36 replies to this topic

[Digitarius]

Have anybody read any of Gardner's novels? Are they all as crap as Never Send Flowers? I've read GoldenEye (good) and Death is Forever (decent).

[The Admiral]

I've only read Goldeneye by Gardner. It was great! However, from what I have heard, the books are rubish, but I will read some to make up my own mind.

Has anyone else got any views?

[Trempo]

I have read them all. They are not as good as Fleming's books. But they are not all rubish. My favourites are For Special Services; Icebreaker; Win, Lose or Die and Cold.
And Digitarius the novel Never Send Flowers is probably the worst of Gardner's books.

[The Admiral]

Trempo (19 May, 2001 06:13 p.m.):
I have read them all. They are not as good as Fleming's books. But they are not all rubish. My favourites are For Special Services; Icebreaker; Win, Lose or Die and Cold.
And Digitarius the novel Never Send Flowers is probably the worst of Gardner's books.

I'll probably start reading them soon!

[Blue Eyes]

Well I'm gonna defend Gardner here. I haven't read all of his novels but over the past 5 to 10 years I've managed to read a few.

Firstly, I will say Gardner lacks the description of Fleming and the Bond knowledge of Benson. Secondly, some little things like banning the Walther PPK (completely contradictory to the films) and promoting Bond to a Captain s***ted me no end!

But the greatest thing about Gardner is his twists. He twists and turns so many damn times you'll be more confused than Bond in the novel!!! Especially in something like Death Is Forever, I had no idea who was on Bond side! And even when you do find out you still stop believing it! You don't trust anyone, except Bond!

Gardner's wasn't the best era, but it's WAY above rubbish!

[White Persian]

I've read all the Gardner Bond novels (though I find it hard to remember much about some of them) and I've only really enjoyed the first "License Renewed" (which may have been sheer gratitude to have Bond back) and, for some reason "The Man From Barbarossa". Gardner isn't a bad writer (I've liked some of his non Bond stuff a lot), but he is a dreadful plotter. His Bond novels wander aimlessly all over the place and I think he's admitted he starts them with no idea of where they are going, which I find incredible in a thriller writer. Characters seem to arbitrarily change sides for no better reason thanthat its time for something - anything - to happen. It iritates me that these betrayals are not in any way set up earlier in the story so that the reader (and Bond) can look back and say "Damn, I should have spotted that!"
Gardner's Bond also seems to become a very different fellow after the first book or two, so that if it weren't for the name, you'd never recognise him as Fleming's Bond.
He also lacks Fleming's genius for coming up with memorable "roll off the tongue" character names, though in fairness neither have the screenwriters in recent years. I ask you, does "Flicka von Grusse" sound like a Bond heroine's name? More like a cousin to Irma Bunt or Rosa Klebb!
I didn't include the two novelisations in these comments. I actually quite like these because Gardner is working on the basis of a solid plot provided by the film makers, which just confirms my feeling that it is his plots that let Gardner down so badly.

[Blue Eyes]

You'll see this in my reviews on the main page. But one thing that really annoyed me about Gardner was his removal of some characters.

Take Death is Forever for instance. He takes several main characters and kills them off all at once in the same gun battle! It's as if he didn't know what to do with them other than that they couldn't be in the last few chapters!

[Digitarius]

From what I've read from Gardner, the best line he came up with was when Bond in Death is Forever and he just electricuted all the bad guys

[zencat]

Gardner's books are hit and miss. Some are very good (License Renewed), some are crap (The Man From Barbarossa), most are average Bond thrillers (Nobody Lives Forever). His earlier books are his best. The first five; License Renewed, For Special Services, Icebreaker, Role of Honor, Nobody Lives Forever, are all quite good. His later books can be downright bad (COLD aka Cold Fall), but there are also surprises in the late Gardner era (Brokenclaw). I think Raymond Benson is doing a better job of carrying on the literary Bond tradition.

[Barebumundermakilt]

Gardner was pretty good until, Win,Lose or Die then it went down hill from there (I even had the thought that some one else was writing the books for him!) they were all basically the same.......either Royals/Royal Descent/Nazis'..........were these not written about in earlier books by Gardner?

[RossMan]

With Win, Loose, or Die Gardner gave us one his most annoying changes to Bond, making him a Captain, it just does not sound right, Captain Bond. But I did like WLOD very much, interesting seeing Bond return to the navy and all. After that book, Gardner did seem to go downhill, even stealing ideas from his past novels, unsuccessfully altering the Bond formula(the Man From Barbarossa) and don't even get me started on that Microglobe One and Two Zeros garabage.

The best of his later books, and I've said this many times before, are Brokenclaw and Never Send Flowers (just wished that Gardner did not bring Flicka back in the next two where she is rather poorly developed.)

Gardner probably should have quit with WLOD, after that book his boredom with Bond is obvious and he should have let someone else take over, he'd probably would be more respected then among fans since all his books up to that point had been fairly decent Bond books, with one or two exceptions.

[scaramanga]

You're dead right, Captain Bond just don't sound right. I know it was part of his cover in WLOD, thats acceptable, but in Brokenclaw, the next book in the series, Bond asks M why he is still holding the rank of captain but it is never brought up again. I should always be Commander James Bond RNVR.

[Simon]

Around the time of TND, I went to some Bond chit chat session with the producers, writers, collectors and a whole asortment of people at the ICA on The Mall. Someone from the audience piped up with the question; "Why don't you film the Gardner novels?"

Not an unreasonable question and it was Mr Wilson who offered this;

"In one of his novels, Bond went to Disney World in Paris and at the end of his mission when everyone was dead, Bond said to himself that the theme park was surprisingly good fun. I don't think our Bond would say something like that"

'Nuff said.

[Digitarius]

Agreed. Benson's Bond got a more movie feel to it while Gardner's Bond was neither Fleming's nor the movie's.

[Jim]

...alternatively EON didn't want Disney Corpn having any input into their films.

Curious that he would mention that as a reason not to use Garnder's books. Glosses over the fact that there are a few similarites here and there between Gardner's books and the films (this is old ground).

He's obvioulsy too polite a man to say that they'll never film a Gardner book in its entirety because the majority are a bit...well...underwhelming.

(For "underwhelming" you can read "crappy" if you must).

[RossMan]

Couple months ago I ordered all of the Gardner Bonds but have only read Licence Renewed through Role of Honor and Death is Forever through COLD Fall. I thought they were OK but have been unable to get myself to read any others since. Cany anyone please tell me which are the better ones and worth reading?
Thanks a lot, appreciate it.

[zencat]

I made a list on Amazon.com of all the Gardner books and my opinions on each -- I'll send you the link via email. Of course, it's all subjective. You did well to read the first 4 books, LICENSE RENEWED, FOR SPECIAL SERVICES, ICEBREAKER, and ROLE OF HONOR...as these are all pretty good Gardners. The next book, NOBODY LIVES FOREVER is also good. But then it gets VERY hit and miss. Standouts amoung the later books are BROKENCLAW and SEAFIRE and for some reason I really liked NEVER SEND FLOWERS on a recent re-read. But beware THE MAN FROM BARBAROSSA. This could put you off Gardner for good.

[RossMan]

Thanks for the list, zencat.
Of the Gardner books that I have read, I think that Death is Forever is the worst. It was too long and very dull and there were just way too many double crosses. It eventually got to where I could care less who's who. The villain seemed like some type of comical cartoon villain and the girl was underused.
I thought Never Send Flowers was pretty good and I really liked the villain, David Dragonpol and the girl was developed nicely.

[zencat]

I didn't care for DEATH IS FOREVER either. It's really just a remake of NO DEALS, MR. BOND, which was a bad book in the first place. It almost felt like Gardner just threw together a collection of discarded ideas and chapters from his other books. And I think he hit an all time low when, out of the blue, Bond suddenly realizes he's in love with the heroine -- then she dies on the next page and he's devastated, Tracey style.

Glad you liked NEVER SEND FLOWERS. I thought I was alone in liking that one. I agree, good villian.

[RossMan]

so far, Icebreaker is my favourite Bond book by Gardner. I thought it had a great villain and good locations and the double crossing theme worked well. Was this the first book where Gardner started to use double crosses, and triple crosses? I can't remember any from Licence Renewed or For Special Services.

[zencat]

RossMan (24 Jun, 2001 12:08 a.m.):
so far, Icebreaker is my favourite Bond book by Gardner.

I'm with you on this one, RossMan. I think ICEBREAKER has stood the test of time and has become a "Gardner classic", if we can use that term. Maybe it's the title, or the cool Arctic locations, but I really think this book stands out.

[RossMan]

Well, I've just finished reading Gardner THE MAN FROM BARBAROSSA. I thought it was just OK, it certainly won't become one of my favourites. It was just too dull, the only scene that really had any action was the climax and even that was not too exciting. Nonetheless, it was pretty enjoyable, I really liked Bond faking his death and posing as a Russian officer.

[zencat]

THE MAN FROM BARBAROSSA is a tough read. I could barely get through it when it first came out, and things didn't improve on a recent re-read. Granted, this was Gardner's "experimental" Bond book (his THE SPY WHO LOVED ME), so I appreciate it on that level and I'm glad he did it. But...tough read.

[zencat]

Again, RossMan, we're on the same page. Brokenclaw is one of my favorite Gardner Bonds. I even posted a seperate topic here in the Gardner folder trying to turn around people's opinion of this book. I really don't understand why people bash it. Nutty.

[RossMan]

I've just finished reading Gardner's Brokenclaw and thought it was one of his better ones. I really liked the villain Brokenclaw Lee. It had good characterization and a nice plot. I especially liked the climax with the old Indian torture ritual.
But most of the reviews of this book that I have read say that is aweful or one of Gardner's worst, I find that surprising.

[Jim]

Nobody Lives Forever was the first Bond book by any author I read. I think I was about twelve. Couldn't wait for the film to come out. Still waiting.

Anyway, Gardner formula anyone? As someone posted above (and the man admitted himself), he would write without knowing where things were going and I rather suspect that's why the fake identity ruse was used so frequently, just to ensure something happened. As Raymond Chandler once said (I paraphrase), if the reader's getting bored, have a man with a gun in his hand walk into the room.

The following seem to happen more frequently than not in Gardner's books:

Fake identity (too numerous to mention)
Inexplicable double cross (ditto)
Nazi/ Neo Nazi (double ditto)
Real politicians/ royalty as targets (immediately dating the book)
Bond attacked in his hotel room
Bond in a hotel room in the first place, and for a loooonnnggg time
Shoot out in an office or hotel
Girl dies
Bond expressed to be wildly in love with girl (usually before the above, thank God)
M not giving Bond all the information he needs (very irritating)
Villain has large house; invariably shoot-out occurs, or (rather loosely) "people die"
Bond is put through some sort of sadistic test by villain
Characters you didn't much care for from previous Gardner books turn up
(In the main) European locations
Odd food
Bizarre minaturised toolkit thingy, yet more minature with each passing book. Any more and it'd have been a microdot.
Bad sex
M fouls up
Bond never, ever, ever sees through the fake identity. IQ of 007 as well.
Completely unnecessary literary references. Stop showing off.
James Boldman. Not much of a disguise, is it?
The gradual marginalisation of anything approaching Fleming's SIS; Two Zeros anybody?
Attacks from the air/climax (not the bad sex bit) involving aricraft of some description
The creative use of toxic or ravenous or just wildly unpleasant animals
A simply vast array of characters, few of whom are given much to do
Hoardes of suspect foreign agents who may or may not be trustworthy. Or are they? Or aren't they? Or are they? My head hurts.
Bond going in to rescue the men and women who went in to rescue the men and women who went in to rescue the men and women, and generally forgetting that plot and ending up fighting some crackpot who wants to kill Margaret Thatcher.
Or George Bush
Substantial bits set in the UK
Tracy Bond. Yawn.
General lack of motive for the villains. It's rare enough that we work out what they're doing; rarer still why.
Peculiarly feminine choice of soap.
Wild opinions in re: Disney Corpn., Cambridge, any minutiae irritaiting JG at the time
An amazingly detailed description of weapons which would be more effectively summed up by the phrase "guns; lots of guns"
Foreigners in general; they are funny, aren't they?
Americans; they are loud and overly self-confident, aren't they?
Russians; they are dementedly untrustworthy, aren't they?
The French; they're only marginally less trustworthy than the Russians, aren't they?
Oh look, the KGB's changed its name again, and we're about to be told why for some reason.
Bond uses night vision goggles. He's not making a suit of skin, isn't he? What does he do, this man you seek?
A Russian named Koyla
An international Eurovision team of crack agents do something for some reason but one or more of them is a traitor. Clue: don't become part of this team. You may have to kill more than one of them.
Villain has hyperdyke accomplice. Sexual ambivalence all round ('cept for Jamie).

I've now got too much Gardner going around in my head than is healthy for a young chap, so I'll stop. It's not that I don't like Gardner; I'm fond of the silly old nonsense. it's just a touch "samey"

[zencat]

Awsome list Jim! You've nailed Gardner. Applause, applause...

(And I also like his silly old nonsense.)

[Jim]

Most kind, but there was something missing:-

JG watches film (e.g. Navy pilots or serial killers). JG writes book

[scaramanga]

I actually thought that Gardner's novelisation of GOLDENEYE was better than the film! In the book, Trevelyan dies because a rung on the ladder breaks and he falls to his death - much more realistic and Bond-like, not like any of the cheesy 'holding a man by his boots and the "for england, james" crap'.

[rafterman]

Gardner's Bond novels always seem to have everyone out to get him, no one is what they seem and that's the problem, everybody turns and then turns again, too many twists and the villians always have too many men everywhere....