Opinions on Non-Fleming Bond novels that SUCK

chrisisall

I loved Amis' Colonel Sun and Wood's TSWLM.
While I appreciated Wood's MR, I can't completely recommend it, nor can I definitely issue a total 'crap' warning. It was... interesting. 8-)
So far, I've not read any that I can say you should flat-out avoid.
Next up for me is Faulk's Devil May Care, and then Gardner's first six.

Here I ask that any more well read fans than I list what they consider to be the real 'losers' in this category. Not simply a Bond that vaguely satisfied, or one that had problems, or was 'too cinema-like', but the real turkeys that were really poorly written, badly plotted, WAY off Bond's character, or offensive in some other way (in your opinion).

As M would say, take the shot. )

James Suzuki

Carte blanche- Bond turned into a normal action hero and all of the lovely Fleming description was turned towards bad American writing.

chrisisall

James Suzuki wrote:

Carte Blanche- Bond turned into a normal action hero and all of the lovely Fleming description was turned towards bad American writing.

It was a hit. Can we assume that the more successful a novel, the less worthy it is? ?:)

Sir Miles

chrisisall wrote:

James Suzuki wrote:

Carte Blanche- Bond turned into a normal action hero and all of the lovely Fleming description was turned towards bad American writing.

It was a hit. Can we assume that the more successful a novel, the less worthy it is? ?:)

No, I don't think you can assume that...this probably sold well due to the circumstances...

The tail end of Gardner's Bond books are very poor...he WAS ill, so it could have been expected...but he did turn out a few good non-Bond books around the same time, so I think he was just 'fulfilling his contract' with them...

Barbel

Agreed- Gardner started well then faded away; the best of his latter Bond novels are the film novelisations.
Benson takes a lot of stick, but I enjoyed a lot of his books. He's not as skilled a writer as Gardner, but his knowledge and affection for the world of 007 makes up for a lot of that.
Higson's "Young Bond" series was terrific. I'll never understand why the copyright holders didn't ask him to write an adult Bond novel (or perhaps they did and he declined?).

Sir Miles

Barbel wrote:

Higson's "Young Bond" series was terrific. I'll never understand why the copyright holders didn't ask him to write an adult Bond novel (or perhaps they did and he declined?).

I'm with you there...I asked him about writing an adult Bond novel when I met him...he said he would love too but they both (himself and IPF) had 'things' to do first...he told me he had an idea for a series of 'young teenager' novels (The Enemy, et al) and that IPF had 'plans' for the anniversary of the start of the Bond novels...which turned out to include Faulks...

Thomo

I agree the young Bond series was very good. Charlie Higson knew his Bond stuff

Asp9mm

chrisisall wrote:

James Suzuki wrote:

Carte Blanche- Bond turned into a normal action hero and all of the lovely Fleming description was turned towards bad American writing.

It was a hit. Can we assume that the more successful a novel, the less worthy it is? ?:)

I'm a Fleming purist and I loved it. This was the Bond continuation novel I'd been after for decades. A proper realistic thriller with decent tactical and espionage awareness. Admittedly, Bond books should border on the fantastical, but for a one off, I was happy. I would have liked another two books off Deaver though. I can understand why the majority of Bond fans disliked it as it changed too many things such as Bond's parents history, but I could side step that and consider it as something outside of Fleming and based more within a world I know about as a reality.

Hated Benson's 'film Bond' books. Loved Gardner's at the time, but reading them back, Bond comes off as a bit of a moron in them. Wood was brilliant, Amis was too, and Faulks story did nothing for me at all. I too would love to see Higson do an adult Bond. I think he would be very very good.

Muston

Of the ones I've read thus far:

1: Carte Blanche. Deaver just didn't 'get' Bond for me.
2: License Renewed. I found this first offering from Gardner as total garbage. From Dr. Anton Murik to Bond's 'Sliver Beast,' it stank as a Bond plot.
3: Role Of Honour. So poor I gave up half-way through. (Though I'm considering trying it once more.) All the computer programming rubbish to made me want to skip read through the pages which is something you shouldn't want to go with any novel.

Going to try Benson's first one after SOLO.

Jamesbondjr

Asp9mm wrote:

I'm a Fleming purist and I loved it.

I'm with Asp9mm on this one. I really enjoyed Carte Blanche.

The only continuation novel I've disliked was Gardner's first one. I read about 10 chapters and gave up. The tipping point for me was Bond stripping a gun suggestively with Q'ute, I found it completely unpalatable, as if someone who had only seen the worst Roger Moore films had been asked to write a Bond novel. It has put me off the rest of his novels.

chrisisall

Asp9mm wrote:

I'm a Fleming purist and I loved it. This was the Bond continuation novel I'd been after for decades. A proper realistic thriller with decent tactical and espionage awareness.

I'll admit, the teaser chapters I just read make it seem pretty good.
Next on my list, possibly.

Thunderpussy

I've enjoyed all the follow on novels, some haven't been good. Although
it's fun to see what Bond has been up to over the years. The only two that
I'll never read again are High time to kill & Solo, both of which I hated, very
poor.

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

The only two that
I'll never read again are High time to kill & Solo, both of which I hated, very poor.

C'mon, is SOLO really THAT bad? I can find a hundred reviews that rate it from pretty good to very good.... are you just being down on the latest incarnation? Like I was initially with Craig's movies?

James Suzuki

chrisisall wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

The only two that
I'll never read again are High time to kill & Solo, both of which I hated, very poor.

C'mon, is SOLO really THAT bad? I can find a hundred reviews that rate it from pretty good to very good.... are you just being down on the latest incarnation? Like I was initially with Craig's movies?

I liked it, people are aiming too high. What were you expecting?

Thunderpussy

It's only my opinion but I found Solo a chore to get through. For two thirds
of the story the only action Bond does is punch a reporter. I'm sure some will
love it but it's not for me. Also I think Bonds inability to kill a certain villain makes
him look like an amateur.

The Domino Effect

This thread goes to show how opinions vary from person to person and if interested in continuation novels, you should just give them a go yourself because one that no one likes, you may love, and vice-versa.

I am also very much a Fleming purist. Everything Fleming wrote is gospel. Anything written by anyone else is taken with a grain and salt. New details about Bond and his lifestyle are not added to the canon of Bond facts, but just enjoyed. With that in mind, I really disliked Carte Blanche. Deaver wrote it well enough and the plot was acceptable, but he took liberties with Bond that I didn't appreciate and which I felt were unnecessary.

Muston

Have decided to next read Wood's TSWLM as it came before Garner's Bond (even though I've already read 4 of his) so I'm looking forward to seeing if it's as good as people say. :007)

Napoleon Plural

Most of these continuation novels, even if you got thru them, aren't exactly re-readable. Nothing to dwell on or revisit.

chrisisall

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Most of these continuation novels, even if you got thru them, aren't exactly re-readable. Nothing to dwell on or revisit.

That's a good point. The measure of a great novel (or film, for that matter) is if you ever plan to revisit it.