15 replies to this topic

[Sir James Molony]

I read DMC when it came out last year and loathed it. But I was stuck in an airport recently and picked up the paperback (apparently #23 on the U.S. airport bestseller list) and gave it another go.

I liked it better than the first time, perhaps b/c my expectations were much lower. But I am still confused about Scarlett's explanation in the last chapter.

Spoiler

On page 367 (of the US paperback), Bond asks her how she knew so much about Gorner. She replies: "Most of it I just made up." (!) She then proceeds to explain that she fabricated most of Gorner's backstory and motivation, including the entire Oxford bit about her father! As far as I can tell, we never learn why Gorner is doing what he is doing.

Why did Faulks choose this approach? Fleming would often have a character (M, Leiter, et al) provide background. What was his literary purpose? Is Faulks having a joke at our expense?

This is a serious question -- I'm not just looking for Faulks-bashing (despite being well-earned).

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[OmarB]

I didnt get it either, those whole thing was a damn mess. The ekranoplan was cool though.

[Ducki]

I just thought he loathed Britain, maybe because of all the times we British have exploited other countries. Or may be some prior experience?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Or, maybe, Faulks was just an incompetent bumbler for once, this time around.

[OmarB]

If the book was worth a read I would have remembered, or at least be motivated enough to flip through and check.

[Skudor]

By that point in the book I was so shocked by its awfulness that I no longer cared...

[OmarB]

I think he had a really bad scone once or something like that.

[Sir James Molony]

OK, never mind. Obviously, a faulks-ed up plot point!

[Mr. Blofeld]

OK, never mind. Obviously, a faulks-ed up plot point!

I'm guessing he didn't take any aspect of the book very seriously.

[Guy Haines]

I've read it and felt some disappointment, too. Sebastian Faulks uses a good turn of phrase, but his approach to the story struck me as being almost Bond by tick box (anglophobic villain with physical deformity - TICK - oriental sidekick - TICK - leading lady who isn't what she seems - TICK - tough but likeable Middle Eastern contact who we know will get bumped off - TICK). He has one original character idea though - Felix Leiter recalled to the CIA after a spell as a Hollywood PI, spying on unfaithful movie stars and starlets!

The explanation of Gorner's motives is poor - Faulks should have left out Scarlett's "I don't really know why he hates the British, I made that bit up" scene.

At least Sir Hugo Drax had a full detailed back story explaining his chronic anglophobia.

As for the villain's plot, it seems that half way through the author suddenly decided that flooding the UK with drugs and pørn didn't quite cut the mustard and that he had to throw in wiping out the British in a nuclear holocaust as well - in which case why bother with the first part of his plan?

(one eye on a future movie adaptation, I wonder?)

Finally, I just couldn't take seriously Gorner's physical deformity. When I reached that part of the book my thought was "you must be joking!" To say nothing of henchman Chagrin's "flip top head"!

[Jim]

The explanation of Gorner's motives is poor - Faulks should have left out Scarlett's "I don't really know why he hates the British, I made that bit up" scene.

I understood that to be an unsubtle reference to the habit of making enemies based on practically no evidence whatsoever e.g. dodgy dossiers, etc. (Not wishing to provoke that "discussion" again, but that's truly what I took from it).

[DAN LIGHTER]

So old monkey hand got handed a sexed up dossier? I cant recall what the motive of Gorner was. I think he was just a very very angry man.

[Harry Potter]

I thought the whole book was poor

sorry !

[CasinoKiller]

I must admit I never noticed that glitch...

[volante]

Poor motives for a poor villian in a poor story.

[Gorgon Leader]

Strangely enough, I actually liked the book. Possibly suffering from Literary Bond withdrawal, brought on by a lack of new 007 novels. Despite this fact, though, I do agree that Mr. Faulks could have done a better job in providing background to Gorner and actually fleshing out the character. Chagrin was more of a three dimensional character than his boss and Scarlet Papava was merely window-dressing ... and Sebastian Faulks did come highly recommended!