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.
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.