RETROSPECTIVE:
JOHN GARDNER – APPRECIATION OR DEPRECIATION?
31/12/2010
Over Christmas, I spent a few hours re-reading the reviews I posted regarding John Gardner’s 007 work, and despite my obstinate streak, I feel I made a few errors in my assessments for Licence Renewed and Win Lose or Die.
Licence Renewed is a solid start to Gardner’s canon, but – as was pointed out by Napoleon Plural – I rather talked the novel up while at the same time informing the reader of why it wasn’t very good. Like much of Gardner’s writing, the review is very uneven. I originally marked it an ‘8’ but did feel compelled to downgrade it to a ‘7.’ In truth, after long term reflection, it probably isn’t quite a ‘7’ either. Gardner hits top form in a few places during the narrative, but doesn’t hold the reader’s interest throughout. The story takes much too long to get going, he struggles with his female characters and the Highland Games chapter is superfluous and rather dull. The escape from the castle is great, the Perpignan episodes excellent and the Star-lifter fight tense, but, despite a relevant and [still] topical plot, the whole doesn’t quite succeed – even the torture scene feels a bit half baked. I sense much potential in Licence Renewed, but I think I marked the novel on that rather than the finished result. Interestingly, when I first read Licence Renewed in 1982, I loved it and thought it brought Bond up to date in a very effective manner. However I was a teenager then, so maybe my criticism was a little naive.
Win Lose or Die was a novel I was very critical of. I remember thinking it was confusing, rather holey plot-wise and a bit laboured in places. Thing is, compared to the hopelessly convoluted narratives of The Man From Barbarossa, Death is Forever and Never Send Flowers or the barren, uninvolving passages of Nobody Lives Forever, this one read like a detailed, cleverly constructed thriller. Yes, it has several flaws, [which Gardner novel doesn’t?] large one’s too, but it’s got one of his more accessible plots, has a cut above heroine in Beatrice di Ricci and the action, when it comes, is well executed. Gardner gives more care and attention to this product than he does with many of his other novels.
So what’s my opinion of John Gardner’s time as a ‘Bond continuation novelist’?
Well, I don’t dislike him.
The problem with assessing his canon as a whole is that the quality varies so much. When reviewing Fleming, even if I considered a novel to be below par, there was always something that drew me in. Often it was Fleming’s wonderfully erudite prose, which leant extra gravitas to characters, scenes and situations. Gardner doesn’t try hard enough in that respect. Of course I’m not expecting him to match the florid passages of Goldfinger or On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, but sometimes the sheer scantiness of Gardner’s writing is disappointing at best, horrific at worst. When he pays attention to his protagonists, their thoughts, foibles and plight, he’s more than competent. The aforementioned Win Lose or Die demonstrates this, as does Icebreaker and the first part of Cold. Equally laudable is the attention spent mapping the villainous personas of Chernov and Smolin in No Deals Mr Bond, Franz Sanchez in Licence to Kill and the eponymous Scorpius. But for each of these highs, there is a corresponding low: I still shudder at the thin as air portrait of Broken Claw, the non-existent personas of Onatopp and Trevelyan from that other movie tie-in Goldeneye, and the rambling soap opera casts of Role of Honour or The Man from Barbarossa.
Action wise, Gardner’s rather hit and miss. He’s brilliant in the short punchy novels like Icebreaker and For Special Services, and inspired in sections of Licence Renewed, Death is Forever and Cold. But too often the action is curtailed into a few pages of torrid violence, while the bulk of the novel is talky and static. Now, Fleming often had a ‘sit down and talk’ chapter, more than one at times – think of the philosophical discussions between Bond and Doctor No, or the Russian Generals in From Russia With Love – but he always hooked the reader, held their interest and built the tension. Gardner shows no such fortitude and his long dialogue obsessed plots end up smothering the excitement. Sea Fire demonstrates this very well, where the satisfyingly gripping fights and chases are alternated with turgid interviews back at MI6 H.Q.
Gardner’s endings also leave a lot to be desired. They are frequently rushed. Everything is resolved so swiftly. Often he requires a coda to wrap up one or two loose ends. This again separates him from Fleming, who would build to a climax and maintain the suspense, sometimes for two or three chapters, before the ultimate demise of the villain. It’s almost as if he’s having more fun constructing as confusing a plot as he possibly can, only to tidy it all up in seconds, as if all those narrative strands didn’t really matter.
And indeed sometimes I wonder if they do. Gardner’s stories are, in the main, complicated. Given an ounce of humour and the baggage of good characterisation, a conundrum-like story can be worthwhile (think Raymond Chandler), but Gardner doesn’t have Chandler’s panache. His stories are convoluted simply because he chooses to make them that way. He often starts out with an interesting and realistic premise, but buries it underneath a plethora of add on intrigues and extraneous characters. His over use of the double cross and triple cross, which was eyebrow raisingly fun in Icebreaker, becomes laboured, predictable and downright annoying to the point it actually spoils decent adventures like No Deals Mr Bond, Sea Fire and Cold. There just isn’t any need for Bond’s adventures to be this demanding. In a latter adventure, Bond reflects that he’s always been a killer, sent to do his country’s dirty work at the stroke of his boss’ pen. That feels very realistic and is how Fleming portrays his hero. While it is inevitable a story has to feature more than a single assassination, Gardner’s novels tend to show Bond more as a detective attempting to unravel a criminally dense plot.
Curiously, and rather vexing to the reader, is how Gardner always has his hero one step behind his superior. As early as Icebreaker, M is aware of more than he tells Bond. The words ‘stalking horse’ occur time and again and Bond is repeatedly thrown to the wolves with the slimmest of information to hand, only to be informed at a later date of the real purpose of his mission, often by M in the field. This was particularly galling in Role of Honour, where you wonder why the author bothered with the first three quarters of the novel at all. Gardner’s attempts at genuine intrigue are fitful. He has some great ideas, and the basic plots of Licence Renewed, For Special Services, Icebreaker, No Deals Mr Bond, Win Lose or Die, even Broken Claw, are solid, if not entirely original, but he simply doesn’t have the where with all as a writer to carry them off.
Lastly I want to spend a few moments reflecting on sex [don’t we all?]. Fleming was a very sexy writer, albeit a slightly misogynistic one. Gardner’s attitude towards his heroines is to bring them hurtling up to date. No more Mary Goodnight’s simpering after Bond and climbing through windows – no more innocent, waiflike Honey Rider’s wading naked up beaches. Gardner’s women are all efficient, self sufficient modern girls. Most of them are companion agents, as good with a gun as Bond himself. The problem with this approach is that, firstly, it become repetitive and secondly it means either Bond’s role or the heroine’s role becomes diminished, for there are now two spies working for the good guys. Only twice is Bond’s amour not an intelligence agent (in Licence Renewed and Nobody Lives Forever) and one of them turns into a villainess a few novels on. Bond falls in love with several of these women, who in the main are novice spies and need a lot of rescuing and hugging, and these romances stretch credulity and get in the way of the plot, the revelation often occurring at times of crisis, as if Bond only thinks of the future [and reflects on his past] when he appears to have none. The copulations between hero and heroine are frequently mawkish, often embarrassing, and saddled with fraudulent dialogue. I can’t think of a single erotic moment in any of Gardner’s canon. Beatrice di Ricci, from Win Lose or Die, is far and away his sexiest creation, but even she virtually throws herself at Bond and I wasn’t entirely sure who was seducing who. It doesn’t really matter as the descriptions of their love making have all the subtlety of a kick up the backside. Sometimes it’s best for a writer not to describe a sexual liaison – imagination is a powerful thing.
So to answer my original question: Gardner isn’t without merit. His first few novels are fine and he shows promise in others, but overall, I think he over stayed his welcome. He wrote too many adventures, which diluted the standard of his prose and the tidiness of his narrative. Ideas which were fresh at the start of his tenure are repeated, sometimes more than once, and this shows a lack of genuine creativity. I’m aware that some of his books were written under duress through illness and pressure from the publishers, and while this may go part-way to explain the uneven nature of his writing, it isn’t an excuse – if you’re too sick to work; you don’t work. If Gardner had only written eight or nine novels, I feel the quality overall would be much higher. I can only hypothesise. Of the 16 novels we do have, perhaps only 5 or so are worth revisiting, which is not a great strike rate.
John Gardner has his moments, but sadly his minuses tend to lay heavily over his pluses.
For what it’s worth, my personal list ‘from best to worst’:
1. Icebreaker
2. For Special Services
3. No Deals, Mr Bond
4. Cold
5. Licence Renewed
6. Seafire
7. Scorpius
8. Licence to Kill
9. Win, Lose or Die
10. Nobody Lives Forever
11. Death is Forever
12. The Man from Barbarossa
13. Broken Claw
14. Role of Honour
15. Never Send Flowers
16. Goldeneye
p.s.
I will commence Raymond Benson's work this month.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,865MI6 Agent
This is a great series of Gardner reviews - I'm writing for my blog on this subject-matter myself, though I have some slightly different views on John Gardner and his Bonds. Some food for thought there, nonetheless! Thanks for sharing these reviews, chrisno1! -{
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Comments
Yeah take all the time you need. Plenty of liquids and eight hours sleep and you may be able to function normally in a few months.
JOHN GARDNER – APPRECIATION OR DEPRECIATION?
31/12/2010
Over Christmas, I spent a few hours re-reading the reviews I posted regarding John Gardner’s 007 work, and despite my obstinate streak, I feel I made a few errors in my assessments for Licence Renewed and Win Lose or Die.
Licence Renewed is a solid start to Gardner’s canon, but – as was pointed out by Napoleon Plural – I rather talked the novel up while at the same time informing the reader of why it wasn’t very good. Like much of Gardner’s writing, the review is very uneven. I originally marked it an ‘8’ but did feel compelled to downgrade it to a ‘7.’ In truth, after long term reflection, it probably isn’t quite a ‘7’ either. Gardner hits top form in a few places during the narrative, but doesn’t hold the reader’s interest throughout. The story takes much too long to get going, he struggles with his female characters and the Highland Games chapter is superfluous and rather dull. The escape from the castle is great, the Perpignan episodes excellent and the Star-lifter fight tense, but, despite a relevant and [still] topical plot, the whole doesn’t quite succeed – even the torture scene feels a bit half baked. I sense much potential in Licence Renewed, but I think I marked the novel on that rather than the finished result. Interestingly, when I first read Licence Renewed in 1982, I loved it and thought it brought Bond up to date in a very effective manner. However I was a teenager then, so maybe my criticism was a little naive.
Win Lose or Die was a novel I was very critical of. I remember thinking it was confusing, rather holey plot-wise and a bit laboured in places. Thing is, compared to the hopelessly convoluted narratives of The Man From Barbarossa, Death is Forever and Never Send Flowers or the barren, uninvolving passages of Nobody Lives Forever, this one read like a detailed, cleverly constructed thriller. Yes, it has several flaws, [which Gardner novel doesn’t?] large one’s too, but it’s got one of his more accessible plots, has a cut above heroine in Beatrice di Ricci and the action, when it comes, is well executed. Gardner gives more care and attention to this product than he does with many of his other novels.
So what’s my opinion of John Gardner’s time as a ‘Bond continuation novelist’?
Well, I don’t dislike him.
The problem with assessing his canon as a whole is that the quality varies so much. When reviewing Fleming, even if I considered a novel to be below par, there was always something that drew me in. Often it was Fleming’s wonderfully erudite prose, which leant extra gravitas to characters, scenes and situations. Gardner doesn’t try hard enough in that respect. Of course I’m not expecting him to match the florid passages of Goldfinger or On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, but sometimes the sheer scantiness of Gardner’s writing is disappointing at best, horrific at worst. When he pays attention to his protagonists, their thoughts, foibles and plight, he’s more than competent. The aforementioned Win Lose or Die demonstrates this, as does Icebreaker and the first part of Cold. Equally laudable is the attention spent mapping the villainous personas of Chernov and Smolin in No Deals Mr Bond, Franz Sanchez in Licence to Kill and the eponymous Scorpius. But for each of these highs, there is a corresponding low: I still shudder at the thin as air portrait of Broken Claw, the non-existent personas of Onatopp and Trevelyan from that other movie tie-in Goldeneye, and the rambling soap opera casts of Role of Honour or The Man from Barbarossa.
Action wise, Gardner’s rather hit and miss. He’s brilliant in the short punchy novels like Icebreaker and For Special Services, and inspired in sections of Licence Renewed, Death is Forever and Cold. But too often the action is curtailed into a few pages of torrid violence, while the bulk of the novel is talky and static. Now, Fleming often had a ‘sit down and talk’ chapter, more than one at times – think of the philosophical discussions between Bond and Doctor No, or the Russian Generals in From Russia With Love – but he always hooked the reader, held their interest and built the tension. Gardner shows no such fortitude and his long dialogue obsessed plots end up smothering the excitement. Sea Fire demonstrates this very well, where the satisfyingly gripping fights and chases are alternated with turgid interviews back at MI6 H.Q.
Gardner’s endings also leave a lot to be desired. They are frequently rushed. Everything is resolved so swiftly. Often he requires a coda to wrap up one or two loose ends. This again separates him from Fleming, who would build to a climax and maintain the suspense, sometimes for two or three chapters, before the ultimate demise of the villain. It’s almost as if he’s having more fun constructing as confusing a plot as he possibly can, only to tidy it all up in seconds, as if all those narrative strands didn’t really matter.
And indeed sometimes I wonder if they do. Gardner’s stories are, in the main, complicated. Given an ounce of humour and the baggage of good characterisation, a conundrum-like story can be worthwhile (think Raymond Chandler), but Gardner doesn’t have Chandler’s panache. His stories are convoluted simply because he chooses to make them that way. He often starts out with an interesting and realistic premise, but buries it underneath a plethora of add on intrigues and extraneous characters. His over use of the double cross and triple cross, which was eyebrow raisingly fun in Icebreaker, becomes laboured, predictable and downright annoying to the point it actually spoils decent adventures like No Deals Mr Bond, Sea Fire and Cold. There just isn’t any need for Bond’s adventures to be this demanding. In a latter adventure, Bond reflects that he’s always been a killer, sent to do his country’s dirty work at the stroke of his boss’ pen. That feels very realistic and is how Fleming portrays his hero. While it is inevitable a story has to feature more than a single assassination, Gardner’s novels tend to show Bond more as a detective attempting to unravel a criminally dense plot.
Curiously, and rather vexing to the reader, is how Gardner always has his hero one step behind his superior. As early as Icebreaker, M is aware of more than he tells Bond. The words ‘stalking horse’ occur time and again and Bond is repeatedly thrown to the wolves with the slimmest of information to hand, only to be informed at a later date of the real purpose of his mission, often by M in the field. This was particularly galling in Role of Honour, where you wonder why the author bothered with the first three quarters of the novel at all. Gardner’s attempts at genuine intrigue are fitful. He has some great ideas, and the basic plots of Licence Renewed, For Special Services, Icebreaker, No Deals Mr Bond, Win Lose or Die, even Broken Claw, are solid, if not entirely original, but he simply doesn’t have the where with all as a writer to carry them off.
Lastly I want to spend a few moments reflecting on sex [don’t we all?]. Fleming was a very sexy writer, albeit a slightly misogynistic one. Gardner’s attitude towards his heroines is to bring them hurtling up to date. No more Mary Goodnight’s simpering after Bond and climbing through windows – no more innocent, waiflike Honey Rider’s wading naked up beaches. Gardner’s women are all efficient, self sufficient modern girls. Most of them are companion agents, as good with a gun as Bond himself. The problem with this approach is that, firstly, it become repetitive and secondly it means either Bond’s role or the heroine’s role becomes diminished, for there are now two spies working for the good guys. Only twice is Bond’s amour not an intelligence agent (in Licence Renewed and Nobody Lives Forever) and one of them turns into a villainess a few novels on. Bond falls in love with several of these women, who in the main are novice spies and need a lot of rescuing and hugging, and these romances stretch credulity and get in the way of the plot, the revelation often occurring at times of crisis, as if Bond only thinks of the future [and reflects on his past] when he appears to have none. The copulations between hero and heroine are frequently mawkish, often embarrassing, and saddled with fraudulent dialogue. I can’t think of a single erotic moment in any of Gardner’s canon. Beatrice di Ricci, from Win Lose or Die, is far and away his sexiest creation, but even she virtually throws herself at Bond and I wasn’t entirely sure who was seducing who. It doesn’t really matter as the descriptions of their love making have all the subtlety of a kick up the backside. Sometimes it’s best for a writer not to describe a sexual liaison – imagination is a powerful thing.
So to answer my original question: Gardner isn’t without merit. His first few novels are fine and he shows promise in others, but overall, I think he over stayed his welcome. He wrote too many adventures, which diluted the standard of his prose and the tidiness of his narrative. Ideas which were fresh at the start of his tenure are repeated, sometimes more than once, and this shows a lack of genuine creativity. I’m aware that some of his books were written under duress through illness and pressure from the publishers, and while this may go part-way to explain the uneven nature of his writing, it isn’t an excuse – if you’re too sick to work; you don’t work. If Gardner had only written eight or nine novels, I feel the quality overall would be much higher. I can only hypothesise. Of the 16 novels we do have, perhaps only 5 or so are worth revisiting, which is not a great strike rate.
John Gardner has his moments, but sadly his minuses tend to lay heavily over his pluses.
For what it’s worth, my personal list ‘from best to worst’:
1. Icebreaker
2. For Special Services
3. No Deals, Mr Bond
4. Cold
5. Licence Renewed
6. Seafire
7. Scorpius
8. Licence to Kill
9. Win, Lose or Die
10. Nobody Lives Forever
11. Death is Forever
12. The Man from Barbarossa
13. Broken Claw
14. Role of Honour
15. Never Send Flowers
16. Goldeneye
p.s.
I will commence Raymond Benson's work this month.