Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Not Fleming NOT Bond


89 replies to this topic

#31 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 31 July 2007 - 06:50 PM

I will say that I think Blood Fever is probably the best of all the continuation books though.


Certainly Blood Fever is also my favorite of all the continuation novels.


Funny, I was just saying the other night to [dark] (who is in town :cooltongue:) that I thought Blood Fever could be the very best of all the continuation novels. I said this as we discussed Devil May Care and how some fans have already proclaimed it will be the greatest of all the continuation novels...why? While I do think DMC will be excellent, I'm not ready to concede that it will be better than the best work of the other authors.

#32 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 31 July 2007 - 07:17 PM

Also, anyone who thinks that Fleming is the be-all and end-all of Bond literature (and I know I am going to get flamed for this) should reread The Man With The Golden Gun. Yes, yes, I know Fleming was ill when he wrote it and it's still an entertaining read, but personally speaking I would take both of the Wood's, some of Gardner's and some of Benson's over it.


Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on that one, but I'm sure you're not surprised. It was a sad novel for the likes of Fleming, but still enjoyable. Of course I can understand someone who holds this opinion because while many of the continuation novels are pretty... sad, there are some real gems in there.

I like some of the attempts by other authors, but nobody has really come close to Fleming if you ask me. Each author IMO has gotten a good one in (at least) that makes their entire series worth it though. I can find tons of things to complain about from some of the authors, actually I could go on endlessly about Gardner who bores the ever living daylights out of me more so with his later books, but they all have their moments. I will say that I think Blood Fever is probably the best of all the continuation books though.


Actually I don't think we disagree. I would agree with all that you said. Though there are some Gardner books I do really enjoy (e.g. Icebreaker). :cooltongue:
Certainly Blood Fever is also my favorite of all the continuation novels.


Well I don't care for Icebreaker. I don't think it's his worst, but I hate how twisted and convoluted the story is with the double and triple crosses. I much prefer Nobody Lives For Ever or Scorpius of the Gardner bunch.

#33 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 31 July 2007 - 07:29 PM

While I do think DMC will be excellent, I'm not ready to concede that it will be better than the best work of the other authors.


I am sure that Devil May Care will be a good book, perhaps an excellent book, but until I open it and start reading it I will reserve judgement on it (much the same way I approached the movie Casino Royale).
Until then I will consider Blood Fever the best continuation novel, closely followed by the Wood novels.


Well I don't care for Icebreaker. I don't think it's his worst, but I hate how twisted and convoluted the story is with the double and triple crosses. I much prefer Nobody Lives For Ever or Scorpius of the Gardner bunch.


Yes, that is one of the oft-cited complaints about Icebreaker. But it was that book that started that plot device and when I read it back in the early- to mid-1980s, it therefore didn't seem as cliched to me.
I think the book has some great locations, sequences and one of the most interesting of Gardner's female characters. It also has a certain nostalgic quality for me. :cooltongue:

#34 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 07:37 PM

I said this as we discussed Devil May Care and how some fans have already proclaimed it will be the greatest of all the continuation novels...why?


Because Faulks is one of the best novelists in the world, that's why. It's like if Spielberg or Tarantino were hired to direct a Bond film you'd know that, under the very, very worst case scenario, he'd do an excellent job.

I've read Fleming, Amis, Gardner, Benson, Higson and Faulks (as most of us have, not asking for a medal or anything), and base my prediction that DEVIL MAY CARE will be the greatest of all the continuation novels on my opinion that Faulks is the greatest writer of the bunch.

#35 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 31 July 2007 - 08:12 PM

Good points, Loomy. :cooltongue:

#36 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 31 July 2007 - 08:51 PM

If Sebastian's Bond book can be similar to Fleming's writing style , I find that to be a good thing, very nice indeed. :cooltongue:

#37 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 09:21 PM

I don't feel any differently from of all the posts when it comes to continuation novels. Colonel Sun is pretty much the best, and it is very good. Benson, yes, a disappointment considering his expert analysis that was "The Bedside Companion." Gardner did put together some good stories, but to be honest, doing as many as he did was always going to run contrary to quality. Churning them out in Alistair MacLean fashion wasn't IMHO conducive to great writing. Let's face, a novelist of Amis' calibre did one, and got out. Now sure, he's a great writer, but anything he felt he had to add to the world of Bond all went into one great read. In Gardner's defence, knocking out as many as he did was always going to dilute things (Boysie Oakes, on the other hand, I really enjoy). I think it's that, rather than his talents as a writer that leave his contribution a mixed-bag.

I've not gone near Young Bond. I just can't get comfortable with the concept. I'm excited about Faulks - if he does as well as Amis, than I'll be happy. And like some posters have mentioned, he does have an advantage in placing Bond back in his original timeline. Not that I have a great issue with Gardner/Benson moving him - I just think it will help Faulks in comparison to Fleming. If Faulks does a decent job, it will seem somehow more authentic - Flemingesque. Gardner will always get a raw deal because he had to update Bond; taking him out of Fleming's world was going to be tough for any author.

#38 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 11:42 PM

Good points, Loomy. :cooltongue:


Cheers, zenmeister. I'm not trying to knock the other continuation novelists - I've enjoyed them all. And I know I come across as vehement on the subject of Faulks, but I found A FOOL'S ALPHABET one of those rare and truly life-changing books. (Okay, it's arguably a bit schmaltzy, I guess, but then I have a very high tolerance for schmaltz.) Now, it's the only Faulks I've read (so far), so I guess it's possible that he's not actually all that good and that I've simply picked up the one decent book he's somehow lucked into writing. But I doubt it, as A FOOL'S ALPHABET isn't even one of his more famous works, like BIRDSONG or CHARLOTTE GRAY, which people are always saying are masterpieces.

So, then, on my nodding acquaintance with Faulks, I think he's an even more staggeringly high-quality choice for the world of Bond than Daniel Craig, Marc Forster or Paul Haggis. I was always hoping for IFP to get William Boyd or Paul Theroux as the new continuation novelist, but thought they were hopelessly out of IFP's league. Well, Faulks is easily on a par with such writers, and quite possibly even better. He's a genuine giant of modern literature.

Even with all that said, though, it's possible that DEVIL MAY CARE is a damp squib. And it's also possible that, great writer though he is, Faulks just isn't cut out for Bond. It's possible that DMC is inferior to BLOOD FEVER, just as it's possible that, on a good day and with a good script, Brett Ratner might make a better film than the latest Scorsese (actually, I think the latest Scorsese, THE DEPARTED, is terrible, and I'm quite prepared to believe that X-MEN 3, which I haven't seen, is superior). All sorts of things are possible. Point is, though, going by Faulks' track record, the signs for DMC are very, very, very good indeed.

#39 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 01 August 2007 - 07:36 PM

I'm on Seafire at the moment and I'm afraid I find Flicka to be a dreadfully written character. This is suposed to be the new love of Bond's life and an agent - yet she's jealous of every woman in sight, squeals more than Stacey Sutton and hyperventilates at the sight of a dead body :cooltongue: . And she's a bit of a nag. I also don't like the way M has become a senile old duffer, nor all the office politics of the British security services. No Deals, Mr Bond is probably the best of the Gardners on this reading, which I think is also what I found on first reading years ago, although I still can't find a load of them and am fed up with looking in boxes. Even so, I find a lot of the characters shallowly written. Granted, I'm reading them this time with an overly critical eye rather than for pure enjoyment but even if I weren't, I think there's no denying that the writing is nowhere near the class of Fleming, Amis or Sebastian Faulks (yes, I know I haven't read DMC yet but I've read his others and he is a quality writer).

#40 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 09:16 PM

I also don't like the way M has become a senile old duffer


Become?

#41 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 09:21 PM

If I could open this up a bit more - I keep seeing the title of the thread on the page and it's made me think - what do we think it is about Bond that means he *can* be written by other writers than Fleming? Take The Saint, for example. There was a continuation novel done a while ago - I haven't read it, but I think it was not widely regarded as being a stunning success. And there were some Saint TV scripts that were written up by others into short stories/novellas that Leslie Charteris oversaw in his lifetime (partially inspired by the news of IFP appointing Amis, according to Charteris).

But the whole idea of a Saint novel not written by Charteris is a bit of a non-starter, because almost the entire point of those books is the execution, Charteris' prose style. It would be like getting a new writer to pen Jeeves stories, or Oscar Wilde plays... or James Bond adventures, surely? Ian Fleming had one of the most distinctive prose styles in the the thriller genre, and it's a major part of the *books*' appeal.

Of course, the unprecedented success of the films changed perceptions. And that, surely, is why continuation books ever happened. Even Amis - who was very snooty about the films - would never have been asked to do it without the films. Had he been a huge fan of The Saint and written two books about it, he'd not have been asked to continue that series, for the reasons I've just said. The more generic style of cinema has made the continuations possible. Bond has stepped away from his master's shadow, and can exist without his master's ideas, influence or even tone of voice. Fans gripe that continuation authors don't write as well as Fleming, certainly - but we still bought and read the things! I read Fleming for *Fleming*, not James Bond, if that makes any sense. I like the writing. I watch the films because I like their style, but somehow a book that has the films' style doesn't appeal. Now if a Bond book is an excellent thriller and well-written, I'm happy to chase it up and spend my time on it even if it's not really very close to Fleming's tone. But I'm perverse. I think there are lots of books that were written in the Sixties that were 'NOT Fleming NOT Bond' but were much closer to Fleming and much closer to Bond than any of the continuations. I'd rather read any Peter O'Donnell novel than any John Gardner. I don't need the agent to be codenamed 007 and order a Martini to get something of a Flemingish feel. I find many of the so-called 'Bond clones' written in the Sixties to be much more enjoyable, better written, Flemingish and Bondish than any of the continuation novels.

Am I alone?

#42 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 01 August 2007 - 09:23 PM

I also don't like the way M has become a senile old duffer


Become?

:cooltongue: I know what you mean but really, he's not any kind of father figure here. More of a grandfather figure, and not in a good way. You know how it's really sad when you see your beloved grandparents going downhill? Well it's happening here. I'm not at the end yet but I'm waiting to hear how M has become incontinent. If he can't be ageless, then please just don't mention his demise at all. Give the man some dignity.

#43 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 11:43 PM

...what do we think it is about Bond that means he *can* be written by other writers than Fleming?


I think the key word there is "we", for I submit that the concept of non-Fleming Bond books has really only been successful within Bond fandom (and even then only up to a point, of course).

Sure, there have been dozens of continuation novels (with more official Glidrose/IFP novelists than there have been actors in the Eon series playing Bond). However, they've basically just preached (and sold) to the converted. For the man on the street and even (or perhaps especially) his culture vulture cousin, literary Bond pretty much only means Fleming.

I find many of the so-called 'Bond clones' written in the Sixties to be much more enjoyable, better written, Flemingish and Bondish than any of the continuation novels.

Am I alone?


No. I'm not well-versed in the '60s Bond clone books, but Adam Diment - despite the spoofy tone - does it for me more than any of the continuation novels. Or is this partly because we're looking back at things like Diment through rose coloured glasses and saying "Well, it was published smack dab in the middle of the golden age of '60s spymania, so of course it's more like Fellming than, say, HIGH TIME TO KILL"?

I mean, it's probably genuinely and unavoidably '60s-ish and golden-age-of-Bondish, given the publication date and the general writing style prevailing in those days, just as an early Duran Duran album is unquestionably "'80s". But are we too ready to confer The Real Deal™ status on stuff that was written shortly after Fleming carked it, while being simultaneously too harsh on later works? Ah, I don't know. Just thinking out loud.

#44 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 02 August 2007 - 12:23 AM

Because Faulks is one of the best novelists in the world, that's why. It's like if Spielberg or Tarantino were hired to direct a Bond film you'd know that, under the very, very worst case scenario, he'd do an excellent job.


I hear you Loomis, but I am not sure how anyone can claim that Devil May Care is a great Bond novel when they have not read it. As good a writer as Faulks is (and he definately is) everyone has their off moments. I think Fleming was a great writer, however there are parts of The Man With The Golden Gun that leave me neither shaken or stirred.
It's like with Casino Royale. Before it came out the pro-Craig crowd were saying it was the greatest Bond movie ever made - without having seen a single frame. Happily their faith was for the most part realized, but I took a wait-and-see posture then and I am maintaining that until I sit down to read Devil May Care. :cooltongue:

#45 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 10:14 AM

I think the key word there is "we", for I submit that the concept of non-Fleming Bond books has really only been successful within Bond fandom (and even then only up to a point, of course).

Sure, there have been dozens of continuation novels (with more official Glidrose/IFP novelists than there have been actors in the Eon series playing Bond). However, they've basically just preached (and sold) to the converted. For the man on the street and even (or perhaps especially) his culture vulture cousin, literary Bond pretty much only means Fleming.


True.

I'm not well-versed in the '60s Bond clone books, but Adam Diment - despite the spoofy tone - does it for me more than any of the continuation novels. Or is this partly because we're looking back at things like Diment through rose coloured glasses and saying "Well, it was published smack dab in the middle of the golden age of '60s spymania, so of course it's more like Fellming than, say, HIGH TIME TO KILL"?

I mean, it's probably genuinely and unavoidably '60s-ish and golden-age-of-Bondish, given the publication date and the general writing style prevailing in those days, just as an early Duran Duran album is unquestionably "'80s". But are we too ready to confer The Real Deal™ status on stuff that was written shortly after Fleming carked it, while being simultaneously too harsh on later works? Ah, I don't know. Just thinking out loud.


Sure, but then what is it about Fleming that we like - perhaps not the Sixtiesishnes of it per se, but the style of it has something to do with it. And that style has changed. Many spy thrillers written in the Sixties were 65,000 words long, with very well drawn locales and exquisite prose. Today, they are more likely to be 150,000-words with twists every two pages, long loving descriptions of weaponry and top-secret buildings, with little or no characterisation and choppy clunky prose. The nature of the beast has changed.

I like Adam Diment's stuff, but I wasn't really thinking of him - I don't see that series as being especially Bond- or Fleming-ish. But if Bond fans were to read, say, Peter Townend's series about a British spy/photographer called Philip Quest, I wonder if the idea that Gardner was 'alright' might get a kicking. This very obscure and now out-of-print series runs circles around any of the continuation novels, in my view. Bond fans, understandably, want to read about Bond. But there are other things out there, and they might not have M or Blades in them, but they have the right idea. Just because your main character is called James Bond doesn't make your book Flemingesque - or even Bondish.

#46 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 02 August 2007 - 01:32 PM

Before my recent re-reading of Gardner I would have said the problem with the continuation novels for me is that they're different, not worse but different. This week I'll boldly come out and say that Gardner and, as far as I can remember, Benson, are simply not in the same league as Fleming (or Amis) as writers. I tend to think that with authors you get writers and you get storytellers: Le Carre is a writer, he likes words. Colin Forbes is a storyteller - he wants to tell us about his plot and has to use words to do it. I read some things for the story and some for the way in which the story is told. Fleming's prose is a story in itself, Gardner's is workmanlike and unsophisticated. Sorry if that doesn't make sense:) That for me, though, is the main reason that the continuation novels don't work for me. I'll make the bold, sweeping statement that they simply aren't as good.

#47 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:17 PM

I think that's a very astute analysis of writers vs storytellers, santajosep. Spot on re Le Carre and Forbes. I think Gardner clearly falls into the category of storyteller, and is one of a group of British adventure thriller writers in that mould: I would put Forbes, Bagley, Maclean and latterly Higgins and Forsyth in the same category. It's a wide field, and Gardner was arguably one of the less interesting of that bunch. That said, thank God they didn't give the job to Forbes, who I think is a dreadful writer and actually not even that good a storyteller - his books are all very samey, and involve hopping from one location to another in what passes for exoticism and suspense. Really bizarre, I find, is that in some of his books the standard opening bit about the characters being fictional is extended to include places, so while he uses the real London or Geneva, as soon as his characters move outside the cities all places are invented. Saves on the research, I suppose, and stops know-it-all fans writing you letters pointing out minor errors - but still, quite odd in this genre, as the reality of locations is surely fairly much a part of the appeal. Hard to have that travelogue sense when it's fictional - a problem with LTK.

I digress. I think it's ironic that Le Carre has gone on record so often to slate Fleming, but in fact the two are of the same stamp in one way, as you say: they are both interested in the writing primarily, in exploring character, location, atmosphere, ideas and so on: both saw the mechanics of a thriller plot as rather beneath them, I think - or weren't very good at them. Sacrilege, perhaps, but I really don't think Fleming could plot. He had some terrific plot *bits*, but with the exception of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, I don't think any of his books work as coherent consistent plots in the way that most thrillers have to now to even get in print: but his writing is so excitingit didn't matter. With Le Carre, I think his writing is often not at all exciting, but he does manage to absorb you in a very authentic-seeming and authoritative atmosphere, and his insider tone and almost Dickensian world-building of the Circus is, I think, what makes so many people settle down on the sofa with him on holiday.

I've just finished my own spy novel, and I was very conscious of the need for an exciting plot - but without workmanlike prose; wanting it to be well written - but not slowing everything down. It's bloody hard work trying to mix the two! Sebastian Faulks, from what I've read of his to date, is able to pull this off. His prose is exquisite, but he has narrative drive and structures his books carefully. It could make for a very tasty Bond adventure - we'll see.

#48 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:29 PM

I think that's a very astute analysis of writers vs storytellers, santajosep. Spot on re Le Carre and Forbes. I think Gardner clearly falls into the category of storyteller, and is one of a group of British adventure thriller writers in that mould: I would put Forbes, Bagley, Maclean and latterly Higgins and Forsyth in the same category. It's a wide field, and Gardner was arguably one of the less interesting of that bunch. That said, thank God they didn't give the job to Forbes, who I think is a dreadful writer and actually not even that good a storyteller - his books are all very samey, and involve hopping from one location to another in what passes for exoticism and suspense.

Thank you, darling but yes, Forbes is terrible. I went through a phase of reading his recently and they are terribly repetitive, full of plot holes, poorly researched and entirely unrealistic. And yet I still found myself reading them and even quite enjoyed them. And I still can't work out why.
And when will we be hearing more details about your own novel, SNF? :cooltongue:

#49 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:48 PM

I think Forbes' first few books under that name were quite good, to be fair. Then I think he repeated them. Why did you enjoy them? I think art works on percentages. Even if we can see the flaws in something, if it works *in the main* we are happy to go along with it. Fleming's plots are sometimes a bit thin - but we love the character, the writing, the verve, etc, so we happily accept that. It's about how much your inner critic is willing to accept. Forbes' brand of suspense is, I think, very cliched - it's really just A to B to C elaborated. But the good chaps win, and it clips along at a fair pace. There's lots of them - one a year. They're easy to read. Bingo. Gardner sometimes has the same effect, but not always. Some of his books - non-Bond books - are crackers, and some are awful. Don't go near GOLGOTHA, for instance. Very much like a Forbes book, but it drags and drags and you feel like you have a noose around your neck reading it.

Strangely, many best-selling thrillers feel like this, and many thriller readers feel it.

#50 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:49 PM

I've just finished my own spy novel...


You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

#51 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 03:06 PM

Is JUST ANOTHER KILL finished, then, Jim? I've avoided reading past the (excellent) first chapter, partly because I've avoided reading all fiction so as not to start unconsciously using others' ideas or being steered off course, and partly because I understand yours is set in Africa during the Sixties, as is mine. But I'd love to read it *now*! :cooltongue: Hmmm... or have you written another spy novel?

I've started showing mine to a few people to get feedback on what doesn't work, plot holes, inconsistencies, technical details and so on; once that's done I will start trying to find an agent, and then hopefully a publisher. I'm not sending it to people via email, probably because I'm overly paranoid but I just don't like the idea of having an editable version of five years' work on other people's computers - hard to keep track of it, even in good faith. But if you're not just taking the mick and are genuinely interested, PM me your home address and I'll send you a copy of it in the post. If you are just takint the mick (or don't want me to stalk you!), well, allright... :angry:

#52 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 02 August 2007 - 04:29 PM

Is JUST ANOTHER KILL finished, then, Jim?


In essence if not in fact. Yes and no.

Hmmm... or have you written another spy novel?


Ah ah ah, no clues.

My address I don't give out so all the very best with it - hope it's a good 'un!

#53 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 02 August 2007 - 04:48 PM

I see what you are all saying and all but I still hold onto the fact that I love Gardner's work in the series. Flem's the master yes, and his style is hard to duplicate and obviously Gardner didnt go for that. But hey, I'm a more modern spy fan. I love a huge book, something that takes me a few evenings, a Fleming I can read in a night. I can only hope Faulks' book is on teh level of Fleming but about the length of a Clancy book. LOL, I said Clancy in a Fleming thread :cooltongue:

#54 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 02 August 2007 - 05:17 PM

I think Forbes' first few books under that name were quite good, to be fair. Then I think he repeated them. Why did you enjoy them? I think art works on percentages. Even if we can see the flaws in something, if it works *in the main* we are happy to go along with it. Fleming's plots are sometimes a bit thin - but we love the character, the writing, the verve, etc, so we happily accept that. It's about how much your inner critic is willing to accept. Forbes' brand of suspense is, I think, very cliched - it's really just A to B to C elaborated. But the good chaps win, and it clips along at a fair pace. There's lots of them - one a year. They're easy to read. Bingo.

I think that is just why I enjoyed it. At the time I suppose I needed pure escapism, nothing that would make me have to think or that would be a challenge, plus I just have this habit of following any one author through to the end. When that happens you also feel you get to know that world and the characters in it. I also fully believe in the quality of 'suspension of disbelief'. I got told off on here for that once as being a flippant attitude but I don't think it is. There are very few perfect stories and even his masterfulness, Fleming, made mistakes as you've pointed out. Those kind of errors pull me out of the story if I stop to think about them or try to justify why they might be there so I prefer to ignore them, certainly at the time of reading and apply that suspension of disbelief so that I can continue enjoying the reading experience. Afterwards I can analyse and disdain the work but at the time, if I note the errors, the reading experience ends up being wasted for me and I won't enjoy it. Again, I hope that makes sense, but it's what allows me to enjoy a book like a Forbes or, for example, Jilly Cooper, or whatever, despite seeing the faults clearly. I'd get very bored if I were only satisfied with realism and total accuracy as there wouldn't be much reading material left out there.

#55 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 02 August 2007 - 05:22 PM

I see what you are all saying and all but I still hold onto the fact that I love Gardner's work in the series.

And you are quite right to. While I admit I've been slagging off John Gardner left, right and centre on this thread, that's only in relation to how I like my Bond. I've already said I spend a lot of time enjoying books that can in many cases be said to be poorly written, but surely reading is meant to be fun as much as informative or educational, so of course there's nothing wrong with enjoying any of the different kind of books.

#56 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 07:55 PM

Thought you might say something like that, Jim - I quite understand.

OmarB, I understand what you're saying, and I suppose I'm also rather harsh on John Gardner. But the thing is he has the advantage of being one of very few writers to have been able to write Bond, so he kind of wins by default in a way! I wonder if Bond fans appreciate how Bondish some other writers are and just what we missed out on. I can think of at least six writers who I reckon would have done continuations that would have topped any we have had to date, including COLONEL SUN. Impossible to prove of course, so it's a bit silly, but I'm going to try to convince you anyway. Loomis did a clever thing taking a passage from Sebastian Faulks' novel A FOOL'S ALPHABET and changing the main character's name to Bond to demonstrate the kind of thing we might be in for with DEVIL MAY CARE. I'm going to do something similar. Give the following two passages a read and ask yourself what you would think if either were published on the IFP website as excerpts from the next official Bond novel.

Passage 1:


A single lamp burned in the hall of the Luci di Muntagna. Behind the desk the young receptionist had pulled his tie away from his collar and was sitting by the switchboard, reading a comic. He hurriedly put it away as Bond pushed through the glass swing-doors and got to his feet.
'Good evening, Mr Bond. How are you tonight?'
'Fine,' Bond replied. 'Miss Murray?' He scanned the rack behind the desk and saw that her key was hanging above its pigeon hole. He felt in his pocket.
'Miss Murray? She go out just as I come to work.'
'Any idea where?'
'She ask for a taxi at half past eight to bring her to Olbia.' Bond placed a five thousand-lire note on the counter between them. 'I'll wait for her in her room.'
The receptionist smiled and handed Bond the key to 137. 'Thank you very much,' he said as Bond walked away down the corridor.

The room smelt of Jolie Madame and still retained the heat of the afternoon sun. Bond pushed open a window and sat on the bed and wondered where to begin. There were several torn scraps of the hotel writing-paper lying in the waste-paper basket. Bond pieced them together. It was an unfinished letter addressed to him.

'James', he read, 'I don't know how to say this but I must, otherwise I feel I'm going to explode. Please try to understand and believe me when I tell you that I didn't have any choice and that the last thing I wanted was to involve you. Today has been such hell (underlined three times) that I don't know how I've managed to survive. First of all Mark being killed. Then Sarah and now today.'

The next two lines were crossed out, and there the letter ended.
It was in a drawer, beneath the red and white bikini she had worn on the first day that they had made love, that he found the key with the Marinasarda tag. He nodded slowly, the key clasped tight in his clenched fist. He lit a cigarette and began to walk up and down the room.
Anger, disgust, fear, relief, uncertainty - all elbowed their way into his mind, one pushing the other aside until he did not know what he was thinking or feeling. She was just a whore who had screwed him and used him. And he'd been taken in by her. Had he been so [censored]-crazy that he hadn't seen what was going on? Damn right, he had. She was as guilty as whoever's finger was on the trigger of the gun that had killed Mark. But then Mark was equally guilty. He'd let himself be blackmailed into making the whole thing, including his own death, possibly. Perhaps she'd been blackmailed, too. 'No choice,' the letter said. Why hadn't she said anything of any help in the letter, instead of a load of sentimental cliches? At least it was now out in the open. No more doubts or suspicions. But then there'd never been any doubt that Sarah had been kidnapped. So where did that get one? Back to square one. And where the hell was Liz? Why Olbia? Why hadn't she come back? Was she with the two men who'd killed Mark? The two men she'd landed on the beach at La Sirena? And if they'd killed Mark because he knew too much, what about her?
He picked up the telephone and spoke to the receptionist, telling him to call every hotel in Olbia and ask if Miss Murray was staying there. 'Yes,' he said in Italian in case the boy misunderstood, 'I know it's late. But that's what I want you to do - and right away. Call me back when you're through.'
'Sarah. . . rely on you.' Like the wheels of a train, the words repeated themselves over and over again. Don't worry Mark, Bond made a silent promise, she'll be all right. In forty-eight hours seventy per cent... What were Harrington's odds? A hundred to thirty against. So Liz had been a fool, like Mark. Poor bitch, she probably hadn't known what she was letting herself into. Again like Mark, the safe was one thing, but Sarah... He continued his pacing, lighting a fresh cigarette from the stub of the old one, until at last the telephone rang.


Passage 2:

It was quiet in the hut. Far off they could hear a dog barking from some village, then another started up, then a third. Presently they lit cigarettes and lay smoking, watching the complex and slowly shifting pattern of light and the stars through the decaying roof.
She said, 'Nobody's ever made love to me like that before. Now I know I've never really. . . oh, half, but nothing like that, God.'
'Well, it's luck. Works with some, not with others. And it's the occasion too.'
She was stroking his belly. 'God, I really lost my head. I suppose plenty of women go through their lives not feeling anything like they should.'
'Well, with some men it seems it's a one-sided affair - only their side - and that's what makes it go wrong. You know... there's a subtle and special importance in the way a man makes the girl feel that his domination and tigerish possession of her is carrying her up, is for her, with her - not just a bit of goatery by him. As soon as he lets her feel he's not with her, then it's no good for her.'
She kissed him.
Bond said, 'I believe in a girl audibly expressing her enjoyment too - naturally, not like a fire-engine; but you get a girl who lies there going through it silently, almost politely, and maybe gives a little squeak or a whimper when she goes off bang - takes away half the pleasure.'
'Do they?'
'Oh God, some girls come and you can hardly damn well tell - not a hiccup.'
'Maybe you haven't been trying?' She grinned. 'Maybe I haven't now?' She nibbled his ear and said, very softly into it, 'Do you know when I come?'
Bond reached and took her cigarette, stubbed it in the sand and stubbed his own out. He kissed her and they made love again and she strained him to her, pulling her into him and moving with his movements. Afterwards she got up and put her clothes on. He watched her, then dressed too. She said, 'It's late. I must go back.'
'To Morell?'
'James, don't. I-'
Abruptly the mood had changed and she turned urgently to him. 'You've got to get out of this place. No - no, don't and don't ask me any more. Go away, I'll meet you somewhere as soon as I can but don't stay here, darling. Not now.'
'Haven't I a small claim to know why?'
'Because Morell will see, for one thing. That's enough.You don't know what he's like, he's cold and deadly, he'll kill you. What happened this morning? You were in a fight or something?'
'With Novak. Have you seen him use that whip?'
She nodded. 'He used to be a circus act. And he had animals.'
An animal trainer. It was the bizarre note again - and then as he stood looking at her in the dimness of the hut there was a sound outside. She caught his arm and they stood very still.
'Beach patrol,' she whispered. 'James, stay here.'
He caught her and pulled her close, lifted her head and kissed her fiercely. She disengaged herself.
'Don't come with me. Stay here till I start the car - they can't do anything to me. As soon as you hear the car, go into the trees behind here and to the left. Keep off the beach.'
She stepped into the patch of moonlight at the door and disappeared.


Now here's the thing. These passages aren't by Sebastian Faulks. They're not by anyone famous. The first is from ZOOM by Peter Townend, who I already mentioned - published in 1972. His series is so obscure that practically the only hit you'll get on Google is me mentioning him here. The second extract was from THE MAN ABOVE SUSPICION by James Mayo, published in 1969. A little less obscure, this is one of the Charles Hood series. Mayo was the pseudonym of Stephen Coulter, a friend of Fleming's, a former journalist employed by Fleming and a former intelligence officer. Now I'm not saying these extracts are masterpieces, the best thrillers ever written. But they have something Bondian and Flemingian about them to me - the whole books do. Whole other books do. They are seeped in atmosphere and are, if not written to a Booker Prize level, surprisingly nuanced. They have something of the flair for the locales, the villains, the women, the attitudes, the cigarettes and the style that I enjoy in Fleming, and even one page of these books seems to me richer than ten of John Gardner's. Show me a Gardner passage as good as either of these! So this is my response to the title of this thread. I could recommend at least a dozen novels that better the continuations in this way - I'm not sure it is misplaced nostalgia. I think the misplacement is that Gardner gets a pass because he got the gig, so nobody else is ever discussed. The feeling is that he wasn't that close to Fleming, but he was quite good - but look at what we could have had from writers that nobody's ever even heard of! :cooltongue:




#57 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 02 August 2007 - 08:19 PM

Bravo, snf. :cooltongue:

Fantastic work with adaptation. Indeed, I thought these were going to end up being Foulks as well. You've made an excellent point about these virtual unknowns (to us laymen). I have to agree, I can't remember a single passage of the Gardner books I've read that approaches the palpable atmosphere of these authors' works.

#58 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 02 August 2007 - 08:21 PM

Yep, spot on, SNF.

#59 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 02 August 2007 - 10:05 PM

SNF - Yes,those are good passages you posted and yes they are very Fleming. However, they did not write Bond books and since this thread is based upon the continuation novels I won't disregard what you placed there but I will say that within the context they don't fit. I'm sure we could all come up with people who would write a book that's Flemingesque but the fact is Gardner was chosen for the role, he didn't write like Fleming and he did a great job (IMO) keeping James going. My opinion of Garner won't change, he did a solid job when placed in a pretty thankless position of having to be compared to the creator of the series with every line on the page.

Do the contributions of Robert Jordan to the Conan series count less because he's not Robert Howard? Yes his writing style is different and he introduced concepts to the story not present in the Howard series but they are still Conan stories and do keep the character moving forward.

I'm not denigrating your points made, just saying that different is not always bad.

#60 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 10:42 PM

Different is not always bad. But did we really get good? The two passages I quoted were plucked in two minutes from the dozens of out-of-print and mostly forgotten novels I have on my shelves. It would be too time-consuming and tedious to quote more, but can the argument that Gardner got the job really mean that he did it *well*? I think to answer that you really have to look at what other writers were capable of with similar material. I think among Bond fans Gardner's tenure is perhaps seen as a reasonably decent throw of the dice - but who is he being compared to when that assessment is being made? What other thriller writers who could have done it do you think he was good in comparison to? Gardner's written some decent thrillers in his time - I especially like THE LIQUIDATOR - but I think the idea that really great prose could only be written by someone like Kingsley Amis or Sebastian Faulks and that anyone else would produce exciting but perhaps not so stylishly written thrillers is a bit wrong. Fleming was unique, but there were many writers in the 60s, 70s and 80s who could have taken the job on and given it thrills and excitement as well as some of the polish and texture and nuance that Fleming had. Who sounds more like James Bond? The two men in my quoted passages or Gardner's James Boldman? For me, at any rate, it's the former. I've found it's the case with several writers, and I wish that Glidrose had had the imagination to pick a writer like Townend, or Alan Williams or any of a number of others, rather than a passable but - let's face it! - somewhat stodgy second-rank thriller-writer who, by his own admission, never really liked James Bond in the first place.

I think, in fact, that we're far too kind to the continuation books that we've seen so far, mainly because we wanted Bond books and we got them. Now we're attached to them. But I don't really buy the idea that because someone was chosen for the job, he was therefore good - or even acceptable. You like Gardner's novels, and that's fine. But I'm trying to respond to the thread-starter's question. I think it has always been possible to have original adult Bond novels that were not written by Ian Fleming but were nevertheless excellent. I'm not sure it's happened yet, though.