Yes, I noted the anti-German thing too. Fleming also an anti-red hair streak.
I am well aware of the "sleaze factor" Napoleon, but the problem with Vivienne's sexual encounters is that they do read like a bad porn novel. It's Fleming's vision of it, not Michel's. I think I said something like "the voice isn't hers, it's Ian Fleming's life story." I didn't want to elaborate any further.
The sleazy stuff in TMWTGG (and LALD) also read like a very poor sex-and-shopping novel and, to be honest, I didn't think it was worth a mention. I'd much rather concentrate of the eroticism of DN and FRWL thanks very much.
Glad you like the reviews tho'
I am well aware of the "sleaze factor" Napoleon, but the problem with Vivienne's sexual encounters is that they do read like a bad porn novel.
There's such a thing?
All I'm saying is that it's a factor, and yes I'd throw in the sex stuff in FRWL and DN too. It's somehow noticeably missing from the continuation novels. Or if they attempt it, it never seems quite right, like it's being inserted for the hell of it, and insincere smut is somehow the worst of all imo. There's really nothing racy about the continuation novels at all. They're wholly sanitised if I recall, barring Christopher Wood's novels. Ironically these were sleazier than the books that were meant to have nothing to do with the films.
Chrisno1, your novel reviews are excellent. And appreciated. It has been a few years since I last read the Ian Fleming novels. Like many, I prefer reading them in their original order. Unfortunatly, I read a lot at work as a job requirement, and therefore have too much eye strain to read as much on my own time as I would like. In response to Napoleon, some continuation novels do have a fair bit of sleaze factor. Have you read "Facts of Death" by Raymond Benson?
It’s difficult to know what to make of Colonel Sun. As the first of the “continuation novels” it remains certainly the closest in atmosphere, Cold War intrigue and full blooded violence to Ian Fleming’s original body of work. But, although it has some fine detail and a strong central adversary, something is definitely lacking.
Kingsley Amis (or more accurately Robert Markham; for Amis isn’t writing as Amis, but as a pseudo- Fleming) begins his story excellently. It is one year on from TMWTGG and James Bond is once more stuttering through life as “a creature of habit... ceasing to be an individual.” It’s marked him, and M, out for kidnap by an apparently disparate group of Greeks.
Markham builds the suspense brilliantly at M’s residence, Quarterdeck, and Bond’s escape is a believable riot of roughhouse tactics and thin rumination. He’s even better in Athens where Bond meets the Russian GRU agents Gordienko and Ariadne. Things begin to unravel badly from here.
Markham has clearly studied Fleming’s work and is at pains to mix sublime terror with the mundane. But he overplays his hand and there are a lot of talky passages about communism, Greek mythology and late sixties politics. These sequences slow down the novel tremendously. Markham also forgets that the bad guys require a reasonably intelligible master plan; for all Fleming’s faults, he generally gave us a tangible story.
CS’s mix of kidnap, terrorism and Red China expansion, coupled with war crimes, international conferences, jealousy and the works of De Sade, is baffling to say the least. Worse, I didn’t even believe the plan was workable and as if to prove my point, at the novels conclusion it’s revealed the only damage to the conference delegates was sea spray.
Markham has too many characters in this novel. There are three women, two male compadres, at least three villains and a host of smaller identikit police, spies or civil servants. He builds a character for each, but this becomes tedious. For instance, the incompetent security chief Arenski is “nobody’s man, anybody’s man, safe, silent and slow... unqualified to rise to the occasion.” Markham takes two pages to tell us this, yet Arenski hardly features, being a minor player in the story. Conversely, Von Richter, who is central to the plot, gets very little description and his motives remain unclear. Markham is happiest dealing with the inner political psyche, but he lacks keenness where emotions count.
Ariadne, the heroine, is a case in point. She’s a provocative sexy foil for Bond, who dreams about her as soon as they meet: “Their eyes caught... and Bond was certain she knew his mind... But what they both desired must remain a fantasy.” It doesn’t and their passion is more graphic than any Fleming supplied. Ariadne is a passionate figure, “a truly magnificent body... her movements and expression showing an absolute certainty he would find her beautiful.” Yet we learn little about this Greek goddess other than her sexual prowess and her left wing leanings.
There’s a lot of sex in CS. Two prostitutes recline in bikinis at the call of Colonel Sun’s posse, Bond has frequent sessions with Ariadne and later she is subjected to an unseen rape. There’s very little romance. The physical couplings feel contrived and the relationships awkward.
Niko Litsas, a poor man’s Colombo with his little yacht and his British Army surplus weapons, is an equally uninteresting companion, trying to be buddies with Bond and a guardian to Ariadne. Markham recognises this contradiction by having the Greek remind Bond to treat her well, yet also has him casting “an appraising and rather obviously expert eye” over Ariadne’s naked form. He says he feels like a bad uncle; he reads like a dirty old man.
The one thing Markham has got right is his major villain Colonel Sun Liang-Tan. Sun is a cool professional with irises “pewter grey like the eyes of a newborn.” He’s far from innocent. He’s “unmoved by women,” speaks in an equable tone and retains fear and obedience through the tiniest of movements: a tapping envelope or bared of teeth. He is never less than controlled and prone to long moments of impassivity and deep thought, “his half shut eyes flickering over the scene before him.” His only weakness is his pride. Satisfied Bond is close at hand “a dim slow fire seemed to be kindled” in his eyes and he positively relishes in his sadistic torture methods. The latter scenes are nearly, but not quite, the equal of CR. Sun doesn’t actually do very much, but he’s a very convincing baddie.
It’s disappointing then that his demise is a confusing affair, as is the majority of the action. Markham creates several good scenarios, but each one is a furious staccato of words. Far from telling us what is happening, this only gives the impression of action and subsequently confuses the reader. Lots of question marks, full stops and short sentences permeate Markham’s action scenes. The gritty climax itself is over in a few pages of flashing steel.
This is odd as Markham’s attention to detail is generally very thorough, without ever being particularly extravagant. It’s almost too precise and is so preoccupied with everyone’s conscious and subconscious faculties, like the reading of faces and hands and eyes, that the tale often lacks tension. He’s long winded over locations and has none of the exuberant turn of phrase that makes Fleming’s prose so rewarding.
CS is a gallant effort, not quite a success, but not a failure either. One redeeming adversary and a hefty dose of sex, sadism and stabbings is no substitute for a coherent plot, good characters and distinct dramatic situations. Sorry, Mr Amis, no cigar.
I had a couple of PMs asking me to summarise my reviews of Ian Fleming's Bond novels
I've given it some thought, but not sure on the format to take,
would a Q & A suffice?
e.g. Best Villain? Best Action? Best Dialogue?
Plus of course a chrisno1 "special IF appreciation review"!
P.S. has anyone got a decent pic of the famous "sunglasses" paperback Pan cover for Colonel Sun? All I can get are small images which blow up really badly!
It’s remarkably difficult now to appreciate how alarmingly different the original 14 Fleming novels were when they first appeared in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Many of the ingredients we now take for granted in modern thrillers (outrageous plots, sex, and vicious violence) just didn’t exist. Following Fleming we had writers like Gavin Lyall, James Mayo et al, who strived to create a similar “feel” to their work.
Fleming remained the master, although as he reached the end of his career the stories took an almost apocryphal tone. The early adventures such as LALD, DN and FRWL show real imagination in the storytelling. The latter ones tend to be more straightforward, but are illuminated by the sense of a time past, of 007 living too far on the edge; so much so he falls in love and subsequently falls apart not just once but twice. The best of Fleming’s later work is very reflective; he is essentially writing about himself in his final few novels; even TMWTGG has elements of regret and recrimination.
There is a tendency for critics to dismiss Fleming on the grounds that his books lack a moral fibre, that his heroines are no more than window dressing and that the violence is over the top. These are fair criticisms, but I think it slightly misses the point about the Bond novels. Escapist entertainment shouldn’t have to bow to the critical masses. The Bond novels are generally very enjoyable. The rough stuff is exciting and the smooth is desirable.
Much is made of Fleming’s descriptive abilities, his similes and adjectives and flowery prose, but this is little more than should be expected of a good author. He does however have a turn of phrase that is constantly surprising and makes you sit up and take notice of what is happening. His failures tend to be the stories where his language lets him down. The solid prose of TMWTGG and OP is a million miles from CR and DN.
So, how best to appreciate Fleming? Firstly, ignore the films. The two are not related; or rather the films owe much to the novels, but it is pointless expecting the books to resemble the films. Although some of them do bear close witness, most do not, and many of the most interesting passages of the books cannot be translated onto the screen as they revolve around characters emotions.
Secondly, do not expect them to be modern. Like all novels of a certain era, the Bond books carry a flavour of the 1940 & 50s, when Britain was losing her Empire and had just struggled through 7 years of war. Fleming’s distrust of the Soviets and the Germans shines through. Equally his rather scant treatment of black people (cheerfully obedient) and a distinctly misogynistic attitude to women (they are either whores or angels or ugly bitches) would be fairly commonplace at the time.
It is pointless trying to take issue with the facets which represent the age; it would be like asking someone to read Dicken’s without accepting convicts and beggars as a part of everyday Victorian life.
Thirdly, read them quickly. They are all relatively short novels, certainly by modern standards. Some can be read in a few hours or a few evenings. By reading at pace, you will get a better sense of urgency and atmosphere. Most of the adventures take place over the course of only two or three days and Fleming has written a piece which can be digested in the same time.
Lastly, do not skip bits! I know it sounds silly, but the duller passages are often have quite an important part to play in the psyche of the characters; think of the chapter in CR about the nature of evil, or in YOLT when Bond discusses the dignity of suicide, or Doctor No’s deranged justification for his power-lust.
The novels always bear re-reading and while some are clearly better than others, they all have a certain class and style which still sets them high on the mantle of thrillers.
Good luck reading!
Here are a few pointers for the uninitiated:
Yeah, I agree on DAF, it's one of my least favorite IF novels. But I couldn't see it more differently with the superbly written MR. The ultimate definition of the "page turner!" -{
I have read all your reviews chrisno1 and I think they are very thorough and thoughtful. I look forward to reading your reviews for the next novels upcoming.
How come you aren't reviewing the John Gardner novels? I'd be very interested to hear your take on them.
It takes a lot out of me all that reading!
I am currently reading The Charles Hood novels and am doing preliminary work on a novel (not a FanFiction, my actual first original novel) as well as a new story for 007 Fan Fiction. Also have to job hunt! No fun being unemployed.
I hope to get the Gardner novels underway in the New Year.
Interesting, well written reviews! I disagree with some things, especially Moonraker, which is actually one of my favorites. Maybe being from the States I appreciate the setting more...the same reason why Diamonds Are Forever is not one of my favorites. But I enjoyed almost everything about Moonraker... the scenes at Blades, the Dover setting, the villain Drax, who, in my opinion is one of the most effective Bond villains because he is a traitor, the fact that Bond is stiffed by Gala which breaks the expected formula of Bond getting the girl at the end, etc.
I also disagree with parts of your reviews on Goldfinger, Thunderball, TMWTGG...maybe I'm a bit too biased toward Fleming but I would have a hard time rating any of his noverls (with the exception of TSWLM) less than a 7 out of 10. I actually enjoy the parts of his novels that may appear mundane to some. His descriptions and ability to turn a phrase I have always found very entertaining or amusing even when the high drama or action is missing.
Your review of Colonel Sun is 100% right on target and incisive, I couldn't have made the points any better myself.
By the way, Dr. No was the first Bond book I ever read as well...also borrowed from the library and at about the same age as you were.
You'll have a hard job persuading me its better than I've already stated, I'm afraid. I would like to point out that Drax isn't a traitor, he weedles himself into the UK establishment during WW2 after being blown up by a land mine; he was a German sniper. Drax never loved Britain and his plan was always to do exert some revenge, which was why he got in contact with the GRU / SMERSH.
I perhaps need to explain my rating system. I have rated them purely as 007 novels. There is no relation to other novels. On that basis, if I see certain novels as a 10, they are clearly (IMO) the best examples of the Bond Canon. It stands to reason I can't have every novel scoring as highly. I had to separate how I genuinely feel about a novel compared to how I considered its literary impact within 007 parametres. That's why TMWTGG & TB scored so low. The latter clearly has a different edge to it, especially the dialogue, sections of which are lifted from the original screen treatment. I think I pointed this out quite well in my review. TMWTGG is a very shallow affair, quite lazy and very short; 007's world had moved on (even Fleming had introduced the fantastical to DN, YOLT) but this novel is stuck in a bizarre time warp. Sorry.
Additionally, 6 out of 10 isn't a bad score. It's above average. If the depth of insightful description that so enlivens FRWL was brought into TB or GF, those novels would score dramatically higher. But it just isn't there.
I'd be interested to read your take on the GF, TB & TMWTGG and the others some time.
I've been forced to add a "2" to my username because I can't log in with my old name, despite a couple of emails to AJB HQ. I've gone to that trouble because I wanted to thank you for your excellent reviews of Fleming's novels. They are stylish, perceptive and entertaining - though I disagree with your evaluation of Octopussy, which I think is a top-flight short story. It would be doing a great service to hardened literary Bond fans, and those who know 007 from the films, if AJB were to compile these reviews and issue them as an adjunct to the literary section.
Kind regards,
Hitch (I can't bring myself to add the pestilential numeral!)
It would be doing a great service to hardened literary Bond fans, and those who know 007 from the films, if AJB were to compile these reviews and issue them as an adjunct to the literary section.
Thanks Hitch (1 or 2 - whatever!)
I'm not sure all the reviews are complimentary enough to pass muster for that sort of treatment. Generally when 007 fan sites put compilations of reviews together, they are always, but always positive. A few of mine are fairly scathing, in a nice way!
Glad you enjoyed the series; it's nice to know my efforst are appreciated.
It would be doing a great service to hardened literary Bond fans, and those who know 007 from the films, if AJB were to compile these reviews and issue them as an adjunct to the literary section.
Thanks Hitch (1 or 2 - whatever!)
I'm not sure all the reviews are complimentary enough to pass muster for that sort of treatment. Generally when 007 fan sites put compilations of reviews together, they are always, but always positive. A few of mine are fairly scathing, in a nice way!
Glad you enjoyed the series; it's nice to know my efforst are appreciated.
That's why your reviews are so refreshing; they are objective and don't assume that everything Fleming wrote is sprinkled with pixie dust. I've no wish to read slavishly complimentary reviews about an uneven series of novels. Fleming himself was a fine reviewer, so I'm sure he would have appreciated your honesty.
Well, it has been a while.
As requested by many, I now feel able to start my trawl through the fabulous array of continuation novels.
However, I do not possess Pearson's "Authorised Biography," am missing 2 Gardner's (which I hope to have acquired reasonably quickly) and currently do not intend to read Benson's (I only have 2 of his novels and they are like golddust on the market. I don't like them much anyway.) So it isn't exactly a comprehensive review list.
This project may well take some time. I will add a link to this post to the "Continuation Reviews" thread when I have it set up.
The thread should start this weekend.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I highly recommend Pearson...it would be ideally read between Amis' CS and the first Gardner...I'm a big fan of the 'Authorised Biography' of 007 :007)
As always, looking forward to your reviews, Chris!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I scored a hardback copy of Pearson's book on ebay a couple of years ago for about ten dollars, plus shipping...worth it in my view!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Potential nitpick with one of your reviews (which I loved otherwise)...
Bond is back in America dealing with a contraband diamond operation run by the Jewish Mafia
When did it say the Spangled Mob was Jewish? I always thought they were Italians, especially from the name "Seraffimo" and the sprinkling of "guinea" stereotypes Fleming throws their way.
Potential nitpick with one of your reviews (which I loved otherwise)...
Bond is back in America dealing with a contraband diamond operation run by the Jewish Mafia
When did it say the Spangled Mob was Jewish? I always thought they were Italians, especially from the name "Seraffimo" and the sprinkling of "guinea" stereotypes Fleming throws their way.
Nit pick away!
Nice to see these old threads revived every now and then! Glad you liked the reviews, Hannibal.
To answer: I don't think Fleming actually specifies any lineage, he just calls the Spangs American. Tanner talks about American gangsters, that the only Italian one's you see are in the movies.
I picked up on one or two things from my own hazy knowledge.
As I understood it Hatton Garden was traditionally monopolised by Jewish diamond merchants (I could be wrong, don't quote me) & Rufus Saye does usher a Jewish associate out of his office.
Las Vegas also was not originally an Italian Mafia hang out, but one for the Jewish Mafia, who liked the gambling and the easy money they could make. (Again, don't quote me.)
Additionally, while you say Serrafino sounds like an Italian name, I'd sayit's the only name that does There's nothing Italian sounding about anyone else.
They don't sound very Jewish either, so I guess the debate could rage forever!
Any other thoughts any one???
Comments
I am well aware of the "sleaze factor" Napoleon, but the problem with Vivienne's sexual encounters is that they do read like a bad porn novel. It's Fleming's vision of it, not Michel's. I think I said something like "the voice isn't hers, it's Ian Fleming's life story." I didn't want to elaborate any further.
The sleazy stuff in TMWTGG (and LALD) also read like a very poor sex-and-shopping novel and, to be honest, I didn't think it was worth a mention. I'd much rather concentrate of the eroticism of DN and FRWL thanks very much.
Glad you like the reviews tho'
There's such a thing?
All I'm saying is that it's a factor, and yes I'd throw in the sex stuff in FRWL and DN too. It's somehow noticeably missing from the continuation novels. Or if they attempt it, it never seems quite right, like it's being inserted for the hell of it, and insincere smut is somehow the worst of all imo. There's really nothing racy about the continuation novels at all. They're wholly sanitised if I recall, barring Christopher Wood's novels. Ironically these were sleazier than the books that were meant to have nothing to do with the films.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
24/09/2009
It’s difficult to know what to make of Colonel Sun. As the first of the “continuation novels” it remains certainly the closest in atmosphere, Cold War intrigue and full blooded violence to Ian Fleming’s original body of work. But, although it has some fine detail and a strong central adversary, something is definitely lacking.
Kingsley Amis (or more accurately Robert Markham; for Amis isn’t writing as Amis, but as a pseudo- Fleming) begins his story excellently. It is one year on from TMWTGG and James Bond is once more stuttering through life as “a creature of habit... ceasing to be an individual.” It’s marked him, and M, out for kidnap by an apparently disparate group of Greeks.
Markham builds the suspense brilliantly at M’s residence, Quarterdeck, and Bond’s escape is a believable riot of roughhouse tactics and thin rumination. He’s even better in Athens where Bond meets the Russian GRU agents Gordienko and Ariadne. Things begin to unravel badly from here.
Markham has clearly studied Fleming’s work and is at pains to mix sublime terror with the mundane. But he overplays his hand and there are a lot of talky passages about communism, Greek mythology and late sixties politics. These sequences slow down the novel tremendously. Markham also forgets that the bad guys require a reasonably intelligible master plan; for all Fleming’s faults, he generally gave us a tangible story.
CS’s mix of kidnap, terrorism and Red China expansion, coupled with war crimes, international conferences, jealousy and the works of De Sade, is baffling to say the least. Worse, I didn’t even believe the plan was workable and as if to prove my point, at the novels conclusion it’s revealed the only damage to the conference delegates was sea spray.
Markham has too many characters in this novel. There are three women, two male compadres, at least three villains and a host of smaller identikit police, spies or civil servants. He builds a character for each, but this becomes tedious. For instance, the incompetent security chief Arenski is “nobody’s man, anybody’s man, safe, silent and slow... unqualified to rise to the occasion.” Markham takes two pages to tell us this, yet Arenski hardly features, being a minor player in the story. Conversely, Von Richter, who is central to the plot, gets very little description and his motives remain unclear. Markham is happiest dealing with the inner political psyche, but he lacks keenness where emotions count.
Ariadne, the heroine, is a case in point. She’s a provocative sexy foil for Bond, who dreams about her as soon as they meet: “Their eyes caught... and Bond was certain she knew his mind... But what they both desired must remain a fantasy.” It doesn’t and their passion is more graphic than any Fleming supplied. Ariadne is a passionate figure, “a truly magnificent body... her movements and expression showing an absolute certainty he would find her beautiful.” Yet we learn little about this Greek goddess other than her sexual prowess and her left wing leanings.
There’s a lot of sex in CS. Two prostitutes recline in bikinis at the call of Colonel Sun’s posse, Bond has frequent sessions with Ariadne and later she is subjected to an unseen rape. There’s very little romance. The physical couplings feel contrived and the relationships awkward.
Niko Litsas, a poor man’s Colombo with his little yacht and his British Army surplus weapons, is an equally uninteresting companion, trying to be buddies with Bond and a guardian to Ariadne. Markham recognises this contradiction by having the Greek remind Bond to treat her well, yet also has him casting “an appraising and rather obviously expert eye” over Ariadne’s naked form. He says he feels like a bad uncle; he reads like a dirty old man.
The one thing Markham has got right is his major villain Colonel Sun Liang-Tan. Sun is a cool professional with irises “pewter grey like the eyes of a newborn.” He’s far from innocent. He’s “unmoved by women,” speaks in an equable tone and retains fear and obedience through the tiniest of movements: a tapping envelope or bared of teeth. He is never less than controlled and prone to long moments of impassivity and deep thought, “his half shut eyes flickering over the scene before him.” His only weakness is his pride. Satisfied Bond is close at hand “a dim slow fire seemed to be kindled” in his eyes and he positively relishes in his sadistic torture methods. The latter scenes are nearly, but not quite, the equal of CR. Sun doesn’t actually do very much, but he’s a very convincing baddie.
It’s disappointing then that his demise is a confusing affair, as is the majority of the action. Markham creates several good scenarios, but each one is a furious staccato of words. Far from telling us what is happening, this only gives the impression of action and subsequently confuses the reader. Lots of question marks, full stops and short sentences permeate Markham’s action scenes. The gritty climax itself is over in a few pages of flashing steel.
This is odd as Markham’s attention to detail is generally very thorough, without ever being particularly extravagant. It’s almost too precise and is so preoccupied with everyone’s conscious and subconscious faculties, like the reading of faces and hands and eyes, that the tale often lacks tension. He’s long winded over locations and has none of the exuberant turn of phrase that makes Fleming’s prose so rewarding.
CS is a gallant effort, not quite a success, but not a failure either. One redeeming adversary and a hefty dose of sex, sadism and stabbings is no substitute for a coherent plot, good characters and distinct dramatic situations. Sorry, Mr Amis, no cigar.
5 from 10
I've given it some thought, but not sure on the format to take,
would a Q & A suffice?
e.g. Best Villain? Best Action? Best Dialogue?
Plus of course a chrisno1 "special IF appreciation review"!
P.S. has anyone got a decent pic of the famous "sunglasses" paperback Pan cover for Colonel Sun? All I can get are small images which blow up really badly!
It’s remarkably difficult now to appreciate how alarmingly different the original 14 Fleming novels were when they first appeared in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Many of the ingredients we now take for granted in modern thrillers (outrageous plots, sex, and vicious violence) just didn’t exist. Following Fleming we had writers like Gavin Lyall, James Mayo et al, who strived to create a similar “feel” to their work.
Fleming remained the master, although as he reached the end of his career the stories took an almost apocryphal tone. The early adventures such as LALD, DN and FRWL show real imagination in the storytelling. The latter ones tend to be more straightforward, but are illuminated by the sense of a time past, of 007 living too far on the edge; so much so he falls in love and subsequently falls apart not just once but twice. The best of Fleming’s later work is very reflective; he is essentially writing about himself in his final few novels; even TMWTGG has elements of regret and recrimination.
There is a tendency for critics to dismiss Fleming on the grounds that his books lack a moral fibre, that his heroines are no more than window dressing and that the violence is over the top. These are fair criticisms, but I think it slightly misses the point about the Bond novels. Escapist entertainment shouldn’t have to bow to the critical masses. The Bond novels are generally very enjoyable. The rough stuff is exciting and the smooth is desirable.
Much is made of Fleming’s descriptive abilities, his similes and adjectives and flowery prose, but this is little more than should be expected of a good author. He does however have a turn of phrase that is constantly surprising and makes you sit up and take notice of what is happening. His failures tend to be the stories where his language lets him down. The solid prose of TMWTGG and OP is a million miles from CR and DN.
So, how best to appreciate Fleming? Firstly, ignore the films. The two are not related; or rather the films owe much to the novels, but it is pointless expecting the books to resemble the films. Although some of them do bear close witness, most do not, and many of the most interesting passages of the books cannot be translated onto the screen as they revolve around characters emotions.
Secondly, do not expect them to be modern. Like all novels of a certain era, the Bond books carry a flavour of the 1940 & 50s, when Britain was losing her Empire and had just struggled through 7 years of war. Fleming’s distrust of the Soviets and the Germans shines through. Equally his rather scant treatment of black people (cheerfully obedient) and a distinctly misogynistic attitude to women (they are either whores or angels or ugly bitches) would be fairly commonplace at the time.
It is pointless trying to take issue with the facets which represent the age; it would be like asking someone to read Dicken’s without accepting convicts and beggars as a part of everyday Victorian life.
Thirdly, read them quickly. They are all relatively short novels, certainly by modern standards. Some can be read in a few hours or a few evenings. By reading at pace, you will get a better sense of urgency and atmosphere. Most of the adventures take place over the course of only two or three days and Fleming has written a piece which can be digested in the same time.
Lastly, do not skip bits! I know it sounds silly, but the duller passages are often have quite an important part to play in the psyche of the characters; think of the chapter in CR about the nature of evil, or in YOLT when Bond discusses the dignity of suicide, or Doctor No’s deranged justification for his power-lust.
The novels always bear re-reading and while some are clearly better than others, they all have a certain class and style which still sets them high on the mantle of thrillers.
Good luck reading!
Here are a few pointers for the uninitiated:
If you only read one novel: FRWL
For excitement and danger: DN or LALD
For a great villain: GF, DN or FRWL
For insight into 007: CR or YOLT
For a great heroine: DN or FRWL
For an easy read: CR or FYEO
For ebullient prose: CR, GF or OHMSS
For sheer sexiness: FRWL or DN
Ones to avoid: TSWLM & TMWTGG
Approach with caution: MR & DAF
For a flavour of the films: TB or OHMSS
Well !
What a pleasant young man you are.
Either change your tone or change your Bondsite.
It takes a lot out of me all that reading!
I am currently reading The Charles Hood novels and am doing preliminary work on a novel (not a FanFiction, my actual first original novel) as well as a new story for 007 Fan Fiction. Also have to job hunt! No fun being unemployed.
I hope to get the Gardner novels underway in the New Year.
I also disagree with parts of your reviews on Goldfinger, Thunderball, TMWTGG...maybe I'm a bit too biased toward Fleming but I would have a hard time rating any of his noverls (with the exception of TSWLM) less than a 7 out of 10. I actually enjoy the parts of his novels that may appear mundane to some. His descriptions and ability to turn a phrase I have always found very entertaining or amusing even when the high drama or action is missing.
Your review of Colonel Sun is 100% right on target and incisive, I couldn't have made the points any better myself.
By the way, Dr. No was the first Bond book I ever read as well...also borrowed from the library and at about the same age as you were.
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/33749/what-do-you-think-of-the-first-three-bond-novels/
You'll have a hard job persuading me its better than I've already stated, I'm afraid. I would like to point out that Drax isn't a traitor, he weedles himself into the UK establishment during WW2 after being blown up by a land mine; he was a German sniper. Drax never loved Britain and his plan was always to do exert some revenge, which was why he got in contact with the GRU / SMERSH.
I perhaps need to explain my rating system. I have rated them purely as 007 novels. There is no relation to other novels. On that basis, if I see certain novels as a 10, they are clearly (IMO) the best examples of the Bond Canon. It stands to reason I can't have every novel scoring as highly. I had to separate how I genuinely feel about a novel compared to how I considered its literary impact within 007 parametres. That's why TMWTGG & TB scored so low. The latter clearly has a different edge to it, especially the dialogue, sections of which are lifted from the original screen treatment. I think I pointed this out quite well in my review. TMWTGG is a very shallow affair, quite lazy and very short; 007's world had moved on (even Fleming had introduced the fantastical to DN, YOLT) but this novel is stuck in a bizarre time warp. Sorry.
Additionally, 6 out of 10 isn't a bad score. It's above average. If the depth of insightful description that so enlivens FRWL was brought into TB or GF, those novels would score dramatically higher. But it just isn't there.
I'd be interested to read your take on the GF, TB & TMWTGG and the others some time.
Kind regards,
Hitch (I can't bring myself to add the pestilential numeral!)
Thanks Hitch (1 or 2 - whatever!)
I'm not sure all the reviews are complimentary enough to pass muster for that sort of treatment. Generally when 007 fan sites put compilations of reviews together, they are always, but always positive. A few of mine are fairly scathing, in a nice way!
Glad you enjoyed the series; it's nice to know my efforst are appreciated.
That's why your reviews are so refreshing; they are objective and don't assume that everything Fleming wrote is sprinkled with pixie dust. I've no wish to read slavishly complimentary reviews about an uneven series of novels. Fleming himself was a fine reviewer, so I'm sure he would have appreciated your honesty.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As requested by many, I now feel able to start my trawl through the fabulous array of continuation novels.
However, I do not possess Pearson's "Authorised Biography," am missing 2 Gardner's (which I hope to have acquired reasonably quickly) and currently do not intend to read Benson's (I only have 2 of his novels and they are like golddust on the market. I don't like them much anyway.) So it isn't exactly a comprehensive review list.
This project may well take some time. I will add a link to this post to the "Continuation Reviews" thread when I have it set up.
The thread should start this weekend.
As always, looking forward to your reviews, Chris!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Otherwise it should be easy enough to pick up a cheap copy. It's a good one.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/James-Bond-The-Authorised-Biography-by-John-Pearson_W0QQitemZ150405671739QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Books_NonFictionBooks_NonFictionBooks_SM?hash=item2304e06b3b
Of course, this one did get reprinted recently.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
When did it say the Spangled Mob was Jewish? I always thought they were Italians, especially from the name "Seraffimo" and the sprinkling of "guinea" stereotypes Fleming throws their way.
Nit pick away!
Nice to see these old threads revived every now and then! Glad you liked the reviews, Hannibal.
To answer: I don't think Fleming actually specifies any lineage, he just calls the Spangs American. Tanner talks about American gangsters, that the only Italian one's you see are in the movies.
I picked up on one or two things from my own hazy knowledge.
As I understood it Hatton Garden was traditionally monopolised by Jewish diamond merchants (I could be wrong, don't quote me) & Rufus Saye does usher a Jewish associate out of his office.
Las Vegas also was not originally an Italian Mafia hang out, but one for the Jewish Mafia, who liked the gambling and the easy money they could make. (Again, don't quote me.)
Additionally, while you say Serrafino sounds like an Italian name, I'd say it's the only name that does There's nothing Italian sounding about anyone else.
They don't sound very Jewish either, so I guess the debate could rage forever!
Any other thoughts any one???