437 replies to this topic

[Dr. Noah]

It's interesting -- the reviews here average out almost the opposite way among book reviewers outside of the Bond world, with the great majority liking it. It's usually the opposite.

EDIT: I guess, looking at the chart, most do give it 3 stars here, but the angriest critics have posted the most.

[Von Hammerstein]

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

Just as well then. On to the next writer.

In response to Dr Noah just above: I'm not angry. Just somewhat disappointed. DMC is an adequate Bond novel.

Edited by Von Hammerstein, 13 June 2008 - 01:21 AM.

[Byron]

Took my time and finally finished DMC last night. Read the last 7 pages of the after action reports with interest, wondering if i was going to be the only one disappointed by it. Looks like i wasn't.

Alarm bells started as far back as the infamous "my Bond has no inner life" and it "took me 6 weeks to write it" quotes by Faulks. Then a long silence broken by the first teaser, which got me more worried. When i finally received the book, the first rather bland third in Paris had me wondering if the book would improve. Fortunately once Bond headed to Tehran the book picked up. Even better he visited the Caspian Sea, a very interesting locale. This section was the most enjoyable. However after his capture it all went downhill.

I agree with all the criticisms levelled at this book and Faulks including plotholes, loose ends etc. The lack of originality was very painful as again and again i was thinking "this scene/character/situation/name is a copy from such and such film/novel". This is why Colonel Sun was an immensely superior continuation novel - it wasn't a rehashed greatest hits package and the characters/situations in it were much more vivid and exciting.

Overall quite disappointed with the Centenary Novel. Like others have noted, i have a sneaking suspicion that Faulks thought this was below him and that the pundits would lap up any old load of cobblers thrown at them.

I'm glad he won't be back and that i didn't shell out on a luxury Bentley or signed edition.

Hopefully QOS will restore our spirits.

PS More people gave the book 1 & 2 stars than 4 & 5. This says quite a lot in itself.

[Dr. Noah]

PS More people gave the book 1 & 2 stars than 4 & 5. This says quite a lot in itself.

Three more.

No offense to Byron here, who is pretty fair, but good Lord... I don't know if it's because our hero is a fictional snob, or the original author of our hero was a real snob, but some of the reviews here... I'm assuming there was a lot of that influence in the writing.

PS: Gardner and Benson were unfortunately largely ignored by literary critics, but the reaction to Colonel Sun was a lot worse. This novel seems to have been welcomed and accepted fairly eagerly by the established press, as a nice one-off tribute -- which is all it (and probably CS) was intended to be, not a relaunch of the series.

[Simon]

Well, polished it off over the weekend and all I can say is that the James Bland review said it all for me.

I don't need a rip-roarer, but just a feeling that what has been read has been about James Bond, not some chap coincidentally named.

I was trying to explain this to my wife over the weekend and was lamenting the poor chap who has to do this continuation job - it is a thankless task. Is there a single Fleming novel that encapsulates Fleming? He himself experimented and over the course of time, his style or success is based on 14 books.

One book has a slim chance of capturing the same success.

That said, I am afraid all this pat Poppy becomes Larissa becomes 004, Bond is captured, Bond escapes palava... it is a bit mundane. As for IFP - right intentions, unfortunate results, if indeed a measure of their results is not just monetary but how this may feed the future reception of adult novels.

[BoogieBond]

Finally finished it.
Would give it a solid 3. I felt the details of Bonds life and the Dining/Lifesyle etc, were bits I really enjoyed from Fleming, and glad they were also given prominence here.
Felt a lot of the characterisation and plot was uninspired and the creativity limited. Not one character I felt was not regurgitated from a previous Fleming novel. Nothing new added. Action scenes uninspiring.
But as an adventure it was fine, the story seemed to flow for me, and the time and place was OK. E.g. I could believe this was 1967.
Attention to detail was fine.
Particulary liked the part of the story where Scarlett and Bond were getting away from Moscow back to london(Via Leningrad and Helsinki). I am always a sucker for the Travelogue feel.
Feel the Ekranoplan was a little wasted, sounds a cool thing that belongs in the world of 007.
Gorner and Chagrin were OK, but not the best villains, and the real motivation(the hatred of England) was never fleshed out to be totally believable.
All in all pretty solid. But wouldn't rate it as good as the top fleming novels.

[chivasregal]

I have to say that I was thoroughly disappointed with Devil May Care. Even if we leave the James Bond connection aside for a moment and consider it solely as a thriller, it leaves much to be desired. The tiresomely contemporary 'twist' of a female 00 agent is hamfistedly executed and predictable.

(FICTION WRITING IN THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY 101 RULE 1. A strong and assertive woman with post-sexual revolution attitudes, who can also hold her own in a scrap against any man MUST be present in EVERY case. Even if such a character is completely ahistorical to the setting, or not in keeping with the genre she MUST be shoehorned in. Failure to do so shall constitute proof of chauvinism.)

From the first mention of 004 (phrased in clumsily gender neutral language by M) I had no doubt that the new agent would turn out to be a woman, and figured out the identity of Scarlett hundreds of pages ahead of schedule.

I grew tired of John Gardners endless twists and doublecrosses, but at least the man knew how to execute them and managed to surprise me occasionally.

As others have noted, the demise of the Electroplan is anticlimatic and makes its elaborate introduction pointless.

Most characters and scenes, (in the case of Dr Julius Gorner even half a name!) are simply cribbed from Fleming.

Such lack of originality would not have been an insurmountable obstacle if Faulks had managed to pull off his imitations with sufficient flair and style. However all he achieves is to highlight the quality of the originals by comparison.

The most successful scene of Devil May Care for me is the Tennis match between Bond and Gorner but even this is far weaker than the comparable game of bridge in Moonraker and golf in Goldfinger.

I also gained a far more vivid impression of Blades and of the Royal St. Mark’s golf club than of Gorner's tennis club.

At least part of the reason is probably because they were modeled on real places, (Boodles in St James street London, and Royal St George's Golf Club in Kent) with which Fleming was very familiar.

As a citizen of 1950s London clubland, Fleming was writing in large part of what he knew about.

Faulks by contrast seems neither knowledgable or interested in this world.

His arrogant claim that he wrote the thing in six weeks illustrates his underestimation of the task at hand . Fleming may have written his books in that time but he was writing on the one hand about a world he was deeply familiar with and on the other, about things that sprang from his own subconscious. Faulks confidence that he could replicate that just as easily as the original writer smacks of hubris.

I wonder how he would have responded to a writer who having read birdsong, breezily claims that he "could do Faulks easily enough" while leaving out "the boring bits" by copying Sebastians writing schedule.

Ahh, but Faulks is a literary writer while Fleming is a mere genre writer. Condescension is only permissible in one direction.

Faulks didn't read Bond novels by other writers, but at the very least, I wish he had bothered to read Kingsley Amis's nonfiction 'James Bond Dossier.' Although I am not a fan of Amis's own continuation effort, in 'Dossier' Amis displays a real appreciation of Fleming and what makes his writing work.

Faulks has ultimately walked into the same trap as all the other continuation writers and concentrated on faithfully imitating the weakest and least important aspect of Flemings writing (the preposterous and formulaic plots)at the expense of all the things that make Fleming worth reading (the absurd and stylish value judgments and digressions, the passion for descriptive detail, a flair for the bizarre outlandish and grotesque)

Flemings books always convey a strong sense of place, something DMC for all its globetrotting (It spans more locations than any other Bond novel that comes to mind) notably lacks.


Fleming once stated self deprecatingly that his books were the product of an adolescent imagination. It doesn't seem to be a trait Faulks either shares or respects (By his own admission he had outgrown genre fiction before his teens) and a sense ironic detachment and condescension for the whole thing comes through strongly all the way through and pollutes the whole thing.

Even the weakest of the Fleming bond novels contain individual scenes that are intensely memorable. Devil May Care has no comparable setpieces.

Its a tired Bond-By-Numbers effort.

[Flemingsan]

Chivas - thanks for speaking out the truth!

Although I´m quite sure the titel has been dictated by the Fleming Estate and is not Faulks´ own suggestion, one feels from the first page that the only one who cares/d about this book might be Devil himself, nobody else does/did (neither Faulks nor the Estate) - all they wanted was a lot of hype and as much money as possible.

And the title should have warned us (warned me at least, but I was ready to dream, I really wanted a new Fleming book)- DMC is NOT and doesn´t sound like a Fleming title, neither do the post-Fleming movie title like TND or DAD or whatever.

Pity - it´s really a shame.

[Loomis]

I'm finding it hard to square my low opinion of DEVIL MAY CARE with my huge admiration of Faulks as a novelist. It just doesn't compute. The other day, I tried to re-read DMC, but got bored very quickly and thought "Enough of this cobblers, let's read a proper novel with some real style and substance to it*", and quite without thinking about it I found myself picking up a book by.... Sebastian Faulks.

I feel like a hardcore Daniel Craig fan telling people who loved CASINO ROYALE that James Bond is actually by far his worst performance and not even remotely close to the brilliance he's shown elsewhere. It's bizarre. I remain a Faulks fan, but DMC ranks as easily my biggest ever disappointment as a Bond aficionado.

*I do, of course, fully realise that DMC was never supposed to be a major work of artistically brilliant, thought-provoking literature, or anything like that - it was merely intended as a moneyspinning piece of entertainment. I still think it's crap, though.

[Skudor]

I'm finding it hard to square my low opinion of DEVIL MAY CARE with my huge admiration of Faulks as a novelist. It just doesn't compute. The other day, I tried to re-read DMC, but got bored very quickly and thought "Enough of this cobblers, let's read a proper novel with some real style and substance to it*", and quite without thinking about it I found myself picking up a book by.... Sebastian Faulks.

I feel like a hardcore Daniel Craig fan telling people who loved CASINO ROYALE that James Bond is actually by far his worst performance and not even remotely close to the brilliance he's shown elsewhere. It's bizarre. I remain a Faulks fan, but DMC ranks as easily my biggest ever disappointment as a Bond aficionado.

*I do, of course, fully realise that DMC was never supposed to be a major work of artistically brilliant, thought-provoking literature, or anything like that - it was merely intended as a moneyspinning piece of entertainment. I still think it's crap, though.

They could have at least put a bit of imagination into DMC. And some pace and entertainment value. Maybe I ask for too much...

[Johnboy007]

I think Faulks could have improved the ending with some actually Soviet menace on the return trip. He just crashed an airplane in the heart of their country and they can't scramble some jets or helicopters to check it out? None of their agents could track him down as he blazed through half of Russia? It seems like the KGB and SMERSH of the 1950s wouldn't have been that careless/completely incompetent.

Perhaps there were some serious budget/personnel cuts in the fictional realm of Soviet intelligence in the late 60's.

[Trident]

I'm finding it hard to square my low opinion of DEVIL MAY CARE with my huge admiration of Faulks as a novelist. It just doesn't compute. The other day, I tried to re-read DMC, but got bored very quickly and thought "Enough of this cobblers, let's read a proper novel with some real style and substance to it*", and quite without thinking about it I found myself picking up a book by.... Sebastian Faulks.

I feel like a hardcore Daniel Craig fan telling people who loved CASINO ROYALE that James Bond is actually by far his worst performance and not even remotely close to the brilliance he's shown elsewhere. It's bizarre. I remain a Faulks fan, but DMC ranks as easily my biggest ever disappointment as a Bond aficionado.

*I do, of course, fully realise that DMC was never supposed to be a major work of artistically brilliant, thought-provoking literature, or anything like that - it was merely intended as a moneyspinning piece of entertainment. I still think it's crap, though.

Ridiculous, but just exactly how I think about it myself. Only I haven't even been able to finish DMC. I don't regard my time so worthless as to waste it on something that doesn't manage to entertain me on any level.

It's really hard to believe that I waited for this. The only good thing about DMC in my opinion is that it shows, what a remarkably marvellous, splendid, outstanding job our writers of fan-fiction are doing on the pages of CBn. I strongly recommend any reader feeling the same mixture of anger, depression, disbelieve and sorrow about DMC's nature to go and explore the works of those members. There are some real treasures hidden there, only one particularly fine gem of which is undoubtedly Hitch's terrific

To Whom It May Condemn


Take a look at it and be prepared to be amazed.

[tdalton]

I'm finding it hard to square my low opinion of DEVIL MAY CARE with my huge admiration of Faulks as a novelist. It just doesn't compute. The other day, I tried to re-read DMC, but got bored very quickly and thought "Enough of this cobblers, let's read a proper novel with some real style and substance to it*", and quite without thinking about it I found myself picking up a book by.... Sebastian Faulks.

I feel like a hardcore Daniel Craig fan telling people who loved CASINO ROYALE that James Bond is actually by far his worst performance and not even remotely close to the brilliance he's shown elsewhere. It's bizarre. I remain a Faulks fan, but DMC ranks as easily my biggest ever disappointment as a Bond aficionado.

*I do, of course, fully realise that DMC was never supposed to be a major work of artistically brilliant, thought-provoking literature, or anything like that - it was merely intended as a moneyspinning piece of entertainment. I still think it's crap, though.

I completely agree, although I can't compare DMC to Faulks' other works because I haven't read any of them, but they seem to be good works of literature just based on all the rave reviews I've read here and elsewhere.

As for DMC, I still have yet to finish it. It's been close to a month now, and I just can't bring myself to finish it. It's just a very boring novel that really just does not work on any level, most importantly though, it doesn't work as a novel about James Bond.

The worst part about the novel is, at least for me, that it would work much better without the James Bond character. I think that if Bond were removed from the novel, and it was simply a story about Scarlet looking for revenge against Gorner, the novel would be much stronger because I find the Scarlet character infinitely more interesting than the James Bond character that is presented in DMC.

[Loomis]

I'm finding it hard to square my low opinion of DEVIL MAY CARE with my huge admiration of Faulks as a novelist. It just doesn't compute. The other day, I tried to re-read DMC, but got bored very quickly and thought "Enough of this cobblers, let's read a proper novel with some real style and substance to it*", and quite without thinking about it I found myself picking up a book by.... Sebastian Faulks.

I feel like a hardcore Daniel Craig fan telling people who loved CASINO ROYALE that James Bond is actually by far his worst performance and not even remotely close to the brilliance he's shown elsewhere. It's bizarre. I remain a Faulks fan, but DMC ranks as easily my biggest ever disappointment as a Bond aficionado.

*I do, of course, fully realise that DMC was never supposed to be a major work of artistically brilliant, thought-provoking literature, or anything like that - it was merely intended as a moneyspinning piece of entertainment. I still think it's crap, though.

They could have at least put a bit of imagination into DMC. And some pace and entertainment value. Maybe I ask for too much...

Exactly. DEVIL MAY CARE doesn't fail because it sets out to be escapist hokum instead of "literature". It fails because it's escapist hokum executed pisspoorly.

I can't compare DMC to Faulks' other works because I haven't read any of them, but they seem to be good works of literature just based on all the rave reviews I've read here and elsewhere.

I've read only ENGLEBY and A FOOL'S ALPHABET - two very different books, but both brilliant beyond belief. I started HUMAN TRACES recently, but got sidetracked by Gregory David Roberts' utterly mindblowing SHANTARAM. From what little I've read, I'd say that TRACES is another terrific Faulks novel - again, very different to the other books of his that I've read (in my experience, no two Faulkses are alike, except in terms of being excellent - a great pity that DEVIL MAY CARE isn't up to the Faulks Plaza's usual high standards, though).

It's just a very boring novel that really just does not work on any level, most importantly though, it doesn't work as a novel about James Bond.

You have said it all.

[Jim]

I went back and finished it yesterday.

Well, it's there.

Just as there's a school of thought that Die Another Day is a Jinx film James Bond happens to have wandered into, is Devil May Care a Scarlett Papava novel with a few scenes involving Bond?

That said/written, I didn't quite get Scarlett, and the character's grip on exposition seemed a bit shaky.

All a bit disappointing, really. The devil may care but I'm not sure I do. Others have pointed out a number of wasted opportunities and the biggest seems to have been the one to send Bond out of his mind on heroin in a French Connection II way. Hey ho. James Bond saved the world again. I was waiting for that and was a bit let down that it didn't come - Faulks does the inner monologue of troubled minds tremendously affectingly and, oh, what could have been...

And if the working title wasn't something like "The Citizens of Destiny" I'd be surprised.

Still, as England aren't in the football, one has to be let down somehow over each summer. The triumph of hope over experience.

I do hope that this means more, though. It's important (on a very low scale of world importance) that it exists.

[spynovelfan]

(FICTION WRITING IN THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY 101 RULE 1. A strong and assertive woman with post-sexual revolution attitudes, who can also hold her own in a scrap against any man MUST be present in EVERY case. Even if such a character is completely ahistorical to the setting, or not in keeping with the genre she MUST be shoehorned in. Failure to do so shall constitute proof of chauvinism.)

I agree with your other points, chivasregal, but not this one, or at least not as it applies to DEVIL MAY CARE.

Firstly, the book is set in 1967, which is post-sexual revolution. (Quite why Faulks didn't take the opportunity to set it in 1968, which would have chimed with the set date of publication, allowed him to have taken in the events in Amis' book, and also given him a shot at really looking at changes in society, which just so happened to revolve around his beloved Paris, I don’t know - but there you go). I thought Scarlett wasn't nearly assertive enough compared to Fleming’s women. They were often birds with a wing down, but tougher because of it. Faulks used the wing down trope – Poppy – then abandoned it for a nonsensical twist. But Honey and her revenge; Pussy the pilot; Tiffany the moll; Tracy the countess: soft inside, perhaps, but all tough capable women, who do things that even Bond is impressed by, outside bed; drive cars fast, smuggle diamonds, know their ways around islands. Domino’s trapped by a rich man, but without her intervention, James Bond would have died. I think the idea of having a woman who seems like a bird with the wing down and is then rveelaed to be a secret agent is rather a good one, but as many have noted, you can see the twist coming from the start and she’s simply not a very lively character.

[Loomis]

Others have pointed out a number of wasted opportunities and the biggest seems to have been the one to send Bond out of his mind on heroin in a French Connection II way.

It may be that such an episode was considered old hat and predictable, since it crops up not only in FRENCH CONNECTION II but also in 24 and, erm, doubtless loads of other things as well. Not that being old hat and predictable stopped Faulks elsewhere, though, for, as you point out:

Hey ho. James Bond saved the world again.

In any case, "James Bond went to Iran and encountered opium but didn't inhale" sums up the lacklustre, opportunities-spurning spirit of DEVIL MAY CARE quite perfectly.

[Skudor]

Did anyone get the point of the whole motorcycle-chase chapter? Did it tie in with something else that I didn't notice?

[zencat]

Others have pointed out a number of wasted opportunities and the biggest seems to have been the one to send Bond out of his mind on heroin in a French Connection II way.

Oh, that would have been awesome.

BTW, the talented Tanner has posted his review at Double O Section.

[Qwerty]

It left me feeling a little bit disappointed. Even more so because I so wanted this book to be a beginning-to-end thrill ride after missing the adult literary Bond since 2003.

The problem is that there is just way too much exposition and too little action (and Bond for that matter!). If I had to choose an Ian Fleming novel this most closely resembles, I think I would choose Goldfinger (one of his that I also consider a bit disappointing). The opening of Devil May Care is interesting enough and all the "Bond is back" bits generally work. It's when the Persia section starts that I just started to lose interest a little. There are far too many spans of time where Bond is nowhere to be found. While this can work wonderfully for a book in some cases (From Russia, With Love and even The Spy Who Loved Me come to mind), here it's all just a bit--dare I say--boring?

Julius Gorner is a serviceable foe for Bond and I did find their tennis match to be exciting enough (you get those hints of mania as Gorner wildly hammers away with his racket). The finale between these two, however, just runs out of steam. I wanted something bigger and nastier.

For me, it's a 3 out of 5 novel based on this poll. Without a doubt worth picking up for Bond fans, but it just isn't "Faulks writing as Fleming."

Devil May Care:

[BoogieBond]

Did anyone get the point of the whole motorcycle-chase chapter? Did it tie in with something else that I didn't notice?

I felt the same, just a homage to Thunderball. Bond guessing who did it, and eventually coming to the conclusion it was Gorner who ordered the Motorcycle's to elliminate Bond.

Edited by BoogieBond, 18 June 2008 - 04:35 PM.

[Loomis]

BTW, the talented Tanner has posted his review at Double O Section.

A very intelligent review and indeed the best and most informative review I've read of DEVIL MAY CARE.

[Skudor]

Others have pointed out a number of wasted opportunities and the biggest seems to have been the one to send Bond out of his mind on heroin in a French Connection II way.

Oh, that would have been awesome.

BTW, the talented Tanner has posted his review at Double O Section.

Thanks - it's a very good review!

[tdalton]

Just as there's a school of thought that Die Another Day is a Jinx film James Bond happens to have wandered into, is Devil May Care a Scarlett Papava novel with a few scenes involving Bond?

That's exactly what I found Devil May Care to be. Even though the Scarlett character is not the most well written female character in the Bond literary universe, she's infinitely more interesting within DMC than the man the book calls "James Bond".

[Qwerty]

Others have pointed out a number of wasted opportunities and the biggest seems to have been the one to send Bond out of his mind on heroin in a French Connection II way.

Oh, that would have been awesome.

BTW, the talented Tanner has posted his review at Double O Section.

An excellent review. I think he nails it on the head when he mentions that the novel is based off of the Goldfinger structure (one of Fleming's few weak novels).

[Ten Bears]

Regardless of all the books other failings, so eloquently put in this forum, it's the abject editing and/or proof-reading failures that get to me.
Apologies if this point has been made already, but how about this one:

Chapter 12.

'Can I have a shirt?' Scarlett looked down at her bare torso.

Are we really expected to believe that an educated young lady of this era doesn't know the difference between 'Can' and 'May'?

My old English teacher would have had a fit at sloppiness like this.

[zencat]

She's Russian. Her English may not be perfect (in fact, it shouldn't be perfect). Tell your English teacher to relax.

[Dr. Noah]

LOL

These are the kind of reviewers Fleming hated: Scolding over "can" and "may;" Saying a spy should be more proactive...

A cross between a junior high English teacher and a low-level D-girl offering script notes after a Sid Field class.

[zencat]

To the point that this is poor editing, I don't agree at all. It's professional editing. I instruct my own proofer to never change (without letting me know) grammar in dialogue. They want to. It drives them nuts to let the "cans" rule the "mays", but if they had their way, everyone would speak with the same voice. And am I wrong in thinking that someone from outside England would use "can" instead of "may" when speaking? I know I do.

[Hitch]

And am I wrong in thinking that someone from outside England would use "can" instead of "may" when speaking? I know I do.

You might be right. Someone might be able to confirm this. But me no can do. You may peruse this post for my usual grammitcal errors.

Mind you, did the Pilgrims travel on the Canflower?