437 replies to this topic

[Simon]

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

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

No, when I said critical, I meant the voice of professional critics not forum members.

Most of the ones I read said bland and pointless. Not sure I read any that lauded it. But as always, happy to be proved wrong.

[Dr. Noah]

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.

Wow! An actual even-handed response!

Are you sure you're supposed to post here?

[Trident]

Wow! An actual even-handed response!

Are you sure you're supposed to post here?

Oh, c'mon. The question if DMC is the next best thing to Fleming, or just good fun or utter rubbish is not a dogma, is it? Honestly, I didn't like it, but if it's ok or even better for others, fine! I've no problem with that.

Personally I can't imagine it ever hitting shelves if it weren't connected to a big frenchise and a name with literary relevance. I daresay many professional reviews would have been a whole lot less gentle with Faulks if it hadn't been for his previous feats.

But then look at what books are getting into print nowadays. And from print right to the top of bestseller lists. So obviously my personal standards don't mean a bloody thing in the greater scheme of publishing business. And in business terms DMC is certainly a success, opening the door for another writer to show he/she can do far better. I'm certainly not angry at DMC because it does so well. To the contrary, if it restarts the series it certainly has to be acknowledged for this merit. Still, luckily there is no actual need for me to like it.

[Dr. Noah]

Oh, c'mon. The question if DMC is the next best thing to Fleming, or just good fun or utter rubbish is not a dogma, is it?

Have you been reading the posts in here?

I enjoyed the novel for what it was, like I enjoyed all the Bond novels. It's not Hemingway, and it's not trying to be. I'd love to hear the fanboys on him, though. "Old Man and the Sea is just formula Hemingway -- utter crap! I mean, we're talking the author of Sun Also Rises, here!" Do these guys hit the Tolstoy boards? "War and Peace was all prose and no story. Now Anna Karenina was a novel, but the masses can like 'WAP' if they want... The Death of Ivan Ilyich was okay, but there were too many Russian words I had to look up, and he used 'can' instead of 'may'..."

Anyway, it's refreshing amidst the bombast to find somebody here who will actually allow the idea that some of the hundreds of thousands of readers who bought the book might actually like it.

I don't even mind it here -- this thread is for personal reviews. But when posters start insulting other posters for buying an autographed edition in another discussion, where nobody asked their opinion, then it gets obnoxious.

[MkB]

[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.

Yes, kind of in Goldfinger:

Goldfinger: Bond looked thoughtfully at the girl. He decided it would be ungallant to spank her, so to speak, on an empty stomach.

As a side note, in Thunderball, Bond is talking to Moneypenny.

[spynovelfan]

So he is.

[Skudor]

I guess Connery's fondness for spanking the ladies in his films was entirely in line with literary Bond's thought processes.

[spynovelfan]

I enjoyed the novel for what it was, like I enjoyed all the Bond novels. It's not Hemingway, and it's not trying to be.

Nobody said it was, though. It's trying to be Fleming. It's nowhere near as good, in some people's view.

I'd love to hear the fanboys on him, though. "Old Man and the Sea is just formula Hemingway -- utter crap! I mean, we're talking the author of Sun Also Rises, here!"

Well, I quite like OLD MAN AND THE SEA. ACROSS THE RIVER AND INTO THE TREES, however, is just formula Hemingway, though I'd hesitate to call it utter crap.

[Trident]

I don't even mind it here -- this thread is for personal reviews. But when posters start insulting other posters for buying an autographed edition in another discussion, where nobody asked their opinion, then it gets obnoxious.

I've missed out on that one and would think such behaviour most unlikely here. The way you describe it, something like that wouldn't exactly be my idea of open-mindedness and tolerance. Of course everybody is entitled to his or her own personal opinion about DMC and its relative worth. Whoever is enthusiastic enough about DMC to buy any 'special' editions may of course do so and would still get a drink at my house bar. Likewise anybody who, immediately after finishing it, sent it to his or her worst enemy in the hope they may choke on it.

Of course DMC is bound to be the focus of heated discussions and arguments. But we shouldn't go as far as to condemn others for their supposed ignorance to DMC merits/shortcomings. In the end, everybody has to make up ones own mind about it. There is no need to hate the book more for the sake of its numerous lovers. Neither is there a reason to hold it in higher regard because it has left a percentage of fanbase and casual readers severely underwhelmed, disappointed or downright angry.


After all, while I've read nobody claiming that DMC would be as good as, or even better than 'Birdsong', there is no doubt that it could have been. It was written by the same guy, wasn't it? I reserve the right to be at least a little bit disappointed about that.

[marmaduke]

Thanks 'Spynovelfan' and I concede that you are correct re the 'Spanking Issue'.

[Jim]

EMPIRE magazine - which I accept criticises films rather than books, in the main - has reviewed it with the rather crushing summary that it is "briskly readable but somewhat thin" and "...the whole enterprise...screams Pierce Brosnan in an era that wants Daniel Craig". Perhaps a bit glib but...

[Dr. Noah]

Here it is. They don't seem to like the Fleming novels all that much, either: "but he can’t quite bring himself to deliver the unashamed sexism, sadism and crankiness which makes the originals alternately embarrassing and astonishing."

http://www.empireonl...e.asp?BID=10090

Similar review from EW, but more respectful to the original. They give it a 'B':

http://www.ew.com/ew...0203084,00.html

[Trident]

One thing that I seem to notice with the reviews here is that most CBners who rate DMC four or above also do have their complaints, sometimes the very same I and many others have, but seem generally willing to give DMC a good rating in spite of its faults and lackings. Now, the curious thing is, this doesn't seem to be merely a 'fanboy' mildness as most professional reviews that give DMC a thumbs-up also do mention their complaints (plot, writing-as-Fleming, 'checklist'-writing and so on) but, for various reasons, refrain from bashing it. A reaction to Faulks' undisputed literary acclaim perhaps? Would be interesting what hypothetical reviews of a DMC written by some nobody-hack would make of it.

[Four Aces]

I finished reading it. The book was okay, and I would buy another follow-on from this author.

4A

[Dr. Noah]

One thing that I seem to notice with the reviews here is that most CBners who rate DMC four or above also do have their complaints, sometimes the very same I and many others have, but seem generally willing to give DMC a good rating in spite of its faults and lackings. Now, the curious thing is, this doesn't seem to be merely a 'fanboy' mildness as most professional reviews that give DMC a thumbs-up also do mention their complaints (plot, writing-as-Fleming, 'checklist'-writing and so on) but, for various reasons, refrain from bashing it. A reaction to Faulks' undisputed literary acclaim perhaps? Would be interesting what hypothetical reviews of a DMC written by some nobody-hack would make of it.

Who never said it was a perfect book? Who said there's EVER been a perfect Bond book? You don't think we could rip apart a Fleming plot?

[Agent 76]

Devil May Care was a good, entertaining read, of course not as good as an Ian Fleming book, but even then, for what it is, I liked.

3/5

ps: The highlight of the story IMO, was the tennis match, very well written, with good moments.

[Joyce Carrington]

Just finished it, wasn't impressed.

Read more like Benson than Fleming to me. Wait. Wait. That's just an observation, I'm not implying anything with it. I quite like Benson, actually.

As I was nearing the conclusion I put the book down for a moment and thought: "I could've written something of this quality." This is not to illustrate my arrogance, but rather my disappointment.

I give it something between a and a .

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

[Trident]

As I was nearing the conclusion I put the book down for a moment and thought: "I could've written something of this quality."

No.
Definitely never.
Because practically everything I've read from you so far has been way better than DMC. I highly doubt you'd really be able to lower your quality that far.

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

Just what I thought. Doesn't really feel as if any kind of effort on Faulks' side was engaged in DMC. In fact, to me it often read as if the very first phrase, the very first plot idea just had to do; like a c-movie with just enough budget to make it to the DVD-rack at the supermarket. Has Faulks told himself while writing 'Don't bother with the bloody thing.'?

[Joyce Carrington]

...practically everything I've read from you so far has been way better than DMC.

That's very kind of you.

Doesn't really feel as if any kind of effort on Faulks' side was engaged in DMC.

Doesn't, does it? Which sort of make me raise an eyebrow at IFP. Oh well.

I'm to start reading 'Guardian Angel' next. Might that satisfy me more, as a Bond fan?

[[dark]]

I'm to start reading 'Guardian Angel' next. Might that satisfy me more, as a Bond fan?

Absolutely. Just hope you have Volumes 2 and 3 ready to go, because you'll be hooked!

[Trident]

Just started MPD and I'm not yet through with it (p.170 of 312) but it already feels far better. It's different, as it is Bond-from-behind-the-scenes and personally I feel Moneypenny's Sevice is just a tad more of a family than Bond's, but that really is just my own personal perception. Most of all, it's fairly evident that Mrs Weinberg has put a whole lot more energy, time, research, gusto and enthusiasm into the first half of her book than DMC can come up with on its whole distance. And, most of all, Mrs Weinberg has taken the trouble to really think of an intriguing story instead of just serving the microwaved scraps from a dinner somebody else has cooked.

While I'm certain that Mr Faulks did have to deal with certain guidelines, I strongly doubt that he really should have been so much restrained in his artistic freedom that he couldn't have done better than DMC if only he had wished so. Sadly, it seems he really couldn't care less. A missed opportunity in my view and it will be most interesting to hear Mr Faulks' own opinion on his work in a few decades. I'm really curious what his feelings towards his child, aside from the pompous media hype, in some years from now will be.

[MkB]

it will be most interesting to hear Mr Faulks' own opinion on his work in a few decades. I'm really curious what his feelings towards his child, aside from the pompous media hype, in some years from now will be.

I think he simply looks down on it as a parody piece he condescended to write "for fun" (whose fun??), like an addendum to his Pistache collection of pastiches. It is enough to read his own declarationin The Times:

I like parodying other writers and I thought I could “do” Fleming easily enough

http://entertainment...icle3963143.ece



And about The Moneypenny Diaries: I'm a huge fan of this spinoff series! I advise anybody disappointed with DMC to give them a try. Very well-written, deeply researched and surprisingly fauthful to the Fleming universe in its way. Have a look at the "Moneypenny Diaries appreciation thread" if you still need to be convinced!

[Dr. Noah]

I think looking back at the sales, media attention, etc., that he'll be glad he wrote DMC over Moneypenny Diaries.

I also think Faulks will be very happy never to never again deal with fanboys even while selling hundreds of thousands of copies and putting Bond books on the map again. There's a reason most successful authors refuse to do continuation novels.

Weinberg I think will be pretty glad it's over, too. She was writing to 500 people.

[MkB]

I think looking back at the sales, media attention, etc., that he'll be glad he wrote DMC over Moneypenny Diaries.

Glad? Yes!
Proud? No!

[Dr. Noah]

Why? Because 30 fanboys didn't like it here? It was a huge success.

[Scrambled Eggs]

Weinberg I think will be pretty glad it's over, too. She was writing to 500 people.

Do you honestly think she's "glad its over"? Seriously?

[Johnboy007]

Here's a review from the Philadelphia Inquirer that ran about a week ago. It seems to mirror most of what the fans say.

[Dr. Noah]

Weinberg I think will be pretty glad it's over, too. She was writing to 500 people.

Do you honestly think she's "glad its over"? Seriously?

Would you want to write for that many people? It's not like it's given her career a huge boost. And it's not like writing continuation novels is a high-paying job.

It might start to be after Faulks...

[Scrambled Eggs]

Weinberg I think will be pretty glad it's over, too. She was writing to 500 people.

Do you honestly think she's "glad its over"? Seriously?

Would you want to write for that many people? It's not like it's given her career a huge boost. And it's not like writing continuation novels is a high-paying job.

It might start to be after Faulks...

Samantha Weinberg's other notable work is a non fiction book about a rare fish. I'm not sure gaining mass market appeal is one of her aims.

I'm sure that she'd prefer to've sold to millions and might well be disappointed at the relatively poor sales. But I don't think that necessarily means that she's "glad it's over". That seems a pretty big assumption.

[Mister E]

Okay I have read the first four chapters and I must say the content is pretty thin. You have feeling Faulks researched but it's only a feeling. I already have read one too many references to the past Bond books like:

Spoiler

Ressurecting the David Somerset cover from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Was that really nessecary ?

I'll keep reading but I was expecting better.