437 replies to this topic

[Dr. Noah]

Many Bond fans lamented the departure of Raymond Benson, who captured Bond so well in modern times. The fact is, a better writer was needed for a project like this. If the fine folks at Penguin Books want to make Bond a perennial bestseller they need to shell out some money and get an experienced writer to tackle 007. Otherwise, Bond fans will continue to get mediocre Bond stories, and the titles will not sell.

Good Lord...

Many Bond fans lamented the departure of Raymond Benson

I certaintly haven't.

Why the hell does anybody even try?

...
Was Faulks honestly excited to be writing this? To me, it felt bored... 'let's get this over with'... or something.

That pretty much sums up my interpretation of the book. Written by someone as a laugh but without any love or enthusiasm.

Really? Seriously? Then why did he do it?

Is it your opinion he needed the money, or something?

[Skudor]

For a laugh? Perhaps for the nice fat fee they presumably gave him (you don't have to need money to want more). I don't know. But reading the book certainly didn't leave me with the impression that he was particularly bothered.

By all accounts he's a great writer - I saw barely any evidence of that in DMC.

[Dr. Noah]

I can understand if you didn't like the book. (Understand but not agree.) But accusing him of not caring or being greedy seems a little ridiculous. He doesn't need the money or the work -- and he would've made a LOT more money using that time to write a book with a character whose literary and film rights are not owned by somebody else, so the "he did it for cash" stuff is a joke.

Talking about not giving your subject respect...

[Skudor]

I can understand if you didn't like the book. (Understand but not agree.) But accusing him of not caring or being greedy seems a little ridiculous. He doesn't need the money or the work -- and he would've made more money writing a character not owned by somebody else.

First of all - I am not accusing him of being greedy. If I left that impression my apologies to Mr Faulks.

I simply take these points and put two and two together:

• Faulks is a much lauded, highly respected quality author. I personally haven't read any of his other work, but I'll take the critics' (and Loomis's) word for this.
• Devil May Care struck me as a lazily written novel. No need to go into details, much of the criticism is replicated in review after review above. This simply isn't a good book in my view (and many others). Many disagree, but this is my opinion.
• From what I've read Faulks is not a Bond or Fleming enthusiast.

Taking these points together I can't help but think that the only reason the book is so poor is that Faulks didn't try and/or didn't care.

NB: Is the book's title perhaps a giant neon sign? Devil May Care?

[Dr. Noah]

So a writer you say is great and has immense critical respect, with a number of bestsellers and movies made from his work, took a job of writing a James Bond continuation novel that he didn't care about, for no good reason.

You ARE good...

[avl]

I'm half way through. I was given it for my birthday, I would have waited for the ppb. After reading peoples thoughts here my expectations were not too high. At the moment I view it as an easy enough read, but a rather pointless one. Maybe it will pick up.

As for Faulks - well he has pretty much explained why he did it - as a literary exercise/challenge. One that he has executed competently, but perhaps without the degree of inspiration that he would bring to his own "original" work.

[Skudor]

So a writer you say is great and has immense critical respect, with a number of bestsellers and movies made from his work, took a job of writing a James Bond continuation novel that he didn't care about, for no good reason.

You ARE good...

There has to be some reason the novel stinks to high heaven.

He seems to make a big point of how quickly he wrote it and how he was emulating Fleming (does he ever acknowledge Fleming as actually being any good?) and how easy it all was. Doesn't sound like someone defending a labour of love to me.

[Dr. Noah]

There has to be some reason the novel stinks to high heaven.

Well, that's a personal opinion about a book, not a character attack on the author, so I won't dispute it.

See, there can be PLENTY of reasons you don't like it:

1) You have trouble reading.
2) You like whining over and over in fan forums.
3) You have hypercritically high literary standards for continuation spy novels.
4) Your dog died and you're having a bad day.

I'm just not going to be an a-hole about it and guess at your motive for writing what you did. I'll just say your logic is flawed in attacking Faulks' motivation, without casting any aspersions.

[Skudor]

Well, there can be PLENTY of reasons you don't like it:

1) You have trouble reading.
2) You like whining over and over in fan forums.
3) You're hypercritical about continuation novels.
4) Your dog died and you're having a bad day.

I'm just not going to be an a-hole about it and project BS I don't know anything about onto you as a motive for writing what you did. I'll just say your logic is flawed without blasting you for your intension.

Well, you asked (see: "Really? Seriously? Then why did he do it?" above).

Obviously I don't know why he wrote it. I just know that I don't think it's very good (stinks to high heaven was a little harsh) and I'm clearly not alone. 65% of people responding to the poll at the start of this thread rate it at 3 stars or less.

As to:

1) You have trouble reading.

Not really. Without glasses or contact lenses I do struggle a bit but I was definitely wearing one or the other when I read the novel. I also have a passing familiarity with the alphabet etc. Thank you for your concern though.

2) You like whining over and over in fan forums.

Well, who doesn't. I know plenty of people who enjoy moaning about various things on forums.

3) You're hypercritical about continuation novels.

Can't say I am as I haven't read most of them. Pearson's was pretty good (up until the point I lost my copy and didn't get a chance to finish it) and Amis's wasn't bad either.

4) Your dog died and you're having a bad day.

Haven't had a dog for years and this day hasn't been too bad so far. Thank you for asking though.

I'm just not going to be an a-hole about it and project BS I don't know anything about onto you as a motive for writing what you did.

Thank you. I'll repay the courtesy. As to my motive though, I was responding you question ("Really? Seriously? Then why did he do it?"). My impression is simply that the novel doesn't show much sign of passion for the subject or effort having been put into it. Why? Who knows (but I've given my ideas on the matter).

[Dr. Noah]

Well, you asked (see: "Really? Seriously? Then why did he do it?" above).

Obviously I don't know why he wrote it. I just know that I don't think it's very good (stinks to high heaven was a little harsh) and I'm clearly not alone. 65% of people responding to the poll at the start of this thread rate it at 3 stars or less.

Three stars is GOOD. That's what I gave it. So 65% gave it a rating of GOOD or better here, too, if you count all the 3-5 star votes. And beyond that, 65% of the people voting here would add up to about 0.0001% of the people who made it a bestseller. Somebody here said all the people voting at Amazon gave it 3 and a half stars -- so on average all the Amazon readers gave it even more stars than me, and I liked it! So obviously there are people who don't think it "stinks to high heaven."

I'm fine with your opinion of the book. I just thought the "he didn't care" stuff was pushing it and unfair to a critically respected author who stuck his neck waaaay out--when he obviously didn't have to--in order to write a James Bond continuation novel (which for the last 40 years have been critically lambasted and selling in dismal amounts), and tried to give us a good story while paying tribute to Ian Fleming. Like it or not, give him SOME credit...

[Skudor]

Well, you asked (see: "Really? Seriously? Then why did he do it?" above).

Obviously I don't know why he wrote it. I just know that I don't think it's very good (stinks to high heaven was a little harsh) and I'm clearly not alone. 65% of people responding to the poll at the start of this thread rate it at 3 stars or less.

Three stars is GOOD. That's what I gave it. So 65% gave it at least GOOD here, too, if you count all the 3-5 star votes. And beyond that, 65% of the people voting here would add up to about 0.01% of the people who made it a bestseller. Somebody here said all the people voting at Amazon gave it 3 and a half stars -- even more stars than me! Obviously there are people who don't think it "stinks to high heaven."

I don't care if you don't like it. I just thought the "he didn't care" stuff was pushing it and unfair to a guy who tried to give us a good novel.

Amusingly enough I gave it three stars as well. Go figure.

It has been a massive best seller - no doubt about it. I'm just not sure people buy books because they've read them and know that they are really really good, though.

Personally I'd put the success down to marketing and Faulk's name rather than the quality of the book (but then I would, wouldn't I). Sidney Sheldon sold a lot of books too...

I already said the stinks comment was a bit harsh.

So why didn't you give it four or five - you do like it don't you?

[Dr. Noah]

So why didn't you give it four or five - you do like it don't you?

I gave it a rating of GOOD -- three stars. That's about as high as I go for continuation novels. I'd give Colonel Sun the same. I enjoyed reading it.

What's your star system -- everything under four stinks to high heaven?

[Skudor]

So why didn't you give it four or five - you do like it don't you?

I gave it a rating of GOOD -- three stars. That's about as high as I go for continuation novels. I'd give Colonel Sun the same. I enjoyed reading it.

What's your star system -- everything under four stinks to high heaven?

I've already noted that 'stinks to high heaven' was a bit harsh. But feel free to keep using it.

5 - Excellent
4 - Very Good
3 - OK
2 - Poor
1 - Stinks to high heaven

I'd probably rate it 2 now... but I was feeling generous at the time. When it comes to Bond I find it hard to go below 3. Too much nostalgia.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

I'm about two thirds through it. It's certainly a good read, and sometimes Faulks catches Fleming's close than anyone before [although I haven't read all of the non-Fleming Bond books], but it does constantly rehash Fleming situations and characters. It almost feels like the way the films of TSWLM and DAD rehashed previous films to the point of virtually re-doing certain scenes.

[Simon]

Three stars is GOOD. That's what I gave it. So 65% gave it a rating of GOOD or better here, too, if you count all the 3-5 star votes.

Similarly, or perhaps conversely, so too did 75% of all people gave it a 3 stars and below rating.

Go figure.

[dogmanstar]

I gave it a four and quite liked the book. Faulks seemed to emulate Fleming's style, the locations were new and interesting, the characters are memorable. True, there are a few missteps along the way--and the last chapter is kind of goofy. But, IMHO, GF has a lot of missteps, too--and that's Fleming!

One thing that bothered me a little more--was anyone else bothered by the explicitness of the violence? That seemed out of synch with Fleming--and perhaps too much. Anyone else ?. . . .

[Dr. Noah]

Similarly, or perhaps conversely, so too did 75% of all people gave it a 3 stars and below rating.

Go figure.

This "three stars and below" thing is hysterical. About 50% of the voters gave it three stars. How you can equate that with a majority of people not liking the book is a freaking laugh riot.

[Simon]

If you actually read the post sweetpea, you will realise there was no attempt to equate the numbers with anything.

Mine was just a parallel observation for the likes of you to jump up and down about.

[Dr. Noah]

If you actually read the post sweetpea, you will realise there was no attempt to equate the numbers with anything.

Mine was just a parallel observation for the likes of you to jump up and down about.

In other words your post had no point whatsoever. Thanks for playing.

[Simon]

On the contrary, it served only to get the expected rise out of you.

Thank YOU for playing.

[Dr. Noah]

On the contrary, it served only to get the expected rise out of you.

Thank YOU for playing.

Ha HA! That was an incredible move! Astounding! And I posted back to get a rise out of you! Hoo-HAH!!!

[Skudor]

So you post something purely to get a reaction? Isn't that what trolls do?

[Dr. Noah]

Yes.

[Skudor]

Is it because your dog died?

[Dr. Noah]

Is it because your dog died?

I give that post 3 stars or below.

[Skudor]

I see. I'm very sorry about that. I mean your dog.

[Dr. Noah]

You're a kind man.

[Jim]

Play nicely, Dr. Noah. You can be disappeared very easily.

[zencat]

You guys have been at this for weeks. It's time to move on.

[Loomis]

I'd have thought that someone who enjoyed DEVIL MAY CARE would post a lot more on the virtues of the book, instead of just ripping into those of us who disliked it.

Why is it a decent read, Dr. Noah? What does Faulks add to the world of Bond? I could answer those questions right now, and I don't even like DMC! (But I concede that it has good points. One or two small ones.)

If you like DMC, and you're prepared to spend time on CBn threads about it, why, then, are you doing next to no actual celebrating of the novel you claim is such a huge success?

Don't you want to discuss it? To make your case for why it's a cracking pageturner? Heck, if you did that you might even come up with an interesting post. What, in particular, tickles your fancy about DMC? Sell it to us (or, if you've already given up on "us" as a hopeless cause, sell it to the lurkers who are reading this). Where's your giddy fanboy enthusiasm that you constantly tear into others for not having?

You criticise others for being - if I understand your posts correctly - whingeing so-called fans who prefer to be meanspirited about DMC instead of taking an openminded look at its good qualities.... but where is your own enthusiasm for this book?

I mean, I ask this because you are the DMC defender. Only you're not defending it. You're not really saying anything at all. Seriously, have you even read it?