437 replies to this topic

[Single-O-Seven]

Can I say something here? Or may I...? I don't think it's a mistake at all. The rules on dialogue are a little more open, and any editor will admit to this. After all, as Zen stated, it gives a character a distinct voice, as well as more human qualities, to have a few grammatical gaffs in their word usage. Look at Fleming's dialogue for the Jamaican characters he wrote. His editor must have gone nuts reading all that! But it brought alive the dinstinctive island accent and intonations Fleming was working hard to achieve in the characters.

[zencat]

You're right, Single-O-Seven. It's not a mistake. Sebastian Faulks knows the difference between can and may (and so do his editors). It's her "voice."

[Ten Bears]

If my English teacher were still alive he'd be about 110 now, so I won't trouble him.

It's about context, not whether may or can are correct English. Language evolves. Maybe I didn't make my point clearly.

IF one accepts that Larissa attended Roedean and then Oxford in the 1950's (as suggested), one would expect her to begin a request with may rather than can. That's the way she would have been taught and the way I would expect her "voice" to come over.

[zencat]

Hmmm...I forgot that she attended those schools. You, and your 110-year-old English teacher, may have a point (or is it might?).

[MkB]

Anyway, one must admit that Devil Can Care would have been an awful title!

[Harry Fawkes]

Bond has a 'devil may care' look. How does that look look. Anyone????

The devil may care look




Oh yeah,

[Johnboy007]

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

It isn't considered correct in the US either, but English teachers are the only ones that seem to care. "Can I go to the bathroom?" will still be met with "I sure hope so! But yes, you may."

So she said can instead of may... does it really matter? I'm as disappointed by this book as anyone, but this is getting into the ridiculous nitpickery category.

[Double-0-7]

Had a few contiguous hours and was able to finish DMC the other day. As glad as I was to have a new Bond novel, it certainly wasn't as good as Fleming. In fact I'd take Benson any day over this one. With that said, I still enjoyed the storyline and gave it a "3" rating.

Faulks does a nice job of painting a picture of the different locales visited, and Scarlett certainly was well-described. Not sure I liked the "surprise" of her being the new 004, rather liked the idea of her saving her imaginary sister better. Good to see 007 concerned about his food and drink, that was something Fleming sure spent a lot of time on.

All-in-all, Faulks follows the formula well, it just wasn't a great novel. The villain wasn't particularly menacing (but his henchman made-up for that!), and when you come right down to it, he is just a pissed-off drug dealer.

I still have "Double or Die" waiting to be read, and the reviews on that one are much more positive!

[Four Aces]

So far it's okay. I do think the tennis match was too reminiscent of the card game between Bond and Goldfinger. Moving on now to Bond in Persia (Iran).

4A

[sharpshooter]

I still have "Double or Die" waiting to be read, and the reviews on that one are much more positive!

Enjoy yourself, you'll find Double or Die to be a much superior read. It oozes claustrophobic darkness.

[Double-0-7]

I still have "Double or Die" waiting to be read, and the reviews on that one are much more positive!

Enjoy yourself, you'll find Double or Die to be a much superior read. It oozes claustrophobic darkness.

I'll be sure to read it in a well-lit open environment then!

[Navy007Fan]

Just finished the book last night, and I give it a solid 3/5. The locations were great,and the inclusion of the WiG craft was inspired. I agree with those who think the villan was a bit weak, and I did guess early on that there was no twin sister. All in all, a pretty good read!

Edited by Navy007Fan, 26 June 2008 - 11:01 AM.

[Napoleon Solo]

I voted for 3/5. I liked it better than I thought I would have after seeing the first excerpt. Main strength for me was the choice of locations (particularly 1960s Persia/Iran) and Bond's meeting/dinner with the station chief. Villain was so-so and I could have done without the monkey paw bit. Overall quality is about average for a continuation novel. Better than some, but hardly like finding a long-lost Ian Fleming manuscript.

[tdalton]

Now that it's been just about a month since the book was released, and I still haven't finished the novel. That has to be a new record for me, as I can usually get through novels rather quickly. I last left off somewhere in the supposed "climax" of this supposed "James Bond" novel, and completely lost what little was left of the interest I had in the novel up to that point, and put it down. At this point, I really do wish that they had approached Raymond Benson to write the centenary novel, as he would have brought a sense of enthusiasm to the project, as well as a thoroughly interesting storyline and a knowledge of the Bond character that are all lacking in DMC.

Even though I still have yet to finish the novel, I'm not sure if I will ever get around to it, and I feel as though I've reached a point where I'm just going to go ahead and rate the book anyway, with a rating of 1.

[rob_007]

I read the book within 2 weeks. I enjoyed the fact that I had been to every location mentioned in the first few chapters of the book (for a 21 year old Brit I was happy with that)

I have read all of the Benson books but only a few snippets of several Fleming books for one reason or another. I have to say I was a fan of the Benson books- the plots were geneally good as was the suspense and gadegtry. I would call it an easy light-weight read for a relaxing session.

I enjoyed Devil May Care. Although I am no aviation or technological expert, I was interested and intrigued by some of the things mentioned (the VC10 and the hovercraft type vehicle, for example). Similarly, it was refreshing to have references to the old Citroens and how they used to have to keep them turned on incase of a speedy get-away! However, I was disappointed by the lack of detail and chances Bond had to check these out. I could see so much more potential with the Electro-thingy and the plane- and there was opportunity for more suspense. I could imagine Bond walking through the desert base causing mayhem before being apprehended, rather than immediately stuck.

I was disappointed by the car chase in London. I was left feeling as though it had been included for the sake of it! I felt it was a carbon copy of the early car chase in Thunderball, but with no justification.

I enjoyed the fact he had an Americano cocktail in a Paris bar because he wasn't looking for anything serious, that was a good line!

I really would not have minded if the guy didn't have a monkey hand. I wondered how long it would be until they got into a jungle and the next thing you heard was "aaa uuu aaaa uuu" with him swinging from tree to tree.

Overall, I think there is a lot of potential in this journey Bond is about to embark on. I want to see him attack more, and I would like him to actually explore these awesome inventions, such as the Ekranoplan.

I would give the book 3/5 and I am looking forward to the next one (whenever that may be)

[zencat]

I can't believe it's already been a month since DMCs release. Time flies.

[MkB]

I enjoyed the fact he had an Americano cocktail in a Paris bar because he wasn't looking for anything serious, that was a good line!

If memory serves, it's a Fleming line, in FAVTAK (the short story). Curious in itself, though, because these days Americano doesn't seem to be a well known cocktail in France. It's only in Italy that you can ask one in any bar without fearing to be asked : "A... what??"!

[Scrambled Eggs]

I enjoyed the fact he had an Americano cocktail in a Paris bar because he wasn't looking for anything serious, that was a good line!

If memory serves, it's a Fleming line, in FAVTAK (the short story). Curious in itself, though, because these days Americanos doesn't seem to be a well know cocktail in France. It's only in Italy that you can ask one in any bar without fearing to be asked : "A... what??"!

Correct.

Have to say, in Paris I've ordered Americano more than once and been served no problem. I look forward to the day I have to explain how to mix an Americano to a French waiter. That'll be a youtube moment.
Obviously Parisian barmen are switched on to the Fleming fan market. Maybe.

[MkB]

Have to say, in Paris I've ordered Americano more than once and been served no problem. I look forward to the day I have to explain how to mix an Americano to a French waiter. That'll be a youtube moment.
Obviously Parisian barmen are switched on to the Fleming fan market. Maybe.

I should learn from your Parisian bars list...
By the way, I had to explain how to mix an Americano to US waiters, twice. I was quite baffled, 'cause I had always assumed it was popular in the US, because of the name (simplistic views, I know!). The first time was a failure (drinkable, but not an Americano). The second time, the waiter came up with a very decent cocktail, and confessed he looked up on the Internet for the recipe!

[Golden Gun-E]

Had a few contiguous hours and was able to finish DMC the other day. As glad as I was to have a new Bond novel, it certainly wasn't as good as Fleming. In fact I'd take Benson any day over this one. With that said, I still enjoyed the storyline and gave it a "3" rating.

I completely agree. I think I was excited to have a new Bond novel but severely let down by it. I gave it a 3 however because I admit it did get better as it progressed.

[Vodka Martino]

I read the first few pages of the reviews on this thread and many of you have said it already; Did Sebastian Faulks write this book as a lark? Don't get me wrong. I did enjoy the mood he created through-out and, fanboy that I am, it was great to get a few more glimpses into Bond's character. But I felt the story lacked tension. And as others have stated, there were too many moments that reminded me of past instances from Fleming's books and the Connery films.
It seemed to me like Faulks was given the job of writing a continuation book and he came up with a by-the-numbers novel which ticked all of the boxes that most people would think belonged in a Bond story. I felt the same when I read Norman Mailer's "Tough Guys Don't Dance", a modern-day noir story about a guy who wakes up with a dead blonde next to him and can't recall what happened. Well written, but poor story. That was a flat read indeed. It seems that there are more than a few authors out there who consider writing a thriller "slumming it". This is the impression I got from DMC. SPOILER ALERT-HIGHLIGHT TO READ And did anybody else out there think why was it that
Bond didn't twig with the whole Papava/Papaver similarity? And there was a brief passage where Bond kicks a fallen gun aside, runs off without a gun, yet manages to shoot a guard moments later. Shoot him with what? Saliva??
Man, I gotta get the hang of using CBn's in-house Spoiler Alert.
But anyway, I rated this book 3 out of 5 because it was good to read a new Bond novel. I just wish Sebastian Faulks, who was getting paid to write it, had treated the assignment even half as seriously as J.I.M. Stewart did with "Just Another Kill", a fan-fiction which showed what a little love and respect for both the form and the character can achieve. And he did it for free.
There. I said it.
Just my 2c.

Vodka Martino

[Righty007]

FelixLeiter.com: A Fleming Enthusiast’s Review of ‘Devil May Care’

[[dark]]

Three stars. Pretty much on par with an above average Gardner entry - in style and quality.

A few random thoughts; first, the good:

• Excellent opening in Paris, despite its significance to the larger story going unexplained; the tongue extraction is a very Bondian idea, and Faulks writes wonderfully about Paris.
• The Middle East is a fresh place for Bond to go, and Faulks gets much of this right. The spa scenes in particular are rather evocative of Fleming.
• I may be alone on this, but I loved the "Small World" chapter.
• Multiple personalities aside, I did find Scarlett particularly alluring. Other characters that work include Darius (despite being an obvious Kerim Bey clone) and Mathis. The villains (chiefly Gorner) are sadly underdeveloped and their primary scheme clichéd.

The bad:

• The Larissa/Scarlett/Poppy/004 mess was very Gardner-esque. Why the need to throw in such twists? Aside from You Only Live Twice with Shatterhand being revealed as Blofeld, did any of Fleming's novels feature genuine twists?
• On that note, was the Larissa façade ever explained? Why did she pose to be someone else? I may have missed this, but I don't recall it even being addressed in the novel.
• Bond's first encounter with Gorner and Chagrin was pointless and had the whiff of padding (as did much of the book's final few chapters and the CIA turncoat subplot). It was almost as if Faulks couldn't concoct a story to fill 300 pages.
• At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the Ekranoplan was such a missed opportunity - and obviously so.

Not bad, but disappointing, given the hype. I was hoping for something ground-breaking. Perhaps Faulks' instructions were to deliver a cookie-cutter Bond story, but given the occassion, I expected a novel that, barring the period setting, would have delivered something special that the other continuation novels did not.

The blame seems to lay largely at the feet of Faulks, who didn't appear to take the project with the gravity it deserved. I'm about 50-odd pages into The Moneypenny Diaries: Final Fling and I'm immediately struck by how much better Samantha Weinberg grasps the James Bond world than Faulks - and how she is prepared to be bold with the characters. I doubt it would ever happen, but I would love to see Weinberg tackle a "real" James Bond adventure.

[Four Aces]

I'm almost done. They just got to Finland. Book gets better as you go along. I give it a "4".

[marmaduke]

Devil May Care- my review

On the cover of ‘Devil May Care’ it states that this is “Sebastian Faulks writing as Ian Fleming”
I therefore felt it fair to approach the book with the attitude ‘If I didn’t know any better, would I have been able to tell if this was a Fleming original or not?’ The answer to that question is ‘Yes I would have’ for reasons I will detail below.

Faulks manages to replicate Fleming’s third person prose very well. The best examples being in Chapters 10 and 11 ‘A Ship With Wings’ and 11 ‘Good Trouser’ in which Bond goes swimming and almost drowns while under the hull of a ship before eventually getting captured. To me this was pure Fleming and perfectly captured his style of writing. In addition, Faulks had obviously done his homework re Bond’s preferences. For example, Bond’s breakfast of choice being ‘scrambled eggs, black coffee and orange juice’. Also Bond’s habit of taking showers that were ‘Firstly as hot as he could stand and then ice cold ‘. He also enjoys his alcohol and cigarettes (It is odd that even though I have personally speaking always regarded smoking as a disgusting habit I still want my literary Bond to smoke.) I recall that one of John Gardner’s (many) mistakes when writing Bond was to have him cut down his tobacco and alcohol intake. It just was not Bond in my opinion.

However, all that talk about DMC reading like a ‘Long lost original Fleming manuscript ‘ is sadly an exaggeration I’m afraid. Indeed, even Faulks appears to have back peddled on this claim made on the cover issuing the following statement post publication:

“I developed a prose that is about 80 per cent Fleming. I didn’t go the final distance for fear of straying into pastiche, but I strictly observed his rules of chapter and sentence construction.”
What distinguishes Faulks work from that of Fleming is the dialogue, or to be more precise, the dialogue spoken by Bond in the opening chapters of ‘DMC’. For me this was pure ‘Sean Connery Cinema Bond’ dialogue. For example, having just defeated Gorner at tennis Bond quips “I’ve lost a few pounds, but not as many as Gorner ” Fleming’s Bond simply did not talk that way. However worse than this in my opinion is the scene when Bond flirts with Moneypenny. Displaying superb 1960’s ‘Political incorrectness/sexual harassment’ Bond threatens to ‘Give her a good spanking’. I imagine that this was an attempt by Faulks to establish that this was indeed 1967 and back then such behaviour in the work place was deemed acceptable. However, the fact remains that this was pure ‘Connery Bond’ as opposed to the ‘Fleming Bond’ of the novels.

What is curious however is that from about the mid way point of the novel (from the point in which Bond encounters The Ekranoplan and gets captured in the process) Faulkes dispenses with the Bond’s ‘wit’ and writes ‘Bond Dialogue’ that is a near perfect replication of Fleming. Indeed throughout the whole novel the dialogue spoken by all other characters is pure Fleming. Even the female character of Scarlet sounds like a Fleming heroine (no pun intended). Faulkes achieves this with Bond and his female companion addressing each other as “darling” and “My love”. This again is an exact replication of Fleming.

However I do concede that the inclusion of Bond’s ‘wit’ in t he earlier section of the story may well have been a deliberate ploy by Faulks. Fleming’s Bond was in reality a rather humourless individual whose dialogue reflected this personality trait (I think that I am correct in claiming that he did not utter a single joke or witticism in any of the Fleming originals?). Faulks may have made a conscious decision that he wanted ‘his Bond’ to incorporate some of the character traits of the Cinema Bond of the Connery era. I will therefore give Faulkes the benefit of the doubt on this aspect of the book..

One criticism I do have of Faulks however, and one I will not retract is as follows:
It involves his attempt to establish that events were taking place in 1967. ’ He does, it must first be said, include some nice ‘subtle’ details in order to establish a time setting. For example the use of wooden rackets in the tennis match with Gomer. The references to ‘Persia’ and other countries and cities as they were named in 1967. Best of all however was providing Bond with the opportunity to drive at ‘60 mile per hour’, mid morning through the centre of a pre congested London . If only Faulks had left it at that but unfortunately he did not . The conversation between Bond and his Scottish ‘treasure’ of a housekeeper Mae when the latter makes reference to Francis Chichester and worse still the current activities of The Rolling Stones just didn’t sit right with me. I appreciate that Fleming had no need to do this as he was writing in a contemporary manner, but I still could not have imagined Fleming’s Bond discussing with anyone the fact that Elvis Presley had been drafted into the U.S. Army during ‘Goldfinger ‘or ‘Thunderball’. These are subjects and events that simply would not have entered into Bonds world. The current state of service while flying First Class on BOAC yes, but not the plight of pop stars. Faulkes had no need to be so clumsy .He could simply have started with the first line of the book being –‘Paris , June 1967…..’ to establish a time period and then relied on the afore mentioned ‘subtle’ hints thereafter.

I did think however that Faulks managed to incorporate some very good elements of Fleming structure and style. (One can either view this as ‘borrowing’ from Fleming or ‘Tipping his hat in acknowledgement’, take your pick.) For example, Bond making initial contact with his intended foe. I thought that the tennis match between Bond and Gomer was a fair attempt to replicate Bond’s golf match with Goldfinger .(The novel version). The fact that Gomer suffered a physical deformity is also classic trait of the Fleming villain . Also Gomer has an ‘ Oddjob’ of his very own in Chagrin.
I also thought that the chapter concerning Bond’s visit to an exclusive Muslim ‘Gentleman’s Club’ that attempts to replicate heaven was also well done. Again, I suspect that it was an attempt to replicate Bond’s introduction to Japanese culture in ‘You only live twice’ when he is bathed by Geisha Girls. Finally, Bond’s ordeal of having to crawl through the ‘Chimney’ echoed his escape from Dr No down the heating shaft. So, add a twist of ‘Goldfinger’ a sprinkling of ‘You Only Live Twice’ and just a dash of ‘ Dr No’ and what you get may not be a pastiche but it is a composite. As a consequence of which I believe that Faulks failed to achieve what Kinglsy Amis did forty years earlier with ‘Colonel Sun’ and that is to write an original Bond novel that stands on its own merit.

So in the final analysis Faulks does manage to incorporate many of the elements and structure that were employed by Fleming. That said however, and returning to my original premise . I cannot award ‘Devil May Care’ the ultimate accolade of reading like a ‘Lost original Fleming manuscript’. That honour can only be claimed by Kingsly Amis’s ‘Colonel Sun’ in my opinion.

To conclude then, I think that Faulks did an excellent job at resurrecting the ‘Literary Bond’. Indeed, I would go as far as saying that only he and Kingsley Amis truly succeeded in continuing Bond in the literary sense, and that in itself is no small achievement.

[Dr. Noah]

Excellent review. I would add that Fleming made Bond a little jokier in YOLT, probably because of the films' influence.

I don't think Amis tried as hard to follow Fleming's style. Of course, he thought there might be more "Robert Markham" novels in the future, as well, so he was probably trying to establish a new series of books in his style, while Faulks was just offering up more of a one-time tribute, therefore not trying to push the characters or storylines outside of Fleming's universe. (Outside of M doing yoga, which I felt was a little strained.)

I don't think he was pushing it with the Stones reference, however. That mention accomplishes more than one thing: To establish the time post-MWTGG, to show how the country was changing, and to set up how drugs were creeping into the national consciousness.

[spynovelfan]

[Edited]

Nice review, marmaduke. Regarding the spanking, that crops up in several of Fleming's novels.

Casino Royale: 'She kept on patching up the edifice of her deceit until Bond wanted to spank her and tell her to relax and tell the truth. Instead he just gave her a reassuring pat on the back outside her room and told her to hurry up and have her bathe.'

For Your Eyes Only: 'Bond thought: 'Damn this girl to hell.' He said angrily: "All right then. But I can tell you that if we get out of this you're going to get such a spanking you won't be able to sit down for a week."'

From Russia With Love: 'Bond sat down beside her. "Tania," he said, "if there was a bit more room I'd put you across my knee and spank you."'

Dr No: '''Honey, get into that bath before I spank you."'

Thunderball: "'Any more ticking-off from you and when I get out of this place I'll give you such a spanking you'll have to do your typing off a block of Dunlopillo."'

There may be more! So I didn't think that was out of character.

[Simon]

He reached for for the telephone, but it was already bleating. 'M here,' said the gruff sailor's voice from Chapter Five of Thunderball, 'We've got a gloved maniac peddling drugs to pop stars for revenge. He's dangeous, 007. The most dangerous man we've ever faced before. Go to Paris and play tennis with him.'

Yup, which was about as redundant as the whole exercise got for me too.

It has been enormously successful, critically and commercially I think the most successful since Fleming's day (and Fleming also had a very hard time with the critics).

Really, I thought it was given a critical hammering...

[Dr. Noah]

Really, I thought it was given a critical hammering...

That's because you listen to fanboys on Internet forums.

It got decent reviews, especially when you consider that most critics dismiss Bond novels, let alone continuation Bond novels. Negative reviews tend to be about the entire series more than a single book. Amis' got trashed -- unfairly, because it wasn't Lucky Jim. The fact DMC got reviewed at all is a step up from Gardner and Benson. But no, nobody thought it was as good as Birdsong. Did anybody expect the critics to say it was as good as Birdsong?

[Trident]

Really, I thought it was given a critical hammering...

That's because you listen to fanboys on Internet forums.

Quite to the contrary. DMC got its better reviews not just from critics. On amazon.co.uk it's presently got an average of three and half out of a possible five stars. What it loses with the minority giving it two stars and less it makes up with a vast majority giving four or above. As it's a safe bet the majority of these reviewers are fans, we can assume that DMC got away with them rather good on the average. I'm still no friend of DMC, but I don't claim my view is worth any more than anybody elses. It's obviously what the literary market i.e. us readers needed just at this very moment and what we got. Perhaps deservedly, but that's not for me to judge.