That being said, while I concede that Devil May Care and Carte Blanche were not my personal favorites, I do think that they were far better novels than many people give them credit for.
There is an easy litmus test for a Bond continuation: call the main character Harry Smith and see if you'd read it to the end. And if so, see if you feel an urge to reread it for whatever reason, the story, the characters, the atmosphere and 'feel' of it all.
So my question is simple: does anybody else think that the recent continuation novels have received too much criticism by fans when compared to older continuation novels?
If not, why do you think these novels are that much worse than, say, most of Gardner's?
Sadly, it has to be said both DMC and CB don't pass the above test for me. The reasons DMC falls short are obvious and have been explained numerous times already: Faulks didn't take his character seriously while writing. In fact he didn't take the entire effort seriously but made a show of churning out the book in Fleming style in the shortest possible time with the least possible effort. Like Fleming did in his day. Only Fleming did not write his books, he dreamt them. And dream of exciting adventures and fantastic exotic locales he did the whole year around. Putting the stuff on paper was a chore he got rid of during his holidays at Goldeneye. But his stories grew with every daydream, every discussion and every drink, wherever he happened to be, London, Jamaica, Berlin or the US. Channelling this kind of raw material, mixing it with childhood memories and wartime experiences, that was Fleming's real gift. He had a way with words, no doubt about that. But his Bond stood out because he also had a way with his imagination. Faulks unfortunately isn't made from that cloth. Moreover, he didn't recognise this particular trait of Fleming. Worst, he didn't care.
CB gets the stick for different reasons. I suppose Jeffery Deaver was much more aware of what made Fleming tick and what made his books such a success. Deaver thankfully didn't try to ape Fleming or arrive with the pretentious insolence to write 'as Ian Fleming'. Deaver set out with an honourable task: to reinvent - reboot - lit-Bond with a mind to start an entirely new fresh series of 007 for the 21st century. In a way much of the criticisms Deaver got for CB are similar to those Gardner got for LR, "...bland", "...uninspired", "...not Bond!", "...not Fleming!!!" and so on. Funnily I think his book would have gotten much less flack, had it not been announced as a reboot. As a direct follow-up to Gardner's last continuation COLD it could have worked much better. Cut out all the unnecessary, superfluous setting-of-stage with the ODG and the parents sub-plot and concentrate instead Bond vs. villain and voilà: a decent middle-of-the-pack continuation like we've had them during the 80s. Much of Deaver's idea of Bond would blend far better with Gardner's by-then-established transformation to Captain James Boldman.
The reboot idea I initially liked quite a lot. I just feel CB didn't go far enough with it, there are a few modern yuppie toys and the usual assortment of brand names, but otherwise the whole thing is pretty pointless. The constellation between the characters arrives in Bond-cliché reservation within the first three chapters and doesn't break from there any more. At the same time Bond seems to be missing. There is a guy with his name and number and all his toys, but it's never a person we - I at any rate - care a lot about. He's never in real danger, hardly has to sweat during the assignment.
Some argue the task was impossible from square one, that a modern character cannot be imagined with any hope to get someone resembling Bond as a result. Well, I beg to differ there. Especially our troubled and yet so hedonistic times offer various niches for individualists with a taste for adrenaline. I'm sure you could imagine a young adventurous guy who got involved with the world of secret intelligence, got a taste of danger and just stuck with it. CB never aimed beyond a - moderate - update of Bond's situation as known from Fleming. In this regard it is too timid and afraid of change, perhaps because the familiar situation M-Bond-Moneypenny-Goodnight-Q had to be reached as soon as possible, apparently to blend the book with the famous films and not confuse readers with something different.
So the reboot facet of CB is a non-starter. Still, the book itself could be fine, couldn't it? Unfortunately it's not really a winner. It's not bad at all IMO, but it's also not what you'd call a gripping page turner. The action is often uninteresting, Bond from first to last page too omnipotent, the villain with some potential, most of it sadly unused. There are twists, but none that can't be seen from a long way. CB's course is it's not gripping enough on first read and doesn't offer scenes that would call for subsequent reads. Gardner's continuations - most of them - at least offer something that makes a revisit an option every once in a while. I can't imagine giving CB a second go, despite having forgotten most of the affair.
Edited by Dustin, 18 February 2013 - 08:35 PM.
