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

Still confused about Gorner's motive


15 replies to this topic

#1 Sir James Molony

Sir James Molony

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 41 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 29 June 2009 - 02:29 AM

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


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.

#2 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 29 June 2009 - 03:22 AM

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

#3 Ducki

Ducki

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 11 posts
  • Location:Preston UK

Posted 14 July 2009 - 12:27 PM

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

#4 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 14 July 2009 - 02:50 PM

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

#5 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 14 July 2009 - 04:05 PM

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

#6 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 15 July 2009 - 01:41 PM

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

#7 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 15 July 2009 - 05:47 PM

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

#8 Sir James Molony

Sir James Molony

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 41 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:16 AM

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

#9 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:22 AM

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

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

#10 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 31 January 2010 - 09:19 AM

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"!

#11 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 31 January 2010 - 09:42 AM

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).

#12 DAN LIGHTER

DAN LIGHTER

    Lt. Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPip
  • 1248 posts

Posted 31 January 2010 - 10:27 AM

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.

#13 Harry Potter

Harry Potter

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 92 posts
  • Location:Brize Norton

Posted 31 January 2010 - 06:36 PM

I thought the whole book was poor

sorry !

#14 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 06:57 PM

I must admit I never noticed that glitch...B)

#15 volante

volante

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1926 posts
  • Location:GCHQ

Posted 05 April 2010 - 09:32 AM

Poor motives for a poor villian in a poor story.

#16 Gorgon Leader

Gorgon Leader

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 1 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 09:21 AM

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!