Gardners overuse of Plot Devices

AlphaOmegaSin

Reading through the Gardner Novels, you cannot help but Notice that he overuses a lot of his own Plot Devices. Double Agents, Double Crossing and the like. Was he under Restrictions from Gildrose Publications on what he could put into each Book?

Thunderpussy

Yes {[] I always thought that several of his books were very similar
and almost more Alistair MacLean in style, with double agents etc
Rather than Fleming's style.

AlphaOmegaSin

Currently reading through No Deals Mr Bond, Reads very much like a Hitchcock.

schaduwoog

I just read Icebreaker. I liked it, except there was a double double too much.

I want to read all the gardners bonds.

If No Deals Mr Bond reads like a hitchcock, I'm excited.

Thunderpussy

Several of Gardner novels read, almost like the same story, or at
Least. A different draft of the story idea. )

AlphaOmegaSin

FSS was very good, the whole Plot Device of having Blofelds Daughter taking over the SPECTRE Throne was a good Touch by Gardner.

Thunderpussy

FSS, is one of my favourite Gardner novels. -{ I can easily imagine a
slightly older Connery in it.

AlphaOmegaSin

Yeah, that's who I imagine when reading one of the Gardner Novels. A DAF looking Connery.

Revelator

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Reading through the Gardner Novels, you cannot help but Notice that he overuses a lot of his own Plot Devices. Double Agents, Double Crossing and the like. Was he under Restrictions from Gildrose Publications on what he could put into each Book?

The greatest restrictions were those of his limited imagination. I got so sick of all those double-crosses and triple-crosses (devices rarely used by Fleming). Gardner was never really inspired by Bond. At his best, his Bond books are okay hack-work. As Raymond Benson rightly said, Fleming is a meal at Sardi's, while Gardner is a burger at McDonald's.

David Schofield

Revelator wrote:

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Reading through the Gardner Novels, you cannot help but Notice that he overuses a lot of his own Plot Devices. Double Agents, Double Crossing and the like. Was he under Restrictions from Gildrose Publications on what he could put into each Book?

The greatest restrictions were those of his limited imagination. I got so sick of all those double-crosses and triple-crosses (devices rarely used by Fleming). Gardner was never really inspired by Bond. At his best, his Bond books are okay hack-work. As Raymond Benson rightly said, Fleming is a meal at Sardi's, while Gardner is a burger at McDonald's.

Benson did indeed say that. And then produced his own books which were no more than dog food.

And then did some serious back peddling on his criticism of Gardner's writing.

You are, of course, right, though. Boysie Oakes got Gardner's creative juices flowing (at least the early books). Bond was pretty much just about paying the rent and living a good life.

Revelator

David Schofield wrote:

Benson did indeed say that. And then produced his own books which were no more than dog food.
And then did some serious back peddling on his criticism of Gardner's writing.

That's certainly true. After making it through Benson's first book I didn't have the heart to read the rest. He was wrong to walk back his criticisms of Gardner though. You don't need to be a great or even good writer to know if a book reads badly.

David Schofield

Revelator wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

Benson did indeed say that. And then produced his own books which were no more than dog food.
And then did some serious back peddling on his criticism of Gardner's writing.

That's certainly true. After making it through Benson's first book I didn't have the heart to read the rest. He was wrong to walk back his criticisms of Gardner though. You don't need to be a great or even good writer to know if a book reads badly.

Indeed. The opinion was Benson's first opinion of Gardner's work, his belief, and he should have stuck to it.

I think he only recanted his words once he'd got the job himself either merely to be diplomatic or because he realised just how hard a job he'd taken on for which he had little aptitude.

Sir Miles

David Schofield wrote:

I think he only recanted his words once he'd got the job himself either merely to be diplomatic or because he realised just how hard a job he'd taken on for which he had little aptitude.

That's true...he also realised the constraints placed on a Bond author at that time and how difficult it was trying to please the publishers and Glidrose...it was a very tight framework within which he had to work...and that wasn't conducive to creative writing....at all....