan]

I strongly disagree with the above statements. And also completely agree. There's a problem inherant with all James Bond novels: It's formula writing; it's not difficult. Call it "Top Down Processing." So in a way, they're all repetitive. I think Fleming's are horribly repetive:

Bond seems to go to Jamaica a bit too often for my liking.

The plots are completely outlandish

The villians are sadistic perverts

The women constantly have some sort of crippled feature: Honey Ryder's nose, Domino Pettachi's short leg, Tracy's suicidal depression.

I hate to say it, but that sounds like formula writing to me!

(Not that there's anything wrong with that, I am the proud, proud owner of 5 vintage first edition Fleming's, two happen to be in hardcover) I truly enjoy Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang's strange exploits.

But honestly, give Gardner a break!

Kind of agree with you, Adam - apart from the bit where you say it's not difficult!

[ACE]

I strongly disagree with the above statements. And also completely agree. There's a problem inherant with all James Bond novels: It's formula writing; it's not difficult. Call it "Top Down Processing." So in a way, they're all repetitive. I think Fleming's are horribly repetive:

Bond seems to go to Jamaica a bit too often for my liking.

The plots are completely outlandish

The villians are sadistic perverts

The women constantly have some sort of crippled feature: Honey Ryder's nose, Domino Pettachi's short leg, Tracy's suicidal depression.

I hate to say it, but that sounds like formula writing to me!

(Not that there's anything wrong with that, I am the proud, proud owner of 5 vintage first edition Fleming's, two happen to be in hardcover) I truly enjoy Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang's strange exploits.

But honestly, give Gardner a break!

Kind of agree with you, Adam - apart from the bit where you say it's not difficult!

Git me the Barnd Po-Leese!

[spynovelfan]

Dear coppers, please go after Adam and leave me alone!

[addyb]

Well, formula writing isn't difficult for me, but I'm a writing major. So I apologize if that statement came off as a little harsh, Spynovelfan. (My bad!)

However, if one takes a good look at a Bond novel, there are some very basic steps that Fleming, Gardner, and Benson took when they wrote them. And roughly, they are:

1) A situation is created

2) Bond is called into M's office

3) He is then briefed on the mission.

5) Bond then travels to a pre-determined location and does a bit of investigative work. He meets a girl by this point, who has a fatal character flaw and ends up as Bond's partner and mission weakness.

6) Bond ends up captured and tortured

7) He escapes, kills the villain and....

8) Ends up either in a hospital recovering from his ordeal OR...in the arms of the novel's current femme fatale'

That's essentially what formula writing is. For my current writing class, I created a character that I heavily modelled after Bond; his name is "Aaron Smith" and he works for the CIA as a wet-team operative.

Anyway I've written a small handful of short fiction pieces with the character, and my professor absolutely adores them. But they're formula writing, quite similar to what I just outlined. I even tried to mimic the so-called "Fleming Sweep" as best as I could, but when the stories are limited to a maximum of 1500 words, large amounts description are difficult. But, there are certain ways of conducting grammar, word use, paragraph format, and puncuation that are similar to what Fleming used.

My "Smith" stories are not great, they're simply short, violent pulp fiction stories. And that is exactly what a Bond novel is in the end. A thriller.

I honest don't believe that Fleming envisioned the status his creation would have today, he too knew that his Bond novels were pulpy. There's a really brilliant Fleming quote and it goes something like this:

"The goal of my writing is to hit a person right between the solar plexus and well....the upper thighs."

One must look at Bond novel very transparently. As printed words, they're horrible. As escapist literature, they are absolute genius. Why? Because the average joe can pick up a Bond novel and when reading it, he can become that character, and esape from everything surrounding him. That in essence, is the best part of James Bond, Fleming wrote him as a "cardboard cut-out" - a hollow character that the reader can slip into. The movies sadly, are a different matter.

Cheers,

Adam

[Qwerty]

Check out other CBn reviews of No Deals, Mr. Bond here.

[DLibrasnow]

I would definately recommend that you try Death Is Forever and Never Send Flowers.

[addyb]

Death is Forever is my favourite of the John Gardner works, and probably my favourite of all the Bond novels in the cannon.

Yes, that's right, I like Death is Forever even more than any of the Fleming novels. **eyes the vintage Fleming's sitting on his bookshelf** Uh-oh...I think Fleming's going to be rolling in his grave for that statement!

Please don't hate me!

Adam

[Qwerty]

Yes, that's right, I like Death is Forever even more than any of the Fleming novels. **eyes the vintage Fleming's sitting on his bookshelf** Uh-oh...I think Fleming's going to be rolling in his grave for that statement!

Really; to that extent? I'm curious as to why.

[K1Bond007]

Rating them (roughly) in the style you do:

Yay: Win, Lose Or Die,

He won't like this. I didn't. It was ... ok - standard Gardner, but it wasn't really that good. The best part was the investigation on the ship and I'm not even sure why I really liked it. The entire book was predicatable.

Spoiler

and kinda stupid. Sometimes Gardner does some good stuff then he flip-flops on it - predictably - to the point of being obnoxious. Take in this book, for instance, when he kills off Bond's new love in the car bomb. Very cool. Very Godfather-esque - then he kills it by adding in the "man there was a lot of smoke" (hence it being predictable) then a "oh hey James! There was a fake wall there and I lived sweetheart!". Booooo Mr. Gardner. Boooo.

[addyb]

Well, to an exent, all Bond novels are predictable. Anyway, why do I like Gardner and Death is Forever so much? For starters, it holds a special place for me as the first post-Fleming novel I read. But...here's where this gets messy: I like Fleming, I really do. He's got a really great writing style that I try very hard to mimic for my Smith stories. But, I really do think that characters need to grow and change, so I really respect John Gardner for that. I'm still not quite sure about Benson though, the only novel of his that I could get my hands on was "TMWTRT" and I absolutely hated it. I read it a second time over the Christmas holidays just to be sure that I wasn't being stupid when I read it the first time.

I don't like Benson for two reasons, but please keep in mind that these are only my opinions based off of one novel, so I hope no-one gets worked up about this. If I could find more of Benson's contributions, I would be more than happy to read them and change this biased opinion:

1) I find his writing to be absolutely horrific, I think his grammer and word choices to be despicable. But in defense of that statement, I realize that Benson is sometimes classified as published fan fiction. In the end, he still had more than one Bond novel published!

2) Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but I got the feeling reading TMWTRT that Benson isn't doing much to the character of James Bond. When the read it the second time, I got the feeling that that character was almost...transported from the late 1950's up to today, and nothing else had changed.

...which brings me to John Gardner. James McMahon (Benson's technical advisor from his Japanese research trip) told me in an e-mail years ago that "John Gardner's novels featured a man by the name of James Bond, but that's where it stops. His Bond had very little in common with Ian Fleming's creation." [sic]

I agree with that. Gardner's Bond is not a 60 cigarette a day smoker, he does not drink Brandy mixed with phensic tabs as a hangover cure, and he doesn't even use a Walther PPK.

But what he DOES have is a bit of a rounded character, and Gardner's Bond also has tradecraft. He's able to memorize information and phone numbers, he knows that he can't use the shower with Rivke as a safe place to talk in "Barbarossa" because modern-day listening devices can filter through water. His trouser belt can be opened up to contain currency, and in Death is Forever, he makes a flash-bang grenade with a flare and the lightbulb in his cell. I've never seen Fleming's Bond do anything of the sort, sadly.

Those are some of the reasons I enjoy Gardner's contributions the Bond cannon. I found that the character of James Bond grew and rounded out a bit, although quite a few of the novels are simply awful, when you read a good Gardner, damn...it's a good Gardner!

Cheers guys, and I hope no-one spams for this huge post! Enjoy your Monday.

Adam

[spynovelfan]

But what he DOES have is a bit of a rounded character, and Gardner's Bond also has tradecraft. He's able to memorize information and phone numbers, he knows that he can't use the shower with Rivke as a safe place to talk in "Barbarossa" because modern-day listening devices can filter through water. His trouser belt can be opened up to contain currency, and in Death is Forever, he makes a flash-bang grenade with a flare and the lightbulb in his cell. I've never seen Fleming's Bond do anything of the sort, sadly.

Fleming's books have some tradecraft. Bond talks to Goodnight in the shower in TMWTGG - at *that* time, listening devices couldn't filter through water. Bond's briefcase in FRWL contained currency. And many of Fleming's stories used real-life espionage techniques and events as a basis - the limpet mine scene in LALD, for instance, being something Fleming had done himself.

[marmaduke]

I have to say that i agree with your comments regarding 'No Deals Mr Bond'Dinovelvet..I too had an over powering feeling of Deja Vue Throughout .I will post my review of NDMB under the thread I started

Edited by marmaduke, 29 March 2006 - 11:18 AM.

[Bon-san]

I find his writing to be absolutely horrific, I think his grammer and word choices to be despicable.

Don't show that sentence to your professor.

[DLibrasnow]

I find his writing to be absolutely horrific, I think his grammer and word choices to be despicable.

Don't show that sentence to your professor.

Yes, I have to hope that addyb was trying to be funny.