6 replies to this topic

[Jriv71]

Uh.....sucked.

I don't remember it being this bad, from when I read it ten-twelve years ago. It started slowly, and it only picked up because I began rifling through the pages, I couldn't wait for it to be over.

Pretty sad when the best part of the book is when Bond is on the plane and Gardner says he sat back to watch "The Untouchables" which starred one of Bond's favorite actors as a Chicago cop. (Who knew he was such a Costner fan. Joking.)

Anyway, this could've been a good one, eerily timely also, what with all the suicide bombings, and the political targets; I guess the story itself was pretty good. But the whole angle with the brainwashing, the chanting, blah, blah, blah, that was really pathetic. I felt like I was reading a novelization of Season 2 of Get Smart. And yes (reading sequentially) I'm getting really tired of the double-triple cross angle. He's not even doing it as much any more, but now it's excruciating, reading, not knowing who's on whose side. It worked early on, because I was surprised by it, but not anymore.

There were many more weak points here, but I've tried to block them out. If I think of more, I'll be back.

[zencat]

Agreed. I'm not a fan of this book at all.

[ChandlerBing]

I remember the thing with the snakes, which I am deathly afraid of. I tried to re-read it recently, too, and it just didn't work for me.

[General Koskov]

Terrible ilk, Scorpius is. I liked Bond lying to the FBI agents that Scorpius killed himiself, but other than that, the book was dull.

PS. Would James Bond really care if George Bush and Margret Thatcher died? Anyway, they just get in trouble later, so what's the use saving them?

[Jim]

Never really warmed to this one; you're right about anticipating the twist though. Can'tsay I ever quite got a hold on quite WHY the villain was doing what he was doing; what possible benefit could he gain (apart from "economic" - pretty lame). Quite liked the idea of Bond forcing a villain to his death though; nicely sadistic (OK that's an oxymoron). The relentless referencingback to Tracy Bond is shambolic, albeit not quite as disastrous as ArBee.

[Jriv71]

Good God. The WORST part (which I left out) was the "referencing" to Tracy; right on the money, Jim. Just horrible. I wanted to stop reading.

[Cesari]

I don't like very much that book too.
I found it boring. Specially the beginning wich is too long.
They are some good ideas but not very well exploited.
I quite like the part in the swamp with the snakes, but that's all