Which Bond novel are you currently reading?

1383941434476

Comments

  • Birdleson wrote: »
    I tried one short story of his and was not impressed.

    Was that the one where he meets his son? Not keen on the idea of that either. I think Fleming only ever included that to make the YOLT ending more tragic, don't think he'd ever actually use it as a jumping off point for a story.

    I think directly tying things too much back to Fleming can make the continuations feel a bit fan fictiony. References are fine, but I didn't like the GF holdovers in Trigger Mortis for example or the Blofeld's daughter twist in For Special Services. It just takes me out of the story, feels like they're trying too hard to legitimise it with ideas that feel much too contrived and fan servicey to have made their way into an actual Fleming book.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    After finishing DMC, I am struck by how much Faulks has nicked from earlier books and films, and not just Bond.

    Interesting. Care to elaborate, @Thunderfinger?

    Several scenes inspired by Moonraker, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger by Fleming. Also a couple Brosnan films and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I have delivered the book, so can t look it up.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,730
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    After finishing DMC, I am struck by how much Faulks has nicked from earlier books and films, and not just Bond.

    Interesting. Care to elaborate, @Thunderfinger?

    Several scenes inspired by Moonraker, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger by Fleming. Also a couple Brosnan films and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I have delivered the book, so can t look it up.

    Thank you, my friend. That's quite sufficient for now. :)
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 2,887
    I read Benson's first Bond novel, but it wasn't good enough to make me read the rest. He made an effort to include Flemingian elements, notably a gaming scene (Mahjong) and an endurance test (in the outback), but the book didn't hold together and the prose was occasionally embarrassing (especially Bond's "hardness" in a sex scene).

    Having read all of Gardner's Bonds with an increasing sense of disenchantment, Benson made me swear off continuation novels. What made the Bond books distinctive was Fleming's personality. The continuation authors tried to approximate and second-guess that personality, but it can't be done. The only exception was Kingsley Amis, a first class novelist who'd studied Fleming so well that he was able to play with Flemingian elements while drawing on his own personality. Neither Benson nor Gardner had personalities and talents great enough to manage that feat.
  • Posts: 4,023
    I wonder why they didn't choose Wood for the continuation novels in the 80s.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I liked Wood a lot. Not so with Amis, Gardner or Faulks.
  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    Posts: 189
    My favourite continuation novels have been the ones set in the Fleming Timeline (Colonel Sun, Trigger Mortis and Solo).

    I enjoyed Benson's High Time To Kill a lot, and I enjoyed Gardner's Icebreaker because those two could ostensibly be set in the Fleming Timeline if you ignore the odd date.

    Wood's TSWLM is fantastic, and I wish that the film had been like that rather than what we got in the end.
  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    Posts: 189
    vzok wrote: »
    I wonder why they didn't choose Wood for the continuation novels in the 80s.


    I have no idea. It would have been amazing.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,730
    vzok wrote: »
    I wonder why they didn't choose Wood for the continuation novels in the 80s.


    I have no idea. It would have been amazing.

    Seemingly they missed a trick here, though obviously I appreciate John Gardner's massive contribution to the literary Bond too! Glad that he too got his chance.
  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    Posts: 189
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I wonder why they didn't choose Wood for the continuation novels in the 80s.


    I have no idea. It would have been amazing.

    Seemingly they missed a trick here, though obviously I appreciate John Gardner's massive contribution to the literary Bond too! Glad that he too got his chance.

    There was a lot of good in the Gardner Books...but he did 5 or 6 too many I think.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,730
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I wonder why they didn't choose Wood for the continuation novels in the 80s.


    I have no idea. It would have been amazing.

    Seemingly they missed a trick here, though obviously I appreciate John Gardner's massive contribution to the literary Bond too! Glad that he too got his chance.

    There was a lot of good in the Gardner Books...but he did 5 or 6 too many I think.

    That seems to be the general consensus, but I'm glad that he did the amount he did.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2018 Posts: 7,974
    When I was younger (over 10 years ago) they were giving away free copies of the Fleming stories in the newspaper, if you sent off for them. I was already a fan of the films, but I had no idea what the books would be like. I read LALD and DAF first, I believe. Then, I remember vividly sitting on the bed and opening FRWL for the first time and reading the description of the man lying face down, and having the realisation that it was Red Grant from the movie. Woah, what an opening!

    Fleming was almost more accomplished at individual scenes and set pieces than he was at creating a compelling plot out of them, you could say. I like his story ideas, but he rarely pulls them off well. I read Goldfinger and Thunderball a few years ago for the first time, and was quite disappointed by the narrative. Every Fleming novel has awesome description, characters, and individual passages, but often they seem rushed. Now I'm older, I see more of the faults and realise he wasn't a perfect writer. Much of his work was written quickly, and perhaps that's what gives it that crispness, but the result is that they are very uneven books. Plenty of highlights, but plenty of low points too. The truth is I don't think he cared much how the thing turned out as long as he got down what he wanted. Probably poured another drink, and went for a dip outside Goldeneye, and forgot all about it. Fascinating man, a idol of mine.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2018 Posts: 5,921
    The truth is I don't think he cared much how the thing turned out as long as he got down what he wanted. Probably poured another drink, and went for a dip outside Goldeneye, and forgot all about it. Fascinating man, a idol of mine.

    I agree. Fleming was a man of privilege and wasn't necessarily trying to create books for the ages. He could turn a phrase like almost no one else, and he was great at atmosphere (both of which made him a good journalist), but plot was rarely his strength in any of the novels.

    I kind of doubt that the books would still be in print had not the '60s come along, and Broccoli/Saltzman and Young/Connery performed a particular kind of alchemy on the novels.

    Anyway, I'm finally reading Colonel Sun because it just came back into print in the US. Why DAD didn't use this (perfect) title is beyond me, especially since they would nick the torture scene later for SP.

    Have Babs and MGW changed their minds on adapting continuation novels? Time will tell.
  • Posts: 520
    Revelator wrote: »
    I read Benson's first Bond novel, but it wasn't good enough to make me read the rest. He made an effort to include Flemingian elements, notably a gaming scene (Mahjong) and an endurance test (in the outback), but the book didn't hold together and the prose was occasionally embarrassing (especially Bond's "hardness" in a sex scene).

    Having read all of Gardner's Bonds with an increasing sense of disenchantment, Benson made me swear off continuation novels. What made the Bond books distinctive was Fleming's personality. The continuation authors tried to approximate and second-guess that personality, but it can't be done. The only exception was Kingsley Amis, a first class novelist who'd studied Fleming so well that he was able to play with Flemingian elements while drawing on his own personality. Neither Benson nor Gardner had personalities and talents great enough to manage that feat.

    Yet again PussyNoMore finds himself violently agreeing with Revelator.
    Fleming fans have a unique relationship with continuation authors. They want them to succeed but invariably come away disappointed. We then all buy the next one in the hope that one day they will get it right. It’s a bit of a mugs game really but we play it with great enthusiasm.
    Thus far, the only one to get it really right was Amis with CS. He was a true fan and as Revelator opines, he had the writing chops for the job - as have Boyd and Faulks but they just took the wonga and ran.
    Gardner was an anomaly insomuch as he could write but he chose not to exercise that skill when it came to Bond. If fans want to know what he was capable of, they should read his Kruger or Secret Generation novels.
    Benson and Deaver were just too bad for words and were long ago consigned to PussyNoMore’s bulging read and laugh file.
    All of this brings us nicely to Horowitz who PussyNoMore thinks may join Amis in getting it right.
    TM was a very creditable effort that rescued a failing IFP continuation strategy and Pussy thinks that FA&D May be the one to rival CS simply because a prequel will have given him the creative freedom needed to go for gold - we will see.
    Meanwhile, Pussy is once again reading CS and as ever, is struck by how Amis really returned to early Bond. He disliked the direction that the movies had taken and wanted to set the record straight. A fine man that Sir Kingsley - he new a thing or two about 007 !


  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2018 Posts: 5,921
    I finished Colonel Sun. I hadn't read it before because it was out of print in the US for so long! So my expectations were high.

    I was...underwhelmed. I appreciate that it's a grittier, if dour, take than the films were back in the late '60s, and the villain's plot is kind of interesting. But there's not enough Colonel Sun, and there's too much "telling" instead of "showing." Every coming action seems to be explained ad nauseum before it actually happens. Fleming was better at stylish terseness and the "Fleming sweep."

    I did like the Bond girl and the Colonel, although I felt there could have been a lot more of him. (There's a whole chapter featuring a random character which could have been a CS chapter.) All in all, I'd say it is a narrow miss.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    echo wrote: »
    I finished Colonel Sun. I hadn't read it before because it was out of print in the US for so long! So my expectations were high.

    I was...underwhelmed. I appreciate that it's a grittier, if dour, take than the films were back in the late '60s, and the villain's plot is kind of interesting. But there's not enough Colonel Sun, and there's too much "telling" instead of "showing." Every coming action seems to be explained at nauseum before it actually happens. Fleming was better at stylish terseness and the "Fleming sweep."

    I did like the Bond girl and the Colonel, although I felt there could have been a lot more of him. (There's a whole chapter featuring a random character which could have been a CS chapter.) All in all, I'd say it is a narrow miss.

    Agreed. Very underwhelming for me as well. Had been looking forward to getting hold of it, but after finishing it I sold it dirt cheap to a second hand store.
  • Posts: 623
    Revelator wrote: »
    I read Benson's first Bond novel, but it wasn't good enough to make me read the rest. He made an effort to include Flemingian elements, notably a gaming scene (Mahjong) and an endurance test (in the outback), but the book didn't hold together and the prose was occasionally embarrassing (especially Bond's "hardness" in a sex scene).


    Page 11 of The Facts of Death

    "The impact might have killed an ordinary man, but Bond...."

    two paragraphs later..

    "an ordinary man would have drowned by now"

    It's like fan-fiction.

    That said, I'm enjoying it!
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    I read Benson's first Bond novel, but it wasn't good enough to make me read the rest. He made an effort to include Flemingian elements, notably a gaming scene (Mahjong) and an endurance test (in the outback), but the book didn't hold together and the prose was occasionally embarrassing (especially Bond's "hardness" in a sex scene).


    Page 11 of The Facts of Death

    "The impact might have killed an ordinary man, but Bond...."

    two paragraphs later..

    "an ordinary man would have drowned by now"

    It's like fan-fiction.

    That said, I'm enjoying it!

    Oh, dear. Never read any of the Benson Bonds, and gave up reading Gardener's Bonds after the second one, found that and Licence Renewed to be fairly awful. But so looking forward to AH's Forever And A Day.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,382
    I just finished Diamonds are Forever. The film didn't follow it much and I feel that it should have. I did notice some similarities.

    Wint and Kidd- Obviously more in the film than in the novel.
    The usage of mud- Incorporated into the Blofeld cloning aspect instead of Bond taking a mud bath in Vegas.
    Impersonating Peter Franks- However he doesn't use much of the alias.
    Bond and Tiffany sharing the plane ride.

    However, the Spangled Mob should have been used somewhat in the film or at least in another film. Still not too late though. Everything about Fleming's writing from the food and drink to personal grooming and resting is never seen in any film. I understand that it's just filler material but we never see Bond fleshed out in a day to day manner.

    Overall a great read.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    TRIGGER MORTIS by Anthony Horowitz (2015)

    Just a couple chapters in, but so far this is looking really good. Surprised how much this resembles Fleming s Bond.
  • Posts: 520
    TRIGGER MORTIS by Anthony Horowitz (2015)

    Just a couple chapters in, but so far this is looking really good. Surprised how much this resembles Fleming s Bond.

    TM is a worthwhile read. IFP owe Horowitz a great debt. He single handily rescued the literary franchise after the damage inflicted by the last three protagonists.
    He is a great story teller and his comparative lack of ego allows him to inhabit somebody’s house without rearranging all the furniture.
    He may lack Fleming’s descriptive prowess (doesn’t everybody) but he has his narrative drive, remains loyal to the concept and delivers a rollicking tale.
    PussyNoMore thinks FA&D May be Horowitz’s FRWL.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I found it at the library, so of course I had to give it a try.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,730
    I found it at the library, so of course I had to give it a try.

    And if it turns out to be crap at least you haven't wasted any money on it. A wise move after the efforts of the 'Celebrity Trio'.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I found it at the library, so of course I had to give it a try.

    And if it turns out to be crap at least you haven't wasted any money on it. A wise move after the efforts of the 'Celebrity Trio'.

    Of those, I only read Faulks. Not impressed at all.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,730
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I found it at the library, so of course I had to give it a try.

    And if it turns out to be crap at least you haven't wasted any money on it. A wise move after the efforts of the 'Celebrity Trio'.

    Of those, I only read Faulks. Not impressed at all.

    I bought them all several times. More fool me.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I noticed in Trigger Mortis that Horowitz refers to Bond s "double-zero assignation" rather than "double-o".
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,730
    I noticed in Trigger Mortis that Horowitz refers to Bond s "double-zero assignation" rather than "double-o".

    Maybe copying John Gardner's Two Zeros from SeaFire (1994). Either that or he read the Spectre script in draft!
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Revelator wrote: »
    What made the Bond books distinctive was Fleming's personality. The continuation authors tried to approximate and second-guess that personality, but it can't be done. The only exception was Kingsley Amis, a first class novelist who'd studied Fleming so well that he was able to play with Flemingian elements while drawing on his own personality. Neither Benson nor Gardner had personalities and talents great enough to manage that feat.

    Far more articulately put than I! This is the nail on the head.

    I've just finished Role of Honour and parts of it make for Gardner's best yet. There's some great scene setting early in the novel and the driving passages he really gets. Just a shame about the girls.

    I love how the next is a direct follow on - done right I must add!
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,532
    The only continuation novel I've read is Carte Blanche. It was enjoyable but not particularly memorable. Today I got Devil May Care, Solo, and Trigger Mortis in the mail. Colonel Sun is on the way as well. Which should I read first? Really excited, especially since I'm not really into reading like I used to be.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,730
    Remington wrote: »
    The only continuation novel I've read is Carte Blanche. It was enjoyable but not particularly memorable. Today I got Devil May Care, Solo, and Trigger Mortis in the mail. Colonel Sun is on the way as well. Which should I read first? Really excited, especially since I'm not really into reading like I used to be.

    You should wait and read Colonel Sun first. It's the original continuation Bond novel and it remains the best to this day.
Sign In or Register to comment.