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

'Devil May Care' After Action Reports


437 replies to this topic

Poll: 'Devil May Care' After Action Reports

How do you rate Sebastian Faulks' centenary novel?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#151 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 09 June 2008 - 08:11 AM

But, I have to say, that my main complaint with the film is that it .............

??

#152 Napoleon Solo

Napoleon Solo

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1376 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 11:48 AM

This wasn't supposed to be just another continuation novel; this was the Centenary Novel, and it was supposed to be the best thing since Fleming...

Really? Who promised that?


The Flemings (and by that I mean the current family members) seemed to do so. There were comments about how Faulks' story was as if they had found an old manuscript by Ian, etc, etc. etc.

I'm about halfway through the book and will reserve judgment until I finish. But the Flemings certainly acted as if none of the other continuation novels had ever been written. While hype is a way of life, the Flemings went overboard (my opinion) which is kind of amusing considering how earlier continuation novels (commissioned by a different regime) received practically no promotion.

#153 Col. Sun

Col. Sun

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 427 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 12:58 PM

Well, I think the novel is OK, but a major let down after the build up.

Faulks isn't Fleming by a long shot. He's quoted as saying he followed Fleming's writing regime, but left out the martini mid-way through the day and the swim, and more cocktails in the evening -- perhaps that was his mistake --- It all seems to be striving too hard, but misses the fundamental wickedness, school-boy glee and sadism.

Also, the plot feels more like something from one of the many aborted versions of Thunderball or those proposed TV pilots for a Bond film in the late 50's. And as for the Bond girl, Scarlet , don't get me started -- totally off the peg character, which again seems to owe more to the movies than to a real Fleming girl.

I can't say I didn't enjoy the read -- it was a much fun as Gardner at his best or Benson, but I was expecting something so much more convincing.

Oh, and I agree with someone here who said it doesn't feel like it comes off the back of the events in TMWTGG -- It doesn't.

3 out of 5, but only just.

#154 Panther

Panther

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 14 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 12:59 PM

I thought the book was fine, well enough written, if clunky and not very tightly plotted. But that wasn't the problem. No, where I think it failed was on two 'external' factors:

1. Expectations. Faulkes is a very good writer indeed, and the 'by Ian Fleming' byline led us to expect a huge amount, maybe too much, especially considering he wrote it in six nano seconds. Which brings me to ...

2. His interviews. What possessed him to go on and on about how he only agreed to write it after much begging, and then only if he could do it at breakneck speed? And then, to top it all, to say all that bull[censored] about taking all the best bit of Fleming and writing the novel he would have written had he been on top of his game. Not to mention the classical composer v. pop song stuff. I mean how arrogant and, frankly, disrespectful can you get? Presumably he was worried about protecting his oh so high falutin' literary image, but honestly...

It's a wonderful irony that he will probably sell more copies of DMC than of any of his other books, and hopefully will be pointed out at parties as 'that guy who wrote the Bond book' (something that most people in the world would die for, but that will probably bring his ego some discomfort!).

If he'd paid proper respect to Fleming, and been a little more humble, I would probably have approached the book in a more generous frame of mind. It was fun. Light-hearted fun. But not a patch on Fleming.

(And whoever heard of a monkey anyway with unusable thumbs?)

#155 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 01:07 PM

But the Flemings certainly acted as if none of the other continuation novels had ever been written.


I'd be interested to know the extent to which Faulks was aware of the other continuation novels. Has he read any of them, I wonder? Did he consider how the other post-Fleming writers approached Bond?

I suspect that he concentrated solely on Fleming - for Fleming's Bond and his "universe" was, after all, his brief. However, one of the problems with DEVIL MAY CARE is that it doesn't tickle parts of the literary Bond that some of the other continuation novels didn't reach (and reach better). Faulks hasn't done anything fresh or taken Bond in any new or interesting directions.

Mind you, perhaps he never intended to, in which case, well, mission accomplished, I guess. But many of his admirers, such as myself, will always regret that Faulks didn't use his awesome talent to shake things up in the world of 007 and produce a book as bold and memorable as some of his others. Of course, for all I know, he did not have full creative freedom to do precisely as he pleased with Bond (which would hardly make him unique among the continuation novelists), but it's hard not to suspect that Ian Fleming Publications would have given him a rather longer leash than they put the others on.

Instead of "Sebastian Faulks writing as Ian Fleming" (which in any case didn't work), I wish we'd had Sebastian Faulks writing as, well, Sebastian Faulks.

#156 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 09 June 2008 - 02:52 PM

I'd be interested to know the extent to which Faulks was aware of the other continuation novels. Has he read any of them, I wonder? Did he consider how the other post-Fleming writers approached Bond?

Well he hadn't seen (all) the films as he had written a caviar factory fight which of course couldn't be included.

Still, if this was the only film he decided not to watch then his taste in style is beyond reproach.

#157 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

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

Posted 09 June 2008 - 02:55 PM

I doubt Faulks read any of the other continuation novels. Even Charlie Higson said he hadn't read the post Fleming novels so as not to be influenced.

#158 MHazard

MHazard

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 09 June 2008 - 03:00 PM

It's a bad novel and fails to work on several levels. I would be more charitable if this wasn't the official centenary continuation novel, but it almost struck me that Faulkes and IFP were just taking the money and running. My criticisms can be summarized in a number of different areas:

1. He gets the details wrong. Most strikingly, he has Tracy having been killed by Blofeld's men, not Blofeld. This may seem wonky, but its a fundamental fact about Bond, particularly if you're writing about Bond immediately post TMWGG that he shouldn't get wrong. Subsequently, Bond makes a reference to M's wife. This may have been intended as Bond being prickly and sarcastic, but given the other things he gets wrong, you wonder if Faulkes knew M was a confirmed bachelor. Now Faulkes can't be expected to be as obsessed with Bond details as some of us are, but for the official continuation novel, couldn't IFP have someone with that kind of Bond expertise proof-read the novel for errors.

2. The plot plods. I just re-read the first chapter of YOLT and the contrast is striking. Fleming creates drama in a game of rock paper scissors. Faulkes by contrast can't create dramatic tension over a plot to [warning here if you haven't finished the book] have the Soviet Union launch a nuclear strike on England. There's simply no pacing or tension.

3. Bond vanishes as a character. I heard Faulkes on PBS say that he didn't know what to do after an action sequence because Bond is not introspective. Unfortunately, he confuses Bond's lack of introspection with the notion that Bond has been lobotomized. Fleming always gets us inside Bond's head. Faulkes doesn't, I think because he has no clue as to what he thinks Bond is thinking. Bond has opinions and a mental life which is frequently what makes the novels and stories interesting. Although Bond tries to avoid existential questions (not always with success) part of what makes Bond interesting is his opinions (particularly on food, drinks, women and gambling) and how he responds to the tension of his life. We get none of it with Faulkes. In fact, a lot of the so-called being inside Bond's head consists of things like "Bond saw..." where you could eliminate "Bond saw" and just make it a descriptive paragraph and it would work as well. If the idea of selecting a "serious" author was that he could do a more literary Bond, even if the action sequences were not as skillful, then the novel fails miserably.

4. To the extent there's any take on Bond's mental status, it's not consistent with the end of TMWGG. I'm sure Faulkes thinks he gives us Bond's inner life by having him think "you're through, you're finished" (or however he actually phrases it at the beginning). I don't believe that Fleming would have gone in that direction. At the end of TMWGG, Bond is back and his one purpose in life is to be an agent. Nor do I believe M would give him a sabatical to figure out what he needs to do. Fleming is quite clear that what Bond needs to do is be an agent. In other words, I don't think Faulkes understands the character, which probably is why the character vanishes.

5. The 004 thing is so obvious you can see it coming a mile away. And, it also makes no sense.

6. The monkey hand. I don't think so.

7. Occasionally he drops a gratuitous reference to other books just to show us he's read them. But, they're usually stupid. My favorite (that is least favorite) Bond uses the David Somerset alias as a tribute to Darko Kerim. What a good idea. Let's use an alias we know the Russians know is a Bond cover (okay, maybe Grant didn't communicate this to them before he died, but no way does Bond risk a cover as a tribute to anybody).

Overally, I had to work at finishing this novel. I never had to work to finish a Fleming novel. I'm very disappointed and rank this novel as far worse than Col. Sun (which, while not Fleming had some very good elements), early Gardner, and Zero Minus Ten. The Bond fans who rushed out and bought this (myself included) deserved far better and so did Fleming's memory.

#159 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 06:44 PM

4. To the extent there's any take on Bond's mental status, it's not consistent with the end of TMWGG. I'm sure Faulkes thinks he gives us Bond's inner life by having him think "you're through, you're finished" (or however he actually phrases it at the beginning). I don't believe that Fleming would have gone in that direction. At the end of TMWGG, Bond is back and his one purpose in life is to be an agent. Nor do I believe M would give him a sabatical to figure out what he needs to do. Fleming is quite clear that what Bond needs to do is be an agent. In other words, I don't think Faulkes understands the character, which probably is why the character vanishes.


I completely agree, and this is where, to me, the novel really doesn't get things right. The feeling that I got from reading TMWTGG was that Bond was back and ready to go out for revenge after what happened to him at the beginning of TMWTGG. That revenge could not possibly have been completely exacted through the events of the novel (if they were at all), and there was much more work left for him to do. The way that I took his need for revenge was the beginning of a new phase in his life. In Casino Royale, he swears to get revenge against SMERSH for taking Vesper from him and putting him through all of the pain that he went through in that novel, and it was this revenge that drove him for a few novels until he had dealt a significant blow to SMERSH. I saw TMWTGG as the beginning of another similar process, in which Bond would not stop until he had taken revenge against those who had brainwashed him.

The Bond in Devil May Cry does not reflect this at all. He seems to be a character that is very laid back, much like a Roger Moore-style Bond, which is something that doesn't work in the wake of the events of TMWTGG. Also, I fail to see why M would send Bond on a sabbatical immediately after TMWTGG. If anything, Bond would have been put right back to work. And their relationship would not be as warm as it appears to be in the novel through the first half after the events of TMWTGG.

#160 MHazard

MHazard

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 09 June 2008 - 07:04 PM

I wish I'd thought of the plot of Bond seeking revenge on those who brainwashed him for one of my fan fiction efforts. Or that a good continuation novel was written about that. Because I think you're right, that would be consistent with the end of TMWGG. I don't think it's the only possible approach, but it's definitely defensible and would be interesting. Amis, for example, also had a more laid back Bond, but it was his take on how Bond would be after all that he had been through. Moreover, part of Col. Sun (which is not a great book, just, in my view, better than DMC) is Bond working through this and deciding he hasn't lost his edge. I don't think Amis got it right either, but it was closer and executed much better. In contrast, there's really no emotional development by Falkes. If Bond thinks he's through, how does he get back on his game? I thought the point of TMWGG was to get Bond back on his game and that he's there (I take Fleming's closing about no one woman being enough for Bond as meaning that he's returned to his life of adventure after his fling in OHMSS with the idea of some kind of domesticity). You're right that Bond would have hatred for those who had turned him against M and the service. But, then again, you and I and the others on this site are interested in Bond as a character and I don't think Falkes found him very interesting at all.

Ironically, Fleming used to refer to Bond as a "cardboard booby" but I thinks it's Falkes, the supposed serious novelist, who wrote the cardboard character.

#161 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 07:19 PM

I wish I'd thought of the plot of Bond seeking revenge on those who brainwashed him for one of my fan fiction efforts. Or that a good continuation novel was written about that. Because I think you're right, that would be consistent with the end of TMWGG. I don't think it's the only possible approach, but it's definitely defensible and would be interesting.


I agree in that it's not the only possible approach to take for a follow-up for TMWTGG, but it would certainly have been a much better approach than the plot of DMC. I would even have been satisfied had they kept the actual plot of DMC but written the Bond character to be more faithful to Fleming's Bond during TMWTGG.

#162 MHazard

MHazard

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 09 June 2008 - 08:32 PM

Well, a well written Bond character in the plot of DMC would have been better than a badly written Bond character in the plot of DMC. Getting Bond wrong is the most serious flaw of DMC, but unfortunately, far from it's only one. I don't think Faulks could have executed your idea either. I don't think he really likes Bond. I certainly don't think he understands or made any attempt to understand the character.

#163 Col. Sun

Col. Sun

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 427 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 08:58 PM

Well, a well written Bond character in the plot of DMC would have been better than a badly written Bond character in the plot of DMC. Getting Bond wrong is the most serious flaw of DMC, but unfortunately, far from it's only one. I don't think Faulks could have executed your idea either. I don't think he really likes Bond. I certainly don't think he understands or made any attempt to understand the character.


I agree, Faulks seems to give the impression this project was a little bit below him, BUT he has failed to deliver a good Fleming Bond novel (plot = poor; characters = off the peg) and he's missed Fleming's sense of adult fun (although he sure has tried hard - as we sure feel it, but minus the dry martinis.) He's a fine writer, but he sure as hell can't get down and dirty with style and confidence.

HIRING HIM TO WRITE AS IAN FLEMING WAS A BIG, BIG MISTAKE.

#164 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 09:02 PM

Well, a well written Bond character in the plot of DMC would have been better than a badly written Bond character in the plot of DMC. Getting Bond wrong is the most serious flaw of DMC, but unfortunately, far from it's only one. I don't think Faulks could have executed your idea either. I don't think he really likes Bond. I certainly don't think he understands or made any attempt to understand the character.


I definitely agree that getting the Bond character wrong is the most serious problem that faces DMC. I think that, so far in my reading, that there's some good material in DMC, but the characterization of Bond is what hinders the book from being one of the better continuation novels.

I would be interested, though, in seeing the idea of Bond going out for revenge against those that brainwashed him turned into some form of a story. I'd be very interested in seeing where such a story could go.

#165 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 09 June 2008 - 09:03 PM

Look forward to reading through this thread now, finally, after finishing DMC myself.

When I enjoy a book I can read it through in one sitting, easily. This one took me over a week. I think DMC is a reasonable enough novel but lacking in originality with an irritating surplus of locations, too many references to past villains/books (at least two that I can recall) and unnecessary cameos by Mathis and Leiter.

DMC is full of silly references to other novels and has a villain who's some sort of mix of Dr No, Mr Big and Drax. Gorner more a plagiarised villain than a text-book villain (but still a bit of the latter as well).

I don't get why Bond ever goes to Paris in the book (it's seems completely surplus to requirements and pace) and really don't get why he was chased by bikes in London.

The Persian contact reads like a copy of Darko Kerim (reinforced by constant references to him).

I did like the girl though.

Overall I'd say it's a book written by someone who thought it was beneath him to write it. The subtitle "Writing as Ian Fleming" is an insult to Fleming's memory.

I was expecting something far, far better. I've been robbed.

#166 neversaynever

neversaynever

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 370 posts

Posted 10 June 2008 - 02:43 AM

I don't get why Bond ever goes to Paris in the book (it's seems completely surplus to requirements and pace) and really don't get why he was chased by bikes in London.


Good point. Why was he in Paris? Apart from the fact that Faulkes is a francophile and wanted to show off...?

And what is with the motorbike chase? I had forgotten about it, but I agree - it doesn't make sense in hindsight. Aside from perhaps being an allusion to From A View To A Kill... (as if there weren't already enough cross-references).

#167 Von Hammerstein

Von Hammerstein

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 570 posts
  • Location:Newark, De

Posted 10 June 2008 - 03:38 AM

I finished it earlier todat and I have to say "meh"

It had a great comcept poorly executed. Loved Bond back in the 60's. Sadly it suffered from the lame villain effect. Dr. Julius Gorner, Julius obviously being a nod to Dr. No, Gorner a rather unimpressive name for Bond who has faced Blofeld, No, Goldfinger, Scaramanga, The Spang brothers, Buonaparte Ignacio Gallia, just didn't fit the expectation. Okay the monkey hand was a neat malformation as most Bond villains have something wrong with them, physically which is a metaphor for how twisted they are inside. His plan is adventurous enough but if he wants to destroy London and he has nukes, why bother the Russians? expecially when he'd partnered with them for his drug empire. The bit with Bond's challenge in the desert and the cigar tube read like filler and wasn't important to the tale. Gorner's end was vicious enough but it should have been Bond who throws the man to his death while battling him on the paddle-wheeler.

Chagrin not hardly menacing, and his "altered pain sense" was direct ripoff of Stamper from TND, another henchman I thought was lame as he was a male derivative of Xenia Onatop.

Scarlett/Poppy/004.....come on who didn't figure that out early on besides Bond?

So two out of five. Not a bad story but not as good as Benson's first outing in Zero Minus Ten.

Perhaps Faulkes will do better in the next, warming up after this one.

#168 Bondian

Bondian

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8019 posts
  • Location:Soufend-On-Sea, Mate. England. UK.

Posted 10 June 2008 - 04:22 AM

Luckily then, he was writing under a pseudonym. :tup:

#169 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 10 June 2008 - 05:13 AM

Perhaps Faulkes will do better in the next, warming up after this one.


Faulks has ruled out writing a second Bond novel. He has said "one tribute, one centenary, one book."

#170 Hitch

Hitch

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1219 posts

Posted 10 June 2008 - 07:30 AM

Luckily then, he was writing under a pseudonym. :tup:


Zing!

#171 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

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

Posted 10 June 2008 - 02:37 PM

[quote name='sharpshooter' post='877637' date='6 June 2008 - 19:24']With regards to Devil May Care, this

#172 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 10 June 2008 - 02:42 PM

[quote name='zencat' post='878390' date='10 June 2008 - 23:37'][quote name='sharpshooter' post='877637' date='6 June 2008 - 19:24']With regards to Devil May Care, this

#173 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 10 June 2008 - 03:09 PM

[quote name='zencat' post='878390' date='10 June 2008 - 15:37'][quote name='sharpshooter' post='877637' date='6 June 2008 - 19:24']With regards to Devil May Care, this

#174 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 10 June 2008 - 03:25 PM

With regards to Devil May Care, this ‘critic’ is entitled to his opinion, but he does not influence how the majority of us think and feel about this book. He is in the minority, that is the reality going by the consensus on internet message boards, and it can be argued the majority are very rarely wrong.

But our poll shows 70% rate the book three stars or higher. Amazons ratings are also pretty decent (4 stars). While clearly not meeting expectations (which I think were unrealistic), our poll shows a majority of fans like the book just fine.


It's now 80% at 3 or higher. It's also 70% at three or less: 50% rate the book only 3 stars is the big news here. I would have expected much, much better than this.


I also expected much more than what we ultimately got. I think that I've now reached the point in the book where others who have posted in this thread said that the book just became boring and difficult to read, which is quite disappointing as the first couple of chapters of Bond's trip to Iran were quite good. But, now, things have just become dull and it's very hard to continue reading forward, which is a shame because the Middle East is a setting that has rarely been used in the Bond novels (or the films) and it was great that a Bond adventure was finally being set in that part of the world because there should be countless stories that could be told about the region, but none of those interesting stories can be found in DMC.

Based on my reading thus far, I'd have to give the book 2 stars out of five, but would really rate it about a 1 1/2 stars, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt because I have yet to finish it.

#175 clublos

clublos

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 315 posts
  • Location:Jacksonville, Florida

Posted 10 June 2008 - 03:42 PM

I can't stand people offering their opinions before they finish reading a novel. Extremely uneducated. But this is a forum on the internet, where morons like me can post whatever they want.


My view: great story, a few missed opportunities, definitely not Fleming, better than Benson

Faulks misses the Fleming ability to show rather than tell. You see, Fleming not only took the time to describe with excruciating detail Bond's food and drink, but also the locations Bond went to. Rather than just describe the color and smells, Fleming tossed in his authoritative opinion on everything, especially the locations and people. Faulks doesn't do this, he just describes while leaving out the commentary. This is the reason people liken Fleming's stories to travelogues because he offers his biased view on the areas Bond visits, among other things. Also, Faulks misses many opportunities to elaborate on Bond's reactions to certain events: e.g. the fight in the cockpit of the VC10. This goes by way too fast.

But don't get me wrong, the Fleming sweep is in full effect here, but it's used too frequently and not enough time is given where time is needed. Another example is the ambush in the Cigar Pass (or whatever Gorner calls it), Fleming would have explained in full detail the cacophony of each bullet and explosion and their effects before allowing Bond to find an escape into the underground river.

Another example of the Fleming sweep being overused is the Russia sequence. What a wasted opportunity! Faulks barely touches on Bond's reaction to being in that sacred land, and speeds through the events. I would have much rather been sped through the "action" aboard the plane and given more time in Russia with Gorner's people in hot pursuit. That could easily be a half-novel right there.

Thank about it: Gorner's main objective is pushing heroin into Britain and, eventually, the USA in order to make money (the capitalist dream). His method is the ekranoplan. Events play out like they do in the novel, then the VC10 is eliminated from the story and everything moves to the ekranoplan which crash lands inside Russia. Or something.

Other thoughts:

First chapter is great, violent and sets an amazing tone....that doesn't last past the next chapter

Bond's observation of Gorner and Chagrin in the car serves no purpose to the story whatsoever

Scarlett is a great character, but should not be 004 and should not have been dishonest about being a twin; serves no story purpose

Faulkes writes the character of Bond perfectly

Gorner's death is great, however I agree with the comment that Bond's exposure of Gorner's hand and Chagrin's head are both sloppy, should have been saved for just Gorner

"Dr. Julius" should not have been used again

Leiter didn't get mauled in Miami, it was Tampa

Bath house scene was well researched and written


Imitation of Style is hard for anyone, but Jim's right we definitely set our standards high because of Faulks' prestige as a writer and accomplishments with imitation. Until IFP can find someone who can imitate Fleming's style, his attitude, his knowledge of espionage, his love of food and drink, his sweep of a story and his talent for original titles, we're going to be disappointed. I was let down by the novel only because "writing as Ian Fleming" fooled me into thinking Faulks channeled Fleming using a psychic and created a masterpiece. Silly me.

But it's a Bond novel, and I like it. So there.

4/5

#176 Hitch

Hitch

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1219 posts

Posted 10 June 2008 - 04:57 PM

But our poll shows 70% rate the book three stars or higher. Amazons ratings are also pretty decent (4 stars). While clearly not meeting expectations (which I think were unrealistic), our poll shows a majority of fans like the book just fine.


I'm terrible at maths, but at the time of writing it seems that about 68% of the CBn voters who voted gave Devil May Care three stars or more, yet roughly 80% gave it three stars or less. But you know what they say about statistics. :tup:

#177 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 11 June 2008 - 08:32 AM

That they keep changing (in this case...)..

This is the current reading:
1/5 [ 5 ] [9.80%]
2/5 [ 11 ] [21.57%]
3/5 [ 25 ] [49.02%]
4/5 [ 8 ] [15.69%]
5/5 [ 2 ] [3.92%]

Still roughly 80% on 3 and above and almost 70% at 3 and below. Just under 50% rate it 3* (which I did as well, feeling generous).

#178 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 11 June 2008 - 10:05 PM

But our poll shows 70% rate the book three stars or higher. Amazons ratings are also pretty decent (4 stars). While clearly not meeting expectations (which I think were unrealistic), our poll shows a majority of fans like the book just fine.

This is starting to remind me of something.


That's not the same thing! It's about enthousiasm when judging from facts...
I acknowledge that I hadn't seen him on the big screen and was not enthousiastic about Daniel Craig as 007 initially, before seeing him in action. Then, I saw his work as Bond, and went all "wow!". Silly me!
Initially, I had read some other Faulks's works and was enthousiastic. Then, I read some pages of his Bond novel and went... not "wow" at all. Silly him!

#179 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

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

Posted 11 June 2008 - 10:12 PM

True. It's not the same thing.

#180 neversaynever

neversaynever

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 370 posts

Posted 11 June 2008 - 11:09 PM

That they keep changing (in this case...)..

This is the current reading:
1/5 [ 5 ] [9.80%]
2/5 [ 11 ] [21.57%]
3/5 [ 25 ] [49.02%]
4/5 [ 8 ] [15.69%]
5/5 [ 2 ] [3.92%]

Still roughly 80% on 3 and above and almost 70% at 3 and below. Just under 50% rate it 3* (which I did as well, feeling generous).


I hate to be a nitpicker, but even on the statistics you are quoting, you are wrong.

The total for the votes for 3/5, 4/5 and 5/5 that you have given is less than 70%.

The total for the votes for 1/5, 2/5 and 3/5 is more than 80%.

I think you transposed the numbers for "3 and above" and "3 and below" in your post.