11 replies to this topic

[Craig Arthur]

Quentin Rowan AKA QR Markham's plagiarism of the works of the late John Gardner's books is a huge insult to an author who - like Mr Rowan - was a huge fan of the classics of the genre. For any fan of John Gardner's work one of the biggest treats was that he often offered a pointer towards other works in the genre from Dornford Yates and Eric Ambler to Dick Francis and Charles McCarry you know that if John Gardner alluded to an author in his books and you then investigated those authors more fully, you were always in for a good reward; the man had taste. It's ironic then that some of the authors Rowan plagiarizes are authors such as McCarry whom Gardner admired. Gardner admired McCarry so much that - with McCarry's permission - he borrowed a cryptonym given to a walk-on character in two McCarry novels for a major character in for his 1980 novel THE GARDEN OF WEAPONS. Even earlier in his career in his 1965 novel UNDERSTRIKE, Gardner has Boysie Oakes walk into an American motel room straight out of an Ian Fleming Bond novel complete with all the same details one finds in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. The difference is this is a homage and he always cited where the inspiration comes from. (If anybody seeks evidence why he was chosen to bring Bond into the 1980s, all one has to do is look at those allusions in UNDERSTRIKE.) By referencing another author he could make a motel bathroom seem magical, just as by giving the villain in FOR SPECIAL SERVICES Tara from GONE WITH THE WIND as his house he evoked this eccentric unreality that made the said villain seem more menacing. His skill was such he could take other authors characters as iconic as James Moriarty and James Bond and make them his own. He had respect and reverence for the work of others and that was what his own work great. Shame on Mr Rowan for stealing from a man who could have taught him a great deal.

[Captain Tightpants]

Old news, I'm afraid:

http://debrief.comma...sin-of-secrets/

[Craig Arthur]

Old news, I'm afraid:

http://debrief.comma...sin-of-secrets/

Please refer to my explanation below...

Edited by Craig Arthur, 12 November 2011 - 03:38 AM.

[Craig Arthur]

Just to clarify. I am aware of the existing thread. The reason I started a separate thread is because was hoping to make people aware of an aspect of John Gardner's work - his homage to other giants of the spy genre - which to my knowledge has not been widely discussed. For instance, I wanted to point out the irony that Gardner borrows from Charles McCarry with McCarry's permission and McCarry is one of the same authors QR Markham steals from. I wanted to highlight the contrast between the two writers and the other thread did not seem to be the appropriate place to do it because I felt it would get lost amid the discussion. Ironically that seems to be exactly what is happening to it here instead!

[Captain Tightpants]

Then perhaps a more-descriptive thread title is in order? You're evidently using the Markham affair to introduce your topic, but nothing more. Given that he extensively plagiarised from Gardner (in fact, it appears he plagiarised from Gardner more than anyone else), referring to him in your thread title is a little misleading as to the anture of the subject. I know I fell for it.

[David Schofield]

His skill was such he could take other authors characters as iconic as James Moriarty and James Bond and make them his own. He had respect and reverence for the work of others and that was what his own work great.

I think few Bond fans would disagree that Gardner made James Bond his own. And not for the better, I'm afraid.

Great author though JG was - his Boysie Oakes books are absolutely superb - few would credit even his Bond novels as showing much "reverence" for Fleming. Indeed, Gardner seemed so frustrated and bored by the restrictions of Fleming's style he deliberately moved his books away from the originals.

Not particularly good examples with which to make your point, I suggest. Though Rowan is clearly is a scumbag.

[Craig Arthur]

I know I fell for it.

What precisely did you fall for? My post was about the similarity/difference between the two authors. Two authors who both admired some of the same thriller writers and referenced them in their work. But where one stole shamelessly, the other always respectfully acknowledged his sources. From that perspective I don't see how my title is misleading.

[Dustin]

I think the entire comparison-thingy isn't really spot on. Say if I wrote something about the strain, the physical and mental erosion a session of gambling involves and let my hero ponder the effect on his own senses, well, that's surely something Fleming went to before me. Yet I wouldn't necessarily mention Fleming or Bond in the text, even though the influence is clearly there.

But if I wrote
'The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning.
...

Maynard Cummerbatch-Nistleroy-ffinch suddenly knew that he was tired. He always knew when his body or his mind had had enough, and he always acted on the knowledge. This helped him to avoid staleness and the sensual bluntness that breeds mistakes.'

Well, that's just plainly stolen and my only original contribution is a wildly unlikely name for Bond. Rowan evidently did exactly that, he just played 'copy+paste'. He may have done it on a large scale, and perhaps even with a little talent as to where he took which parts for his quilt, and I freely confess that I surely couldn't do it. But in the end he just produced a jigsaw puzzle. I even wonder now if he was indeed alone or if he had help.

[Simg]

His skill was such he could take other authors characters as iconic as James Moriarty and James Bond and make them his own. He had respect and reverence for the work of others and that was what his own work great.

I think few Bond fans would disagree that Gardner made James Bond his own. And not for the better, I'm afraid.

Great author though JG was - his Boysie Oakes books are absolutely superb - few would credit even his Bond novels as showing much "reverence" for Fleming. Indeed, Gardner seemed so frustrated and bored by the restrictions of Fleming's style he deliberately moved his books away from the originals.

Not particularly good examples with which to make your point, I suggest. Though Rowan is clearly is a scumbag.

Firstly I would like to thank Craig for his piece and I do find it a little unkind the very picky comments made regarding his post. Secondly regarding your above comment Mr. Schofield. I have no problem in you not liking my Father's Bond continuation novels. However the amount of emails etc I have received since his passing from Bond fans who have all stated that he "made Bond his own" and the initial brief by Glidrose to bring Bond into the 1980's and to NOT try and "do a Fleming" meant that he had to move away from the originals and he did this with style and panache. Well I would say that being his son. However it does still really annoy me people making comments when they have not done their research into the background of the reboot of Bond by my late Father.

SRJG

[Simg]

I suppose what I was trying say above Mr. Schofield is that I have received more positive comments regarding my late Father 'Making Bond his own' than negative ones. And I wish more people before they comment on my late Father's Bonds made themselves aware of the circumstances in which he was commissioned to do the work.

SRJG

[David Schofield]

His skill was such he could take other authors characters as iconic as James Moriarty and James Bond and make them his own. He had respect and reverence for the work of others and that was what his own work great.

I think few Bond fans would disagree that Gardner made James Bond his own. And not for the better, I'm afraid.

Great author though JG was - his Boysie Oakes books are absolutely superb - few would credit even his Bond novels as showing much "reverence" for Fleming. Indeed, Gardner seemed so frustrated and bored by the restrictions of Fleming's style he deliberately moved his books away from the originals.

Not particularly good examples with which to make your point, I suggest. Though Rowan is clearly is a scumbag.

Firstly I would like to thank Craig for his piece and I do find it a little unkind the very picky comments made regarding his post. Secondly regarding your above comment Mr. Schofield. I have no problem in you not liking my Father's Bond continuation novels. However the amount of emails etc I have received since his passing from Bond fans who have all stated that he "made Bond his own" and the initial brief by Glidrose to bring Bond into the 1980's and to NOT try and "do a Fleming" meant that he had to move away from the originals and he did this with style and panache. Well I would say that being his son. However it does still really annoy me people making comments when they have not done their research into the background of the reboot of Bond by my late Father.

SRJG

Simon, I feel you misunderstand.

I rate your father's writing highly. His Boysie Oakes books are absolutely wonderful and highly original.

As I writer, I suspect, therefore, that your father would prefer to be rememmbered for his own creation, Oakes, and not for another man's, Fleming. This, surely, would appeal more to his artistic, creative instincts.

My reply to Craig's original post was that your father did indeed make Bond his own, which based upon my comments above and his own naturally creative instincts, are perfectly understandable. Frankly, I would have prefered that this had been less marked, but I can appreciate his professional need to do so. And I am aware that there were most likely other pressures on him to do so.

Further - and again this is purely speculation - I'm not sure your father held Fleming with the kind of reverence Craig suggests; again, I would site his Oakes novels on this, and his comments theron: didn't he ultmately confess that the Oakes books were a piss-take out of Fleming and Bond? Indeed, the UNDERSTRIKE passage Craig quotes is a total dig at Fleming's style and his obsession with the minutiae of modern Americana, particularly when read in the context of the story.

I thoroughly enjoy your dad's Bond books, Simon (you will note my response to Craig was not critical of them, merely highlighting the difference between Fleming-Bond and Gardner-Bond, and that he was not perhaps as reverential as Craig believes), easily the best of those who followed.

I had the great pleasure in meeting your father at the 1982 James Bond Conference at Wembley in 1982, however briefly. Your dad was good enough to chat with me, a 17 year old, and my dad who had been a great fan of the Oakes books in the 60s. My father has been deceased some years, but it is a fond memory of a chat between two men of the same generation and I.

[Simg]

Dear David

My apologies for rushing to my Fathers defense when maybe it was not warranted.


Yours sincerely

Simon Gardner