The Man From Barbarossa - an experiment too far for Bond?

Silhouette Man

I would like to hear AJB members’ opinions on The Man From Barbarossa – John Gardner’s most experimental, realistic and densely plotted novel – it is also (in the UK at least, the US Putnam version being heavily edited and vastly shorter) his longest novel. In many ways The Man From Barbarossa is John Gardner’s The Spy Who Loved Me or Doubleshot – the one novel where he was allowed a free reign by Glidrose to write James Bond in his own image, free of the shackles of formula writing to enjoy the green pastures of literary freedom – his version/conception of James Bond as a modern day secret intelligence officer/operative in 1991, set against a real-world back-drop which presiently predicted the start of the Iraq War in 1991, the coup d’etat in Moscow in the Soviet Uunion on 19-21 August 1991 by an all-to real (and recently deceased) General Yevgeny Yuskovich hardline-Comminist type character. (Deputy to Gorbachev, Gennady Yanaev). See the You Tube video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoEXkKV5Dhk

Gardner also stated on very many occasions that it was also his favourite novel as he really broke the mould here with making his plot so contemporaneous (late 1990-early1991) that it could have been lifted straight out of the newspapers and other media of the time. Its plot concerns show trials, Nazi war criminals, The Scales of Justice terrorist organisation cover, Soviet general hardliners, Stalinist nostalgia apologisers like General Yevgeny Yuskovich – rather like the drug baron Franz Sanchez in Licence to Kill (film and Gardner novelisation) – lifted straight from the contemporary headlines – a modern target for James Bond’s deadly aim. What are our thoughts on this James Bond novel here at AJB – does Gardner present a picture of a modern secret intelligence officer (rather than the romantic spy or secret agent monikers) working in a coalition of the willing – MI6, Mossad, KGB, DGCE etc. to any great effect?

Does John Gardner do James Bond justice in this novel?

To those US fans who have only read the US Putnam version you should read the complete UK version – it really is the only true copy of the novel in existence. The Putnam version is a travesty – much shorter with many passages edited out altogether.

Your thoughts on this novel are very much appreciated, as always.

This novel is the subject matter of a future article on The Bondologist Blog – so I’d like as many replies as possible, in order to collate representative James Bond fan opinion on these issues. I’m very interested in the controversial aspects of the James Bond literary continuation at the moment, as you may have noticed of late!

Polar Bear 0007

This is my least fav. of the Gardner books. I found it very slow moving and not a "typical" Bond novel. Having said that, it's better than any of the garbage Gardner wrote......

Sir Miles

I've read The Man From Barbarossa several times but not for a number years...so most of it I struggle to remember...although I do remember Bolton getting a mention - so it can't be all bad )

I enjoyed this book - as stated above - one of the most un-typical Bondlike books out there....maybe I enjoyed more than I should have because Gardner had produced some poor Bond novels prior to this one...but I did like the fact that he took a risk with this one and, in the main part, the risk worked.

superado

This book I also read when it was first published, which is a long time ago so much of the details and plot elements are lost to me and I can only vaguely remember the impression left on me. I do remember liking it and didn't think the novel was too out of place but remember it being more realistic than some other Gardner Bond novels, compared to let's say, Brokenclaw. In fact, it did seem pedestrian because there were a few movies about war criminals that preceded TMFB, just like how the South American drug cartel storyline was already contemporary to themes in the movie, LTK. I really enjoyed the period that began with Gardner, and even with the transition to Raymond Benson and then to Higson, when you can count on the release of a new Bond novel with regularity. I'm not left with too much excitement and expectation with the current approach being made with the novels, intentional or not, with experimentations of guest authors who bring with them radical differences in style.

Silhouette Man

Anyone else want to share their views on this experimental Gardner novel?

Muston

:007) After coming off the high of reading Colonel Sun I've just started this novel which will be my first taste of Gardner's Bond. I'll post my thoughts over the weekend!

Silhouette Man

Muston wrote:

:007) After coming off the high of reading Colonel Sun I've just started this novel which will be my first taste of Gardner's Bond. I'll post my thoughts over the weekend!

Well, I look forward to your views when you finish TMFB - I hope to write an article on this one myself!

Muston

Having only just finished TMFB (took me a lot longer to get around to finishing it) I give it a 5/10 overall. I didn't really get into it until after the first 100 pages. In places it was slow going but I thought the final was a good realistic showdown and Bond's character came over stronger in the last few chapters which was good. Looking forward to starting Gardner's first Bond.

Silhouette Man

Muston wrote:

Having only just finished TMFB (took me a lot longer to get around to finishing it) I give it a 5/10 overall. I didn't really get into it until after the first 100 pages. In places it was slow going but I thought the final was a good realistic showdown and Bond's character came over stronger in the last few chapters which was good. Looking forward to starting Gardner's first Bond.

Glad to hear your thoughts. My TMFB article is nearing completion.

chrisno1

I've only read the novel once and that was for my review a couple of years ago. I'd had no inclination to read it as I had become rather 'down' on Gardner following the late eighties dip in quality. I have to say I didn't enjoy it very much. It was very slow. I compared it to Le Carre rather than Fleming and I think that's fairly close to the truth. Gardner doesn't seem over interested in what had nominally interested Fleming, that is 'things' - guns, women, places, food, hibiscus trees, you know the sort of 'thing' - he's rather more occupied with his plot and the politics of his plot. It's a very confusing novel, not helped by a series of characters whose names are unpronoucable. While I accept the Nazi war trial has potential, the manner of Bond's infiltration and the long winded set up of the gambit, is very familiar territory for Gardner now (I think he spent almost a third of Brokenclaw explaining what we then spent the next two thirds reading). Later on there is a scene right out of Enid Blyton when Bond meets a group of disidents to the cause in a secret room where no one can record them talking. That was very dated even in 1991. The worst offence in the novel was the chapter which told us James Bond was going to die. No he isn't! We know he isn't. There are too many chapters left in the book! It's a pointless exercise, a needless hook, which frankly comes too late in proceedings to be of interest. I recall there wasn't a lot of action in this one, until the climax, and that seems unusual for Gardner as most of his 007 output is peppered with violent incident. I'm not over fussed by the lack of action, but if an author is going to remove what the audience expects, he needs to replace it with something equally fascinating. For me, Gardner doesn't. The endless talky chapters about who is who and who did what got very reptitive and very dull. I can't recall a single character from the book. I can't even remember if there was a love story. Indeed, I remember very little about it at all. That's not an incentive for me to read it again, I'm afraid. If you want to compare TMFB with TSWLM in that both are experimental novels, you'd probably be correct, but while TSWLM is a bold failure which fails due to the central character not being believable, TMFB fails because it simply isn't bold at all, it's a series of long winded episodes that provide niether character insight nor narrative intrigue. The whole thing was a bit of a bore and I can't say that about TSWLM despite its obvious flaws.

Silhouette Man

Thanks, chrisno1. Great insights there, as always!

Muston

I was told this wasn't Gardner's best work and maybe should have started with another of his first? But because it was 'Show' different from the idea of what we expect from a Bond novel, I can't find myself hating it. In fact I found it more interesting than Deaver's Carte Blanche.

Silhouette Man

Muston wrote:

I was told this wasn't Gardner's best work and maybe should have started with another of his first? But because it was 'Show' different from the idea of what we expect from a Bond novel, I can't find myself hating it. In fact I found it more interesting than Deaver's Carte Blanche.

Yes, Gardner, even at his most experimental was better than much of what followed him - the links between Carte Blanche and TMFB are clear to see - reality meets James Bond.