Gardner's NSF - JB's love of Disneyland, EuroDisney etc. Fan opinions?

Silhouette Man

What are the considered views of the literary James Bond fans here on the AJB forums concerning James Bond's stated love of Disneyland in Never Send Flowers? More specifically, Gardner has his version of James Bond enthuse about a past trip (with a girlfriend) to Disney World in Orlando, Florida in the United States. He also enjoys some of the rides in the Euro Disney locale that forms the last third or so of the 1993 continuation novel. Some fans blanche at this characterisation of James Bond, but we must remember his rather lustful recalling of the innocence of his childhood in Chapter 1 of OHMSS (1963) and in FRWL (1957).

Would Ian Fleming be spinning in his grave at the idea of his creation James Bond ("blunt instrument" and secret agent) going to any Disneyland facility in the world, even though he had his Irma Bunt refer to "a Disneyland of Death" in YOLT (1964)? In Gardner's Licence Renewed (1981) he refers to Murik's castle as being like the one at Disneyland (the original one at Anaheim opened back in 1955, presumably). Likewise, in Never Send Flowers, Gardner has his Bond refer to villain David Dragonpol's castle Schloss Drache as "bigger than the one at Disneyland" (to his Swiss spy companion Flicka von Grusse) many chapters before the Euro Disney locale is even revealed.

Does James Bond, cast in the mould of a homicide detective throughout, hunting a crazed ex-actor and serial killer of politicians, intelligence operatives, royalty and celebrities come across as at all credible in Gardner's Never Send Flowers (1993)? Does Gardner, with the Cold War over and the New World Order and 'the end of history' theory at its height, do James Bond justice in Never Send Flowers? Does a plot involving HRH Princess Diana and her sons Princes William and Harry in a plot to have them assassinated as a Royal Party visit to the new (1992) Euro Disney facility outside Paris repel readers after the tragic death of Lady Diana in the early hours of 31 August 1997 in a high-speed car crash which also killed her lover 'Dodi' Al-Fayed, and her driver? Is Never Send Flowers considered by readers to be more unpalatable to a modern audience now that events have taken the course that they have? In this way, the novel is rather similar to Frederick Forsyth's "docu-thriller" The Day of the Jackal (1971) where The Jackal's (OAS ordered) target for assassination is the hated President Charles de Gaulle of France. The only problem was, on 9 November 1970 it was announced by the French Government that "General de Gaulle est mort" which some observers felt rather took the sting out of the tale for readers of the docu-thriller on the novel's publication the following year, in 1971. It is still an excellent thriller which works on many levels, IMO. We know that, in any event, de Gaulle and Princess Diana and her sons, will not be allowed to be killed by an assassin as the hero always saves the day in this type of book. Perhaps if Gardner had used a fictional celebrity as the target at Euro Disney (like some of his targets were in Scorpius) the novel's climax at Euro Disney would have been much more effective. Gardner had originally planned for an open park, but was stopped by the Disney organisation - the climax could only be held in a closed park with no Royal Party there.

What is the fan consensus, then, on the elephant in the room: a novel involving the assassination of the famous princess, which precedes her death by only four short years? Does this take away any suspense from the novel at all, in the same way as happened to Forsyth's (admittedly much more famous and successful) 1971 novel? Also, the recent attempts by Al-Queada/the rump of the Taliban to assassinate Prince Harry in Helmand province at Camp Bastion at the time of writing (September 2012) come to one's mind. The novel Never Send Flowers again seems relevant almost 20 years after its publication in July 1993. I see Never Send Flowers as a polemic against our modern-day celebrity-obsessed culture - another thing Gardner predicted IMHO. Everything we have experienced since 2000 and the new Millennium has been predicted here by Gardner: Big Brother, OK! Mag, Hello! Mag, Reality TV, The X Factor - the cheap scramble for fame and fortune in the fast life of the modern world he so obviously hated. Dragonpol's slayings around the globe are the perfect antidote to this...almost like Gardner is using this character to act out as his agent against the evils and perversions of the post-Cold War world - a world of high fashion, high politics, wars and rumours of wars, mass media 24 hour news and content everywhere - no such thing as useless information.

As a side note to all of this Ian Fleming himself also refers in two places to Disneyland in his non-fiction travel book Thrilling Cities (1963). It also gets a mention (along with another American theme park whose name escapes me) in his first-person viewpoint novel The Spy Who Loved Me (1962). Also, what are literary Bond fans' thoughts on the villain of the piece, ex-world famous film and stage actor David Dragonpol? Dragonpol keeps the Fleming villain theme of St. George against the dragon going, as does Bond and his Swiss counterpart Flicka von Grusse's 'Dragonfly' nickname. We are told that Dragonpol is a name that goes all the way back to the Domesday book of the 11th century - 1085, to be exact. Dragonpol apparently translates as 'DragonHead', and is of Anglo-Irish origin. The name Dragonpol is obviously a fantastic, fantasy name like Pussy Galore or Lavender Peacock. It sounds silly, bizarre and Dragonpol comes across as a bit of a buffoon, dressed as Richard II and spinning a globe of the world (when his sister Maeve Horton is painting him in his most famous roles) when he first meets Bond and Flicka at his Schloss Drache castle home.

As well as the Euro Disney element, which Bond supports and defends throughout (although Fleming's Bond had a noted hatred of all things Americana in DAF, 1956), another interesting element of the novel is its theatrical museum with holograms etc. which feels like a reworked 'Bunker Hill' role playing game scene of Role of Honour, which had originally been envisioned as the Battle of Waterloo involving a (then) futuristic Bond computer strategy game of the type Gardner himself said he played in his leisure time in a 1984 radio interview with Don Swaim, available to listen to on the internet currently.

Your reasoned opinions on this novel are very much appreciated - I'm currently writing a lengthy article on this, as may be apparent from the length of this post! These questions keep running round my head like little white mice and I'd really love to hear your opinions on these issues. Perhaps only I think about this stuff in my den, but I'd like to think others here on AJB think about it too!

Silhouette Man

Anyone here on AJB even remotely interested in the points I raise in this post on NSF? All replies are appreciated!

David Schofield

Silhouette Man wrote:

Anyone here on AJB even remotely interested in the points I raise in this post on NSF? All replies are appreciated!

Very thoughtful post, Silhouette, and very worthwhile posting.

I will fire something back but it's a hell of a piece and I don't wont to be dismssive with a swift reply. Also need to refresh myself on Gardner's version of JB!

SpectreBlofeld

I can't discuss the topic at length, because I read Gardner's books as a teenager (before the Fleming ones, actually), and have never revisited them in over 15 years. I remember that when I finally got my hands on 'the real deal' (Fleming) I found it far superior and more or less discarded all the 'continuation' stuff. Colonel Sun was a decent read but still fell short.

There's one movie sequence I couldn't help but be reminded of when reading your post, though - the amusement park/carnival setting in 'The Living Daylights', with Bond and Kara gettin' busy at the top of the ferris wheel. It's not Disneyland, but it did depict a Bond having fun at an amusement park with a pretty lady.

Silhouette Man

Thanks for your replies so far - I really look forward to hearing your considered views on this. It is all grist to the mill of my article, which I hope will finally see the light of day on 15 July 2013, on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the publication of Never Send Flowers.

Napoleon Plural

We're all Bond obsessives, but we're not that obsessive.

Most fans don't care much for the Gardner books at all, and wouldn't go into such detail over one minor aspect of one book. MI6-hq tends to be more into Bond in every level, we're more laid-back here, well relatively speaking.

Silhouette Man

Napoleon Plural wrote:

We're all Bond obsessives, but we're not that obsessive.

Most fans don't care much for the Gardner books at all, and wouldn't go into such detail over one minor aspect of one book. MI6-hq tends to be more into Bond in every level, we're more laid-back here, well relatively speaking.

OK, so you're not as interested in this particular aspect of Bondology, but I happen to be very interested in it, to the extent that I am writing a lengthy article on Never Send Flowers and other Bond literarture which I hope to post/publish next year. The same thread over at CBn forums (am I allowed to mention them here?) has brought many very thoughtful and interested replies. Can you write off all Bond fans in this way, I wonder? If, as you say, Bond fans aren't into their Gardner, why are the Orion reprints flying off the shelves everywhere?

Your opinions are, I suspect, not representative of the whole of Bond fandom, but you are of course entitled to them nonetheless.

Quantify, if you can, the difference between the obsessives who jump and chew over every last morsel of Skyfall breaking news, with my post. As Bond fans, we're all interested in different specific aspects of the novels and films - some are Fleming purists only interested in the literary merits of the original Bond novels, some are interested in the many continuations and their relation to the original Fleming titles, some are interested in the Bond films only (AJB's target audience?), some are interested in the Bond computer games and the role playing aspect involved there etc. etc. etc. I don't think that you can take it on yourself to decompartmentalise every Bond fan in this way. If you're not interested in the nature of the points I raise on Never Send Flowers, I'm not sure at all why you felt the need to tell us this. -{

There are, I suspect, many shades of James Bond fans, and there are many John Gardner fans out there, hence this post in the James Bond Literature sub-forum of AJB.

Now, after all that, on with the thread....back to the Disney theme and location in Never Send Flowers.

Golrush007

I think its great that some of lesser explored areas of Bond are explored in articles such as yours, Silhouette Man. I think the Gardner novels are certainly worthy of indepth discussion. I have read many of them, but unfortunately I haven't read Never Send Flowers yet.

Silhouette Man

Golrush007 wrote:

I think its great that some of lesser explored areas of Bond are explored in articles such as yours, Silhouette Man. I think the Gardner novels are certainly worthy of indepth discussion. I have read many of them, but unfortunately I haven't read Never Send Flowers yet.

Thanks for your reply - hope you track down NSF - it's a good read indeed. I like to illuminate the shadier areas of Bondology on my Bondologist Blog - I see no point at all of writing about Bondian topics on which much ink has already been spilt.

Sir Miles

Silhouette Man wrote:

Golrush007 wrote:

I think its great that some of lesser explored areas of Bond are explored in articles such as yours, Silhouette Man. I think the Gardner novels are certainly worthy of indepth discussion. I have read many of them, but unfortunately I haven't read Never Send Flowers yet.

Thanks for your reply - hope you track down NSF - it's a good read indeed. I like to illuminate the shadier areas of Bondology on my Bondologist Blog - I see no point at all of writing about Bondian topics on which much ink has already been spilt.

I agree that's it's good to explore the different areas of the books - and it's refreshing to see people tackle the 'less-often discussed' points...

But NSF is a poor book, IMO...not his worst...or even (possibly) in the bottom three...but he was definitely just 'going through the motions' to fulfill his contract.

Napoleon Plural

I'm not suggesting there's much to choose between the finer points of obsession, just saying that mi6-hq is probably more obsessive on every aspect of Bond and you'll get more joy over there on a subject like this. I mean, in any discussion on Gardner on this site you'll only get about five people popping up expressing an interest. On the other hand, it seems ajb is the place to be if you're obsessing about memoribilia, clothes and replicas.

Silhouette Man

Any more views on Never Send Flowers - any more answers to my very long post above and the various questions posed there?

Or are we all dried up in terms of continutaion novel threads?

For me, Never Send Flowers is a fascinating addition to the James Bond literary canon and I rerally wanrt to collate Bond fan opinion on it!

Silhouette Man

Final call: any interested fans of Never Send Flowers want to throw in their two cents....? -{

chrisno1

Silhouette Man,
An interesting post. I had no idea you posted a similar thread on Cbn, but will look it up when I have a minute or seven.

However, my considered view of NSF (which can be viewed here on my review page http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/34464/bond-continuation-novel-reviews/) is that it is an exceedingly poor novel with little tension, a pantomime villlain who really ought to be locked up in an institution and a dreadfully dull climax. I don't remember that much about it to be honest - I think I've tried to wipe it from my memory.

I was interested that you wrote Bond enjoys some EuroDisney rides. I don't remember that at all. I do recall a lot of strange going-ons in the Schloss Drache which referenced special effects laden theme park rides, but this simply made me think of Scooby-Doo. I never once felt Bond was enjoying any of it. I certainly wasn't.

Your inital question asks whether Gardner's interpretation of Bond in NSF is credible, but you are actually asking a completely different question, which is whether Gardner's novel(s) is(are) relevant to the modern reader and share more in common with modern technology and morality than Ian Fleming's.

Regarding the original question, I personally cannot imagine Fleming's Bond enthusing about EuroDisney. You are right in that Bond despises much that is American and I am sure an imported Disneyworld would rank right up there. The reference points you used are Fleming's authorial twists on the contemporary: he was well aware that a theme park was for family entertainment, so to refer to 'a Disneyland of death' is merely aiding the 1960's reader to understand the paradox. It's a very good piece of writing which says much in 4 words. Those words of course are not spoken by Bond, and that in itself is telling.

Gardner on the other hand, simply throws the Disneyland stuff at our faces, its a heavy handed method of association. There is little subtlty. When Bond calls the castle 'bigger than the one at Disneyland' it is a lame association - he really ought to have used Castle Neuschwanstein as a reference - let's face it Dragonpol is certainly as mad as Ludwig.

I think your assertion that NSF is ahead of its time as it foretells the cult of celebrity and the possibility of terror attacks/ assassinations, is stretching the point. Gardner was running very low on ideas for his novels. There is nothing particularly new here, indeed you point out that he'd already used the suicide/assassination themes in Scorpius, but let's not forget his 007 had also already saved Margaret Thatcher from death - twice. Using real persons as characters was not an issue to Gardner. Unfortunately, this dates his novels, fixing them in their contemporary zone. Fleming would add tit-bits of modern life or even his childhood memory to enrich his writings and allow them to breathe, as if his cast was truly alive. But because he staunchly uses fictional characters, the piece never dates, it is still transplantable into a modern reader's mind. Witness how well Casino Royale was adapted into a modern thriller. That could not happen around the central theme of NSF.

Lastly I'd like to mention that I rather like the name David Dragonpol (it's one of Gardner's better efforts) but the baddie does have the recurring Gardner habit of an alliterative name. I can only assume he thought this would make his character's memorable. It doesn't and Dragonpol isn't. He's very low key and rather weird. I am thinking Scooby-Doo again.

Oh dear....

Silhouette Man

chrisno1 wrote:

Silhouette Man,
An interesting post. I had no idea you posted a similar thread on Cbn, but will look it up when I have a minute or seven.

However, my considered view of NSF (which can be viewed here on my review page http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/34464/bond-continuation-novel-reviews/) is that it is an exceedingly poor novel with little tension, a pantomime villlain who really ought to be locked up in an institution and a dreadfully dull climax. I don't remember that much about it to be honest - I think I've tried to wipe it from my memory.

I was interested that you wrote Bond enjoys some EuroDisney rides. I don't remember that at all. I do recall a lot of strange going-ons in the Schloss Drache which referenced special effects laden theme park rides, but this simply made me think of Scooby-Doo. I never once felt Bond was enjoying any of it. I certainly wasn't.

Your inital question asks whether Gardner's interpretation of Bond in NSF is credible, but you are actually asking a completely different question, which is whether Gardner's novel(s) is(are) relevant to the modern reader and share more in common with modern technology and morality than Ian Fleming's.

Regarding the original question, I personally cannot imagine Fleming's Bond enthusing about EuroDisney. You are right in that Bond despises much that is American and I am sure an imported Disneyworld would rank right up there. The reference points you used are Fleming's authorial twists on the contemporary: he was well aware that a theme park was for family entertainment, so to refer to 'a Disneyland of death' is merely aiding the 1960's reader to understand the paradox. It's a very good piece of writing which says much in 4 words. Those words of course are not spoken by Bond, and that in itself is telling.

Gardner on the other hand, simply throws the Disneyland stuff at our faces, its a heavy handed method of association. There is little subtlty. When Bond calls the castle 'bigger than the one at Disneyland' it is a lame association - he really ought to have used Castle Neuschwanstein as a reference - let's face it Dragonpol is certainly as mad as Ludwig.

I think your assertion that NSF is ahead of its time as it foretells the cult of celebrity and the possibility of terror attacks/ assassinations, is stretching the point. Gardner was running very low on ideas for his novels. There is nothing particularly new here, indeed you point out that he'd already used the suicide/assassination themes in Scorpius, but let's not forget his 007 had also already saved Margaret Thatcher from death - twice. Using real persons as characters was not an issue to Gardner. Unfortunately, this dates his novels, fixing them in their contemporary zone. Fleming would add tit-bits of modern life or even his childhood memory to enrich his writings and allow them to breathe, as if his cast was truly alive. But because he staunchly uses fictional characters, the piece never dates, it is still transplantable into a modern reader's mind. Witness how well Casino Royale was adapted into a modern thriller. That could not happen around the central theme of NSF.

Lastly I'd like to mention that I rather like the name David Dragonpol (it's one of Gardner's better efforts) but the baddie does have the recurring Gardner habit of an alliterative name. I can only assume he thought this would make his character's memorable. It doesn't and Dragonpol isn't. He's very low key and rather weird. I am thinking Scooby-Doo again.

Oh dear....

Thank you so much for your very considered reply, chrisno1. I, too, was just reading your excellent review series on the Gardner Bonds last night. I'm going to make them into a Word document and have a good read over all of them!

You've restored my faith in AJB, chrisno1, I think that I will stay here afterall! These sorts of replies - thoughtful, alternative, imerperical are what I love on James Bond forums. I'm currently writing a very long article dealing with Never Send Flowers and its relation back to the film series and the original Fleming novels.

You're right in the dating point on using real-life people as assassination targets and in some ways NSF is a tired retread of Scorpius, Win, Lose or Die etc., but I can't quite shake my obsession with this novel. It just has that special something about it!

The Scooby Doo references are interesting. I also like the lunatic aspect of David Dragonpol is a good one - a raving lunatic like Blofeld in YOLT with his Garden of Death who seems to live on the fact he's an evil killer/cololector of death and that is the entirety of ther plot. Please do visit the same thread over on CBn forums here:

http://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/61978-gardners-nsf-jbs-love-of-disneyland-eurodisney-etc/

If you're interested please check out my Bondologist Blog - where my NSF book review will hopefully see the light of day on its 20th Anniversary of publication in July 2013!

http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com/

superado

It's been a long, long time since I read NSF, but I do remember how ridiculous it was to feature Disneyland, being that I am a familiar and frequent visitor to the original one in Anaheim, California. I also remember in my teens and early 20's during trips at any amusement park, fantasizing about shoot-em-outs in such interesting obstacle courses that amusement parks look like, even to "gamer" teens of today, I'm sure. This is why Gardner's visit to Disneyland to me just smacked of child play. Interestingly enough, a Disneyland-like park was used in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six, and it just left the same impression for me.

Silhouette Man

Thanks, superado, for the interesting reference to Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six - I'll have to track that book down.

Do any other members on here know of any other fairground/theme park or Disney attractions that have featured as a locale in spy novels or films?

Axel Foley was in DisneyWorld in Beverley Hills Cop III also.

Silhouette Man

Any other literary Bond fans on here care to comment on this topic - I, for one, find it fascinating!

Silhouette Man

It's true what they say about AJB then - it's a cold place for fans of the literary James Bond 007.

It seems to only be interested in Skyfall news and collecting James Bond merchandise.

This represents my last post here.

I've tried. I've really tried...but goodbye.

James Suzuki

I must admit, I am getting into the literary circle of James Bond, when ever I see one in market stalls or second hand bookshops I buy them, and I would like our Literature section pushed up to the next level. I think Chrisno1 does a terrfic job of keeping it alive with his book reviews, and stories. Maybe Silhouette man is correct, ' a cold place for fans of literary fans, is there anyway we can start a big warm fire and bring this area back to life

Napoleon Plural

Not sure what the beef is here. No one is obliged to be into the literary angle on this site, it's just the way it goes. Silhoutte Man seems to get repeatedly peavish that other fans don't dance to his tune on this one. I did try to explain, most fans just aren't into Gardner that much, and I can't see much evidence the new reprints are 'flying off the shelves' though I may be mistaken on that one. As one reviewer at the James Bond British Fan Club once wrote, often it feels like you're reading about a guy who just happens to be called James Bond.

Sir Miles

Silhouette Man wrote:

This represents my last post here.

I've tried. I've really tried...but goodbye.

As you have said on at least four occasions now...

...perhaps if you posted something worth reading and engaging about the literary side of Bond you would get more replies...but you have picked very odd (and specific) subject matter that will only appeal to a very small minority...good luck with your article....you may need it...

chrisisall

Sir Miles wrote:

As you have said on at least four occasions now...

Never Say Never Be Back Again. )

Sorry- couldn't resist...

Silhouette Man

Sir Miles wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

This represents my last post here.

I've tried. I've really tried...but goodbye.

As you have said on at least four occasions now...

...perhaps if you posted something worth reading and engaging about the literary side of Bond you would get more replies...but you have picked very odd (and specific) subject matter that will only appeal to a very small minority...good luck with your article....you may need it...

Didn't mean to come across as peavish etc., but I am writing an enormous masterpiece (hopefully) on NSF and YOLT and other elements of obscuere Bondology. I know it's an obscure area, but that's what I specialise in - linking back the continuations with Fleming. The very fact that the Gardners were reprinted by Orion books at all must show that there was demand out there for their return from the literary Biond backwoods. Looking forward to the new edition of NSF out in November '12, even if I am (apparently) the only one!

Sir Miles - only you and Mr Solo have said that this topic is odd - this topic has come up for discussion several times on (statutory mention) CBn and I think the controversial aspects of Gardner etc. are interesting subject matter for an article. You clearly don't and that's OK. I don't care much for James Bond merchandise, being only interested in the 'intellectual' side of James Bond, if you like! We'll probably never agree on this - however be that as it may the thread stands, Hansard-like, and I defend its creation as a backwoodsman of the literary James Bond - the superior relative to his film counterpart.

See my newish The Bondologist Blog here: -

http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/

There might be something there that interests even you, Sir Miles! Don't assume you can speak for all of Bond fandom -different strokes for different folks comes to mind.

If you don't like the Literary Bond backwater on AJB, nobody is forcing you here to read my post. Some AJB members have given great replies and this is why this thread was worthwhile despite the interjections of others who have nothing to add but hot air, it seems.

The NSF piece will hopefully end up there, and I might just surprise you into liking these obscure Bond elements.

I might just at that!

I know I've said I'm leaving, but I'm staying for good now. I'll make AJB a warm place for the literary Bond fans I know are out there if it kills me (and it just might, given the reception of my various threads here). In this way, I'm a bit like Elton John. See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjPBVLuWj-g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gddJKemxVu4

Right, I'm leaving!

chrisisall

Silhouette Man wrote:

http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/

In checking it out I must say it has my interest! -{

Silhouette Man

chrisisall wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/

In checking it out I must say it has my interest! -{

Thank you, my good sir!

There will be a whole load of new content uploaded for the Autumn/Winter season of 2012, hopefully!

Sir Miles

Silhouette Man wrote:

There might be something there that interests even you, Sir Miles! Don't assume you can speak for all of Bond fandom -different strokes for different folks comes to mind.

Well....I have ALL the Bond novels...and have read them all several times (bar the last two which I have read only once to date)...so I actually enjoy the literary side of Bond very much and I'm always looking for interesting articles to read...it's just your constant derision of AJB and championing of CBn that grates...

chrisisall

Sir Miles wrote:

it's just your constant derision of AJB and championing of CBn that grates...

Agreed.

James Suzuki

I am sorry that I haven't replied earlier sil man, I have only read two John Gardner, the first two license renewed and special services, I thought that they were good, as far as thrillers go (probably the reason you are strangely attracted to the book). I did find that the books were very different from the real deal, Fleming. Its almost as if Gardner didn't like the character, and started to write novels about a MAN who just shared the same name. He gets rid of bonds signature car, he changes the quarter master to female, stops him smoking etc. as a wannabe writer myself I know that writers put in their interests in their novels, i.e. Fleming was a spy,Colin Dexter likes classical music so he mad his.character Morse likes it. Perhaps, Gardner had a good expierence at disnet land and added that trait to his bond character, which IMHO, doesnt suit James Bond. He was writing his own character not Flemings Bond

Napoleon Plural

Also have to say that Gardner didn't seem to be too keen on the sex element; there's nothing too risque about his books, no sense of forbidden fruit. Not unlike the other authors in this respect however, and there's the sense the Bonds were getting too respectable for their own good. Perhaps because it was clear that kids would be reading it, whereas in Fleming's time they only came onboard once the films got going.

Silhouette Man

Sir Miles wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

There might be something there that interests even you, Sir Miles! Don't assume you can speak for all of Bond fandom -different strokes for different folks comes to mind.

Well....I have ALL the Bond novels...and have read them all several times (bar the last two which I have read only once to date)...so I actually enjoy the literary side of Bond very much and I'm always looking for interesting articles to read...it's just your constant derision of AJB and championing of CBn that grates...

Sorry - I love AJB just as much for its differences from other sites if for nothing else - I won't mention "the other place" here again, I promise.

Anyways, I'm going to hang around here for a while yet - been a member here 2003-2005 and 2010 and I'm now back here for good again in 2012!

Hopefully we can all be friends here again and put this all behind us.