437 replies to this topic

[FlemingBond]

i've only read Fleming's Bond novels, and not sure about getting this one. the reviews aren't encouraging.

[Trempo]

Extremely disappoined. Littered with errors. Clearly, a case of Faulks slumming it, and not taking the project seriously. Wouldn't have mattered had this not been sold as "writing as Ian Fleming". This is Faulks writing as Raymond Benson. Anyone who thinks this style recreates Fleming, or is evocative of Fleming, hasn't read Fleming. Still, its done what IFP hoped, I guess: loads of publicity and a, probably temporary, bestseller.

Sure, it is better written than Benson (though not as well plotted). But it is not in the class of Amis, Wood, Pearson and early Gardner. But ALL the continuation authors benefit by comparison with DMC.

One observation I would add that doesn't seem to have been made is that Faulks continually has Bond absent from passages, a constant failure of the continuation novels. Fleming's books were ABOUT James Bond - how many passages was he missing from? Little occured that Bond was not involved with (if you exclude the obvious intros of FRWL and TSWLM). Like most continuation authors (excluding Amis and Wood) Faulks seems afraid simply to WRITE about JAMES BOND!! Chuck out the aimless first chapter (shock horror - we learn drugs involves nasty people who come to bad ends, Chagrin's a nutter, Mathis has a mistress!) and go straight in with Bond. Take out the pointless Leiter, CIA, Persian chap (so unmemorable I can't recall his name!) subplot and the book is shorter and more taught. And, of course, have the book proof-read by someone who knows Bond (rather than can just spell). And about Bond.

But the one thing one does learn about DMC is that Ian Fleming was a better writer than Sebastian Faulks is. How does that sound, literary set?

David,
I totally agree with you.
I had the feeling Bond was only a little part in the story. As if he was floating through the things that happened.
Even the trip through Russia. Everything was so easy, like a walk in the park. There was also no mention, that he was brainwashed there. And the writing was definitely not like Ian Fleming.
In my opinion the Amis, Wood and early Gardner are much better than DMC.

[SecretAgent007]

OK, I took a few hours last night and re-read this thing to see if it is as bad as I first thought. Here is my stream of consciousness thoughts on my second reading And...yeah it still sucks. It's better than Benson (just). And I would put all but the last few Gardner novels ahead of it, along with C. Sun. I had trouble finding any plot elements that were fully developed. Having Leiter in the book was a complete waist of time. I still can't see Bond playing tennis. The monkey hand was unimaginative. The references to past Fleming was even more annoying the second time around. A lot of the description of the action and geography was choppy. The girl turning out to be her twin and 004 was very (bad) Gardner. Any why would SIS make this girl a "00". She seems pretty inept, other than being able to shoot out a light with a 1911, which my wife could do and she is not a "00". The whole 004 sub plot was a waist. Her portrayel was weak. Bond never seems to be in real danger. The trip through the USSR was pointless. What really gets me with most of the continuation novels is all of the double crosses (see every Gardner novel) and subplots. What is so wrong with just writing a fluid narrative as, oh I don't know, Ian Fleming did? I don't think my opinion would be any different if it was not a Bond novel.

Still 2 stars.

[MarkA]

But the one thing one does learn about DMC is that Ian Fleming was a better writer than Sebastian Faulks is. How does that sound, literary set? eek.

[neversaynever]

The Devil May Care, but I sure as hell don't.

That pretty much sums up my attitude towards this book. It was an overwhelming disappointment. I agree with some of the previously-made comments that the early chapters were a good read (with the exception of the pointless first chapter - having finished the book, the inclusion of the Paris scene in chapter 1 just doesn't make any sense at all - except to introduce us to the grotesque use of the pliers, but it's an unnecessary amount of detail just to introduce us to the henchman's modus operandi). And there were some witty moments (Bond liking his peppet "cracked, not ground"). But once Bond made it to Persia, and as soon as he started investigating the Ekranoplan, I just felt like dozing off. The story took a nosedive from that point and never recovered. I had to force myself to finish reading. It was boring and tedious, and often I didn't actually understand who was where and what they were doing: action and scenes are just poorly described. I never thought I'd say this, but I honestly feel that Benson did a better job.

Now let's talk about a few major irritations:
- the title: "Devil May Care". Possibly the most awkward title in Bond history - it has no significance to the story, and one feels that Faulks just picked a clich

Edited by neversaynever, 05 June 2008 - 02:06 AM.

[Johnboy007]

I think you make a good point about that. I suppose James Bond could be a little rusty, but he seems awfully careless and lazy throughout a lot of the book.

[whiteskwirl]

[quote name='neversaynever' post='876984' date='4 June 2008 - 20:06']- the title: "Devil May Care". Possibly the most awkward title in Bond history - it has no significance to the story, and one feels that Faulks just picked a clich

[neversaynever]

Another thing: I think there is actually a glaring editing mistake. On page 46 (I think - I don't have the book with me now), when Scarlett 'reveals' that she knows Bond is looking for Gorner. She actually refers to helping him find Gorner before she says that she knows he is looking for Gorner. The text seems to have been placed in the wrong spot: she says "I can help you find him" (or something like that) and it just doesn't make sense at all. Why is Scarlett talking about Gorner? Then further down the page she reveals she knows Bond is looking for Gorner. It's backwards.

I will find the exact text tonight and excerpt it - but it's a pretty obvious mistake.

Edited by neversaynever, 05 June 2008 - 01:54 AM.

[sharpshooter]

But once Bond made it to Persia, and as soon as he started investigating the Ekranoplan, I just felt like dozing off. The story took a nosedive from that point and never recovered. I had to force myself to finish reading. It was boring and tedious, and often I didn't actually understand who was where and what they were doing: action and scenes are just poorly described. I never thought I'd say this, but I honestly feel that Benson did a better job.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I don't think Devil May Care is as bad as most members have said it is, but it is definitely not among the best of the 007 novels. The best thing about it is that Bond is back and that is a very good and welcoming thing.

[neversaynever]

^^ I agree with your number 6. It is, as you say, overly coincidental, unbelievable, and also unnecessary. There is simply no need for Bond to have encountered him before.

[David Schofield]

^^ I agree with your number 6. It is, as you say, overly coincidental, unbelievable, and also unnecessary. There is simply no need for Bond to have encountered him before.

Though I think Faulks isn't worthy of wiping the of Fleming's shoes, I should remind you that Bond's meeting with Goldfinger is equally coincidental.

[Trident]

^^ I agree with your number 6. It is, as you say, overly coincidental, unbelievable, and also unnecessary. There is simply no need for Bond to have encountered him before.

Though I think Faulks isn't worthy of wiping the of Fleming's shoes, I should remind you that Bond's meeting with Goldfinger is equally coincidental.

Agreed. But: In 'Goldfinger' the first encounter

1) is far more detailed, almost to the point of making an entire sub-
plot itself.

2) serves to describe practically the complete character of Goldfinger;
although we learn later that he's SMERSH' paymaster, smuggles gold
and generally is up to nothing good, none of this comes as a
surprise. Bond already uncovered him as a ruthless cheat. Only the
scale on which he operates is unknown.

[zencat]

Lovely jet lag is giving me time to read the book guilt free for a few early AM hours. I'm just over 100 pages into it...and I'm getting a little worried. I'm worried because I'm LOVING it. I've picked up on some of the mixed reactions and I was expecting I would finally have an opportunity to prove I'm not a slobbering kiss fanboy who, as John Cork once said, "pretty much only requires that the main character be named James Bond." After reading the excerpts, I was expecting to artfully explain how Faulks fell into classic traps of patchise and that his experiment in style added up to a distracting Rich Little-like "impression" of Fleming...yadda, yadda...

But now that I'm into the book, for the life of me I can't drag out a single eloquent criticism (my only complaint might be that I want some freaky sex in this book and I want it soon!). Thus far, DMC is everything I want in a Bond novel. I'm enjoying the style and the flow and I'm loving the travelogue details. I really dug the tennis match (although I instantly caught onto how Gorner was cheating and wondered why Bond didn't), and I've always wanted to see Bond travel to the Middle East, so this is a dream come true. And Bond feels like Bond to me. There's a bit of the Fleming "bastard" there that no other continuation novelist has captured, although Faulks' Bond is much less dark. What can I say? I don't know. Call me fanboy, but I'm loving it!

I was also very surprised to spot a Young Bond reference. Did you spot it?

I'll report back.

[wattenscheid09]

...but then, zencat, you're only 100 pages in. I was still somehow optimistic at page 100. The trouble hasn't even STARTED:).

But seriously, folks, dissenting voices or people who like it are OK for Penguins Nr 1 all time smash hit selling success.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Was up until 3 am reading it. Not necessarily because I was gripped, but because I'd promised myself that I'd read it in one sitting. My thoughts:

[stromberg]

...but then, zencat, you're only 100 pages in. I was still somehow optimistic at page 100. The trouble hasn't even STARTED:).

But seriously, folks, dissenting voices or people who like it are OK for Penguins Nr 1 all time smash hit selling success.

Seconded. And this is the point where have to draw the awful parallel to DAD. Not that I say that DMC is the literary DAD (it's far from that), but i, too, found it quite nice, but then to be falling more and more apart, a little bit before I was half way into it.
An example for you, zen:

[Mister E]

Wow this is pretty sad. I am still buying the book but my hopes have gotten very low.

[ACE]

I was also very surprised to spot a Young Bond reference. Did you spot it?

A gambling establishment from Bond's youth, perchance?

[Double-Oh Agent]

Yeah, how can Faulks reference the Young Bond gambling scene (which I don't have a problem with, by the way) and yet totally discount/ignore Amis' Colonel Sun. According to Faulks' Devil May Care, we're meant to believe that it is the direct sequel to The Man With The Golden Gun and that Colonel Sun doesn't exist, which is incorrect.

[Double-Oh Agent]

^^ I agree with your number 6. It is, as you say, overly coincidental, unbelievable, and also unnecessary. There is simply no need for Bond to have encountered him before.

Though I think Faulks isn't worthy of wiping the of Fleming's shoes, I should remind you that Bond's meeting with Goldfinger is equally coincidental.

Agreed. But: In 'Goldfinger' the first encounter

1) is far more detailed, almost to the point of making an entire sub-
plot itself.

2) serves to describe practically the complete character of Goldfinger;
although we learn later that he's SMERSH' paymaster, smuggles gold
and generally is up to nothing good, none of this comes as a
surprise. Bond already uncovered him as a ruthless cheat. Only the
scale on which he operates is unknown.

Also, it goes with the underlying theme of the book. As Goldfinger tells Bond at one point, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action."

Besides, the idea of Bond observing the villain prior to the story proper has been done another time before--see Gardner's Brokenclaw. And, in my opinion, the Goldfinger and Brokenclaw observations/encounters work much better than in DMC. At least in the former two, there is some interaction involved and both further the character and power of the villains. In DMC, it's just a casual coincidental observation from a good distance away and then it's over. The part could easily be removed and nothing would be affected from the novel.

[neversaynever]

I was also very surprised to spot a Young Bond reference. Did you spot it?

I was also very surprised to spot a Young Bond reference. Did you spot it?

A gambling establishment from Bond's youth, perchance?

Far be it from me to blow my own trumpet ( ) but the Higson reference is discussed here.

Edited by neversaynever, 05 June 2008 - 11:46 PM.

[MajorB]

But the one thing one does learn about DMC is that Ian Fleming was a better writer than Sebastian Faulks is. How does that sound, literary set? eek.

Well, he was certainly a better writer of this sort of story than Faulks is. Faulks's other work is pretty well regarded (I haven't read any of it myself). But he doesn't seem to be writing to his strengths with DMC. I suspect that writing a thriller requires a particular set of skills, which Fleming had in abundance and Faulks may not. Plus, having to work in someone else's mold may have restricted his crativity, energy, etc. I don't think we can make that broad a judgment on Fleming vs. Faulks as writers overall.

[dinovelvet]

I enjoyed Devil May Care. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying I'm one of those non-snobs who enjoys Benson's books too , though I'm not really a Gardner fan (I can only pick out 3 or 4 of his that I like).

I agree with a lot of what's been said so far - perhaps too much obvious lifting elements from other Fleming books. I picked up on a strong Dr. No influence that hasn't been mentioned much - a villain named Dr. Julius with a deformed hand, a sequence involving Bond trapped in a tube/pipe, and an overall Crab Key vibe to Gorner's desert lair.

Anyway, it was mostly an enjoyable page-turner for me, and that's all I ask of an adventure novel like this. I was underwhelmed by :

[sharpshooter]

...but then, zencat, you're only 100 pages in. I was still somehow optimistic at page 100. The trouble hasn't even STARTED:).

Indeed. My optimism for the book took a battering from that point on.

[Simon]

Was hoping to start this, this weekend. Wondering whether to sell it back to Waterstones.

The poor wife, whose literary appreciations include Proust, is probably going to disown me if I advocate interests in such, especially after having read Human Traces.

Maybe I will just figure a way to permanently postpone...

[zencat]

...but then, zencat, you're only 100 pages in. I was still somehow optimistic at page 100. The trouble hasn't even STARTED:).

Indeed. My optimism for the book took a battering from that point on.

200 pages in now and my enthusiasm as not diminished one bit. I'm throughly enjoying this book! As I said, it has everything I want in a Bond novel. I also feel utter loathing for the villain and look forward to his slow painful death at the hands of Bond.

Happy to see LA (Santa Monica/West Hollywood) make a brief appearance.

EDIT: Only quibble so far... I am a touch disappointed at the revelation of Gorner's master plan. Very familiar, very movie-like. I really thought his ambition to flood England with drugs was enough. I just don't think you always need to go this big (which is something I really like about the Young Bond books -- the villain's master plans stay in check). There doesn't need to always be a countdown to nuclear annihilation. It's enough to stop a despicable man from living out of life of despicable purpose. Until now, I liked that DMC was going in this direction. But this does give us a way into a "big" climax, which I will save for tomorrow.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I enjoyed Devil May Care. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying I'm one of those non-snobs who enjoys Benson's books too , though I'm not really a Gardner fan (I can only pick out 3 or 4 of his that I like).

I agree with a lot of what's been said so far - perhaps too much obvious lifting elements from other Fleming books. I picked up on a strong Dr. No influence that hasn't been mentioned much - a villain named Dr. Julius with a deformed hand, a sequence involving Bond trapped in a tube/pipe, and an overall Crab Key vibe to Gorner's desert lair.

Anyway, it was mostly an enjoyable page-turner for me, and that's all I ask of an adventure novel like this. I was underwhelmed by :

[terminus]

200 pages in - and thoroughly loving it - the only bit I've skimmed so far is the tennis match (but I also skimmed the gold match in GF and the card game in MR) but, otherwise, loving it.

Got a sneaking suspicion about exactly what Scarlett is doing (and, yes, I know she's 004 -) and surprised nobody else got this vibe too, so will wait to see if it's blown out of the water yet.

[MarkA]

200 pages in now and my enthusiasm as not dismissed one bit.

Come on Zencat is there nothing you don't like. I agree with you about Young Bond. Far better than the idea deserved. The Moneypenny Diaries I think are the real thing. But Devil May Care is a pretty mediocre pastiche that has a few well written passages. All it shows to me is how underated Fleming was. Maybe not by us but by the intelligentia at large. For someone who's a screenwriter you must admit the basic plot is a bit thin. In fact it really reminds me of early Gardner. And that is not a compliment. Oh well better than Benson, and that also is not a compliment.