It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Halfway through LALD now, my third time with this one. I really enjoy how after the confines of CR Fleming let loose with a really expansive, swashbuckling adventure story. Up until Leiter gets chowed on a lot of the atmosphere in NY and the train is quite cozy and is very enjoyable to revisit, and then the rest of the book really turns the thumbscrews on you with some of Fleming’s most brutal action-suspense sequences. I always feel like Dr. No is something of a sister novel to LALD as they’re both probably the pulpiest Bond material Fleming put out.
Enjoyable romp
Excellent read with some very tense chapters as well as an interesting end to the (pseudo)-romance with Gala in the very last chapter. I also loved to get to know M better.
I do miss that exotic feeling though, which it can't really have by default.
All in all, definitely very good, even though I don't think it'll ever be one of my very favourites.
I think most people would say Colonel Sun, it's traditionally the 'go-to' book after Golden Gun. Though, if I'm honest, I think the continuation novel that's best read after Golden Gun is With A Mind to Kill, Horowitz's last Bond. I'd even go so far as to say that it improves TMWTGG, by explaining a lot of what GG didn't cover, regarding Bond's brain-washing. With a Mind to Kill is more of a follow up to GG than Colonel Sun, as far as I can remember. But you won't go wrong with either.
Trigger Mortis was written to take place after Goldfinger in the Fleming chronology, (Bond is living with Pussy Galore in his London flat at the start of the book. And all the Fleming habits are there in that early chapter, down to the breakfast eggs and the correct time for the hot/cold shower. It really is a great tribute to the real world of James Bond). One day, I hope to get Horowitz to sign my Waterstones special edition.
For my money, Horowitz and Amis are the authors who sit most comfortably alongside the Fleming books. They both are able to safely navigate the world of Bond that Fleming created.
Sounds like I can’t go wrong with either but you’ve piqued my interest in the Horowitz books.
And following that with Colonel Sun by Kinsley Amis would also be right on time.
I started a thread on here about Horowitz's quote that 'literary Bond works best in Fleming's timeline', (https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/21576/a-literary-bond-only-works-in-his-own-timeline) and that's one of the reasons I love the Horowitz trilogy. It completely sits in with, and pays respect to the Fleming books. Obviously, AH has the writing chops to carry it off and not many could. But for my money, it's only the Horowitz and Amis books that sit comfortably alongside Flemings.
I haven't read Devil May Care for a while, I must say, but I think that's another continuation novel that's placed after Golden Gun. And I think Solo was sixties too. It's been a while since I read them, but I remember Devil May Care working better than Solo for me. But neither really felt like I was smack bang in Fleming's world like Horowitz.
Solo I liked. The villain's plot is depressing and has been overdone, and I think that's one of the turnoffs for people. The approach to Bond himself getting older was where Boyd was most creative, in a good way. It could work to end both CS/DMC and Anthony Horowitz's trilogy.
As you have said though, Anthony Horowitz and his trilogy truly belong next to Ian Fleming as getting the character. WAMTK does make TMWTGG better. Anthony Horowitz is the real author who could be credited with "Writing as Ian Fleming" over Sebastian Faulks. I once said that his Forever and a Day prequel would be a great start for a new Bond actor. He said thanks, but it was extremely unlikely! Amazon should look at him for ideas, honestly.
The romance with Bryce Fitzjohn was also another low point. As a character, she seems to perfectly fit the (or at least my) mold of Bond's regular trysts. The problem is twofold. Firstly, Bond's voyeuristic search of her home is bizarre. Breaking in is one thing (and quite odd from her perspective), but watching her get in the bath is surely on a level of lechery that not even the nastiest parody of Connery would touch. Secondly, the ending is overly dramatic. Bond's life in London is largely safe from foreign influence and so I find it hard to believe that he'd need to leave Bryce just to protect her; only in Thunderball is Bond caught up by business in England.
The Benson books were among the few I’d never tried, but I recently tracked down his two omnibus collections and I’m now on the second novel.
I was rather underwhelmed by Zero Minus Ten, but I’m enjoying this one a bit more. It’s still naff compared to Fleming, but I’m liking it more than the Gardner books I’ve read.
Bond often has a sophomore slump doesn't he? A few expectations, of course. It felt like Gardner was writing by looking at the Bond formula checklist. Legacy seems to be the theme of the novel. I enjoyed it, but I felt it could have experimented more. I still need time to think about the book and my feelings.
I kind of view For Special Services as James Bond: The Next Generation due to the daughters of Felix Leiter and Ernst Stavro Blofeld featuring. Of course Bond himself stays about the same age (or a little older) as he's always been. I actually think it's one of his crazier Bond novels in the fine Boysie Oakes mould. I'm thinking specifically of the drugged ice cream.
Just wondering though, how worthwhile are the non-Flemings? Because I know myself, a bit of a completist, if I read one I have crossed that border and will need to read them all :))
Maybe I could treat Colonel Sun or Devil May Care in a NSNA sort of fashion. But something like Benson, reading one means reading them all...
Do I miss out on vital Bond if I don't bother? Love to get some advice here :)
I wouldn’t say vital. I’ve certainly not read all of them. But some are interesting.
Maybe give Colonel Sun a go - one of the continuation novels that can be read on its own. CS is enjoyable, even if I don’t rate it as highly as Fleming. Horrowitz’s Forever and a Day is another good one that can be read independently of his others, although I have my issues with it. Same for Carte Blanche if you’re looking for a modern day one off Bond adventure (although again, it’s very flawed).
I’d avoid Devil May Care to be honest, at least if you’re looking for a legitimately engaging read. If you want a ‘so bad it’s interesting’ experience I’d look at Benson’s Blast From The Past. Same for Higson’s OHiMSS.
I gave up after 'Devil May Care'!
Colonel Sun was the only worthwhile read! Hated the Gardner novels! And I'm just not going to bother with any new ones!
I read them all. Honestly the hardest part is getting your hands on all of them; it's a slog.
Any Bond fand should read Amis' and Wood's works. They fit in with Fleming quite well prosewise and the stories are relatively good.
The Gardner's are relatively good to begin with, but around Book 7/8 they start become hard to read and blend together in ridiculousness and uniqueness. Beyond that point, Gardner took liberties beyond what was normal: Bond drinks tea and dislikes eggs. There are still high points in the late part of the series (Death is Forever) but books like Never Send Flowers (sorry Dragonpol), Seafire, and Cold tested my patience. The three book axis of Role of Honour, Nobody Lives Forever and No Deals Mr. Bond is a high point.
Benson's novels read and are plotted exactly like the Brosnan films. The first three are definitely worth a read, and some childish dialogue is worth tolerating for the innovative and geopolitical stories. Zero Minus Ten is a good start; High Time to Kill and Doubleshot are highpoints, but the last two lack the originality of the first 4 and become silly, with classic Fleming characters making dubious returns.
The celebrity trio of Faulks, Deaver, and Boyd all do an alright job. Faulks really just copy-pasted Fleming tropes and stereotypes into story, but it's entertaining for me (it was my first Bond novel). Deaver writes an interesting modern story, but at times the character doesn't feel like James Bond and constant twists sometimes become annoying rather than suspenseful. Boyd writes a spy thriller but the second half falls off as Bond discovers rather than does. The story has a moral and geopolitical touch to it with the theme of British interference in other countries' affairs for selfish reasons.
Horowitz, having quasi written young Bond in Alex Rider, drops the entertaining pastiche and writes three serious and good Bond novels. The last two have heavy emotional content for Bond, and they are believable in the context of the Fleming Series.
Higson and Sherwood write modern, serviceable but ultimately unnoteworthy novels.
As for me, I read all the Gardners when they came out, and I'd say 4-6 are definitely the highlights. 1-3 are not bad. The rest lack energy and are overall meh. I feel like there was a lack of quality control by Glidrose; like you said, the details started to be Gardner and not Fleming. I also grew tired of the double and triple crosses, the offputtingly American and otherwise decidedly unexotic settings (once you go Eurodisney you've crossed the Rubicon), and the attempts to replicate Tracy. After a while I just didn't buy into the emotional journeys Gardner chose for Bond anymore.
Then I started into Benson but found his style very stilted. (The universal compliment I will pay Gardner is that he is readable.) By this point I was into my 20s and I kind of gave up on the continuation novels and haven't tried one since.
I did read Colonel Sun when it was finally re-released about 7 or so years ago. I found it passable, but overrated. I've never been able to get through the Wood novelizations.
I don't blame you @Mathis1
I always invariably end up disappointed with the non-Fleming novels (Apart from Colonel Sun)
There are more often than not some decent stuff in those books, but ultimately as complete novels they leave me unfulfilled.
I must admit, last time I re-read CS it didn't quite hold up as well as it has done previously for me. I do enjoy it though, and there's a lot in the beginning and later chapters that I like.
In comparison, Fleming loved to put Bond through the wringer in different ways each time. Betrayal, near-death, Tracy of course, mental breakdown, amnesia. Even the short stories, perhaps *especially* the short stories--TLD and OP are my favorites--had a unique and tight hold on the character and his decisions.
Bond was an avatar for Fleming and his hopes, his fears, his views of the world. With such a close association of author and character, they can't help but yield more fulfilling stories.
This is all a way of saying that I get more out of rereading Fleming than I do exploring new Bond authors.
Or is it actually possible it's a more entertaining book?
I'd generally agree with that; I'd say Gardners are readable but you can really tell he's making them up as he writes them, so many good characters turn out to be double agents, or triple agents, it becomes tiring, and it's arguable how much they have to do with Fleming really. Benson has more in the way of unique ideas for his books but they're written appallingly, I honestly find them barely professional standard and the plots feel a bit childish- I'd honestly say that Higson's kids books feel more adult. Faulks goes for full pastiche which is okay if you're in the mood but also feels a bit less than genuine and sneering if you're feeling uncharitable. Deaver has lots of interesting ideas for updating the world of Bond but Bond himself feels oddly absent, and the story is pretty shapeless. Boyd's feels the most literary to me, it isn't a resounding success but tries something new with Bond at least. Not much fun though.
Definitely agree that Horowitz's are probably the pick of the bunch, just good entertaining thriller novels which fit into Fleming without trying to be him, and written very solidly.
I will give a word for Higson though, although written more for teens, he's the only one who felt to me like he got the feel for Fleming's sadistic side. There's some nicely weird and twisted stuff in there.
Colonel Sun is very nicely written and almost feels like Fleming, but the story is oddly balanced and runs out of steam I think. You're far from belted along it like a Fleming does, and some of the political ideas are a little unusual for 007.
I suppose it's one thing I can say positively about Benson - there were attempts to put Bond through the wringer. It's better conceptually than how it's actually done in my opinion, but there was stuff like Bond sustaining a severe head injury in DS and effectively being driven mad by the villains for their own purposes. Or him having to deal with a raid going wrong and innocents dying as a result in NDOD (and of course the return of Draco in that one. Heck, I even like the eye torture scene in that one). It's a bit of a shame as his writing style is genuinely appalling at points, but there's potential in those ideas.
I think for me it's the chapter when Bond gets to Greece that CS starts to feel like that. It seems to amount to Bond conveniently figuring out an off the cuff plan to lure him there and then just showing up and seeing what happens. Fleming certainly had his plotting issues with some pretty major contrivances, but it almost feels like Amis is consciously trying to replicate that side of Fleming's writing, and it all feels a bit too passive.
Yes, but one advantage that WAMTK had over TMWTGG was that Horowitz could properly review and polish what he had written. Fleming's health arguably hurt the TMWTGG from the beginning.
I also think that it will be interesting where IFP takes the character(s) next. There is truly fun and imagination from different viewpoints from writing Bond.
Yes, I realised I'd opened myself up to that. I should have said Diamonds, or another not so-celebrated Fleming book, (I found Goldfinger a little pedestrian on my last re-read, even though the first chapter is amongst my favourite Fleming prose).
For all of Fleming's flaws, there's something about those Bond novels that keeps me engaged, even with the weaker novels. I think it helps that Fleming's prose was a lot more electric.
Ironically, I'm going back to Benson and a phrase he coined, "Fleming sweep." Fleming definitely had ridiculous, ludicrous plot contrivances, but while reading him, I don't care because it is such a stylish ride.
It's easy to forget Benson's a bit of a Fleming scholar. That said having read what he means by the Fleming sweep (which seems to amount to hooking the reader at the end of a chapter by heightening the tension, thereby keeping the momentum of the novel going) another part of me thinks him being amazed at... well, simply effective writing also makes sense!
The Fleming Sweep always felt like a bit of a myth as well. I don't think Fleming ends chapters on cliffhangers that often, especially since many stories like Dr. No or Moonraker lack a lot of action. Rather Fleming writes with an inertia that makes it harder to put down by keeping low moments (sleeping, dressing, travel) between chapters so that the energy never really drops.
Deaver's Bond novel, for example, is more "Fleming Sweep" than Fleming himself