Devil May Care

Muston

I'm going to have to re-read this one. I had a hardback copy when it first came out but its been a while and I've since forgotten a lot of the book. I remember liking it more than Deaver's novel so must have another go at it. Has anyone else read DMC more than once and if so what was it that brought you back to reading it?

don p

i prefer that book too

Moore Than

Sebastian Faulks is not a fan of Skyfall. The author of Devil May Care (speaking at India's Jaipur Literature Festival) criticised Skyfall reviewers' and said he found the film distasteful in parts and marred by bad acting. He disliked the aggressive promotion and merchandising for the film and said critics had shown a "fantastic degree of collusion" with the film's publicists to avoid spoiling its main shock - the death of M.

The FULL article.
Sebastian Faulks ridicules 'distasteful' Bond film 'Skyfall'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9826812/Sebastian-Faulks-ridicules-distasteful-Bond-film-Skyfall.html

don p

i enjoyed the book, and maybe faulks didnt like sf because his bond is still set in the 60,s

alphaagent

Enjoyed it very much myself, felt it was quite fleming-esque and never felt I wasn't reading a Bond, unlike some of Gardner's work which doesn't always have that flow. Agree with him a bit on skyfall in parts, although worse bit of acting has to be DC "you know the whole story" to M.

Napoleon Plural

Moore Than wrote:

Sebastian Faulks is not a fan of Skyfall. The author of Devil May Care (speaking at India's Jaipur Literature Festival) criticised Skyfall reviewers' and said he found the film distasteful in parts and marred by bad acting. He disliked the aggressive promotion and merchandising for the film and said critics had shown a "fantastic degree of collusion" with the film's publicists to avoid spoiling its main shock - the death of M.

The FULL article.
Sebastian Faulks ridicules 'distasteful' Bond film 'Skyfall'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9826812/Sebastian-Faulks-ridicules-distasteful-Bond-film-Skyfall.html

I can't see we can jibe at the critics for not including spoilers, good on them. I sort of agree with Faulks, but can't agree about his idea that Bond has no inner life. He makes out Bond is some kind of robot, and ironically Craig is a bit like that imo, almost a Frankenstein's Monster on the rampage, the same hooded eyes and blankness. But I didn't get that impression with the Bond of Fleming's books.

My main problem with the films is that they seem to have come from a screenwriter's course, where the hero has to be shown to have changed during the course of the film. It explains the prevalence for these coming-of-age superhero movies, because there the change is very marked.

chrisisall

Napoleon Plural wrote:

My main problem with the films is that they seem to have come from a screenwriter's course, where the hero has to be shown to have changed during the course of the film. It explains the prevalence for these coming-of-age superhero movies, because there the change is very marked.

I agree. I have no problem with Bond being in a particular place for a series of movies, the whole "he's not 'our' Bond yet-NOW he is-wow he's so almost done with this s**t" in the span of 3 flicks is kind of annoying. But I understand the rush to run a character through the emotional mill these days before the next reboot...

davidelliott101

I just read DMC for the first time... finished it this morning... I thought it was a little disjointed in spots with some obligitory stuff, but it wasn't too Fleming-ish for me... I don't know why he was "writing as Ian Fleming"

chrisno1

davidelliott101 wrote:

I just read DMC for the first time... finished it this morning... I thought it was a little disjointed in spots with some obligitory stuff, but it wasn't too Fleming-ish for me... I don't know why he was "writing as Ian Fleming"

He was writing as Ian Fleming because he wrote it in 6 weeks (2000 words a day). Fleming wrote each of his novels during a six week winter holiday at Goldeneye. What Faulks forgot is that Fleming then spent about 6 months revising and expanding the initial draft. Faulks, frankly, sdoesn't appear to have grasped this. His novel is very flat. It lacks the in-depth physicality of Fleming and sadly even the psyhcological aspects are missing, which is odd, given Faulks is rather good at that in his other novels.

chrisisall

chrisno1 wrote:

His novel is very flat.

I've read excerpts from this novel, and frankly it seemed very much so. Kind of like trudging through mud. Maybe that's a bit unfair, but Fleming & Amis were so readable. Bits of Gardner I've sampled were also way nicer in terms of flow.

davidelliott101

chrisno1 wrote:

davidelliott101 wrote:

I just read DMC for the first time... finished it this morning... I thought it was a little disjointed in spots with some obligitory stuff, but it wasn't too Fleming-ish for me... I don't know why he was "writing as Ian Fleming"

He was writing as Ian Fleming because he wrote it in 6 weeks (2000 words a day). Fleming wrote each of his novels during a six week winter holiday at Goldeneye. What Faulks forgot is that Fleming then spent about 6 months revising and expanding the initial draft. Faulks, frankly, sdoesn't appear to have grasped this. His novel is very flat. It lacks the in-depth physicality of Fleming and sadly even the psyhcological aspects are missing, which is odd, given Faulks is rather good at that in his other novels.

Well, that explains it pretty well... I thought he was using Ian Fleming as a pen name... but since you mention it, DMC feels like a first draft book...

Silhouette Man

chrisno1 wrote:

davidelliott101 wrote:

I just read DMC for the first time... finished it this morning... I thought it was a little disjointed in spots with some obligitory stuff, but it wasn't too Fleming-ish for me... I don't know why he was "writing as Ian Fleming"

He was writing as Ian Fleming because he wrote it in 6 weeks (2000 words a day). Fleming wrote each of his novels during a six week winter holiday at Goldeneye. What Faulks forgot is that Fleming then spent about 6 months revising and expanding the initial draft. Faulks, frankly, sdoesn't appear to have grasped this. His novel is very flat. It lacks the in-depth physicality of Fleming and sadly even the psyhcological aspects are missing, which is odd, given Faulks is rather good at that in his other novels.

Agreed. Give me Gardner or Benson any day - this book is almost unreadable IMHO!