Regarding the silenced Sten. I think Gardner meant that after 10 rounds the gun was no longer effective as ‘silenced’. Which was true as the rubber baffles became shot through. The silenced Sten was incredibly effective for a few rounds though, and they even tested it in busy Regent St by shooting pigeons off the roof from the windows opposite. Although not truly silent, as the breech made a right racket on them, the report was quite effectively muffled. The same was true of the Welrod and DeLisle. After about 10 rounds the baffles became worn and their effectiveness as a suppressed weapon diminished with every shot after that. Up until somewhat recently, you could still shoot and test these weapons at Bisley.
.................................
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,865MI6 Agent
That's good to know, @Asp9mm. I hoped that what Gardner said was correct and I like to think he knew his stuff. He also had tomes of military history in his house so he also had plenty of material from which to draw on. I suspected it might have not been silent after the first rounds were fired as Gardner says. This is where military experience comes into play as being very useful to an author of spy thrillers or war stories etc. That's because they used the guns practically and in action and, for example, weren't just trying them out in a shooting range. I think such military experience is a good background for any aspiring spy novelist as research from books and the internet only goes so far. There is no substitute for real practical experience, however it is attained.
(Sorry for accidentally tagging you. I can't get rid of the tag now!) @Abel
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
The silence Sten was probably good for units like Gunnar Sønsteby's group of sabotuers. The worked in an occupied city full of German soldiers and Gestapo. If they were caught in a road check or a guard at a facility they were going to blow up, the silenced Stengun gave the agent a decent chance to kill the guards before they were able to raise the alarm. If they had to fire much more than ten rounds it didn't matter much if the sound reducing effect went away. At that point the enemy was shooting back and the mission was no longer covert.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
That’s true. They were mostly used for assassination or for taking out sentry’s, not for full on battle. So suppression was only needed for a few rounds before things got loud anyway.
Yes, the silenced Sten was used for assassinations too. For example a major nazi double agent and torturer got killed using silenced Stens (the resistance fighters also had a Welrod pistol) in the largest town in this region.
Now I've read the whole book. It's a short book, but I've had other things on my mind. What to say? Like I said above there are mistakes, almost certainly because of the rushed writing of the book, but it's not the type of mistakes that destroys a book. The plot and the villain is sort of obvious given the title and context of the project, but it works. I did of course noticed how contemporary ideologies and even political figures are mentioned in the book. This has been done before to some extent. Fleming used the Soviet Union and communism in his early books. But communists we're hardly likely readers of the Bond books anyway. Later the neo-nazis in some of Gardners books spring to mind. But the neo-nazis we're a fringe movement in the 1980's. Now the far right populist movement is a major power in many countries and has come to power in a few. And unlike the communists there are many Bond fans in that movement. While I can buy Higson's reasoning for doing this, I'm not sure it's right to do this in an escapist work.
The characters? I liked the villain, his henchmen and the main Bond girl well enough, but I think Higson could've milked more cultural flavour out of having an Icelandic character in the novel. The locations? I liked them. I've never been to Budapest, but I think it on my top ten list of capitals I'd like to visit. I have visited the road on the Croatian coast, so that's nice. Both Croatia and Hungary are places that seem Bondian without having been used before. There are also really nice moments that I really liked, such as the use of paprika. The use of a coin on the other hand was too heavy-handed in my opinion.
To sum ut all up I think OHMSS2 is a good Bond novel, especially with the constraints of the project. It's not a great one, but it will do while we wait for bigger projects.
Now the far right populist movement is a major power in many countries and has come to power in a few. And unlike the communists there are many Bond fans in that movement. While I can buy Higson's reasoning for doing this, I'm not sure it's right to do this in an escapist work.
I think it's a fair point, but then also I guess if you're going to bring Bond into the current day, it may as well be the actual current day otherwise there's not much point doing it. And the populists are one the greatest threats around.
Despite any contentiousness, I found it to be a properly audience-pleasing, light Bond adventure which ticks all of the boxes you might want from a 007 story. And I think that means it does take a few nods from the films, and that's never a bad thing in my book. The paprika, as you mention, is basically a Q gadget in everything but name. And the big moment where Bond gets to say his catchphrase... well you can practically hear the Bond theme coming in 😁
The paprika serves the function of a Q-gadget, but it'cheap, dirty and simple. There's been some discussion (after I saw a video that suggested it) of making the 00-section underfunded, and that's the sort of trick that would fit perfectly into that sort of style.
Regarding the contemporary political background to the novella, I like how Higson summed up the danger of the sharply polarised nature of modern culture and politics:
"Bond had always felt that the far right was closer to the far left than it was to the centre. He disliked anybody, and any movement, that was too 'far' in any direction ... He'd spent his life cleaning up the mess these people left, and he was sick of it."
Paperback cover by Mecob - I think it's a rather striking idea and looks great.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,865MI6 Agent
It's a clever yet simple use of the themes of the novel. Very nice. Glad this is getting a paperback release as I wasn't sure if they'd do one. Also looking forward to the text corrections and extra material promised.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
IMO, it looks a bit cheap, as if someone in marketing decided it would have been too expensive to reproduce the Imperial State Crown and dab it with a blood stain so they got a child to rustle one up on PaintWorks. Clearly these days, from the print size, it is the title, author and James Bond OO7 that sells the books. They may as well not bother with a illustration at all.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,865MI6 Agent
edited February 14
It's only my guess but perhaps there is a certain sensitivity about using official Royal crests or symbols as the target in the novel is a real person and still alive. I presume there are certain protocols to getting permission to use official royal symbols or emblems too, as Harry and Meghan have found out. Any cover art has to be tasteful and not come across as cheap and shoddy exploitation. This does make the options rather limited for the prospective cover artist.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
I think it's cleverer than using the real crown (which wouldn't have been hard to buy a licensed image of). Just because something is simple it doesn't make it bad, and it can make it better for my money. The 007 logo could use a real gun for example, but I think it's more striking that it's a simple illustration. I wouldn't call it the work of a child.
We've all got the idea that it is a blood splash forming a royal crown so it's pretty successful.
I think the blood crown is a good idea and works well, but should have been more authentic claret in colour than Hammer Horror blood red. I'm not keen on the font or it's 'in yer face!' size either. It's a busy front cover, writing wise. Having Charlie Higson's name the same size as the book title doesn't work, for me.
I did think that Higson went a bit too far with the political stuff. It just felt somewhat clumsy and on the nose, and I think a good editor with adequate time would have pared it way back. Alas, it didn’t affect my enjoyment of the book because the author’s views mostly align with my own. But I can see how it would really turn off someone of a different ideological persuasion. After all, not everyone who supports populist political figures is akin to the Nazis or communists who were the Bond antagonists of old.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,865MI6 Agent
I quite like it actually. It's something simple yet different and conveys the story nicely. I know people also complained about how plain the hardback first edition looked so I suppose they can't win!
Actually, the sound of Donald Trump's reverb voice echoing round my head in imitation of DeNiro's Al Capone in the finale of The Untouchables will probably supplant that...
meanwhile I've been thinking bout grumpy Daniel Craig helplessly trapped in the mechanical trousers marching down the street crying "theyre the wrong trowsas, Q! the wrong trowsaaaas!!!!"
a Wallace & Gromit/James Bond mashup would be good, maybe an improvement. Wallace regularly designed better gadgets than we've seen in a BondFilm for decades. He shoulda been given Q's job when they were recasting.
I think Higson did a good job given the very short window he had to deal with. This modern iteration of Bond fits well with Fleming's (a feeling I didn't have with Carte Blanche) and the few adjustments to make Bond credible in view of the current standards are relevant.
Nevertheless, I miss some of the usual tropes. Bond not smoking anymore is a shame (lighting a cigarette while enjoying a glass of whisky after sex in a hotel room doesn't appear conflicting with modernity, not to mention a novel is not a movie). Furthermore, some of Higson's choices are clumsy, and sometimes even off-topic. For example, pointing the finger at inclusive writing doesn't necessarily mean you share extreme ideas yourself. Even Bond can have clear-cut opinions, but he doesn't intend to impose it, which is why he never stands on the wrong side.
The main threat and the villain's plot are quite relevant IMHO, but I regret Higson didn't have the opportunity to develop it. I found the climax involving Æthelstan's daugther very unsatisfying plotwise. The girl comes from nowhere and we learn about her only seven pages before the very last one ! Nothing prevented Higson from giving one or two clues before. We can easily feel the man had to hurry up to conclude his story, and it's a shame because the heart of the novel (in the castle) is excellent.
I was thinking I'd posted my opinion earlier, but I hadn't. So let me say it now: a godawful book, hardly worth the time I spent reading it. The villain is ludicrous; the plot is clumsy (there's a whole chapter about the villain's wife that adds up to nothing); and the problem with Bond isn't that he's "woke"--he really isn't--he's just a cardboard figure who reacts to the events around him. There. I said it.
Comments
Regarding the silenced Sten. I think Gardner meant that after 10 rounds the gun was no longer effective as ‘silenced’. Which was true as the rubber baffles became shot through. The silenced Sten was incredibly effective for a few rounds though, and they even tested it in busy Regent St by shooting pigeons off the roof from the windows opposite. Although not truly silent, as the breech made a right racket on them, the report was quite effectively muffled. The same was true of the Welrod and DeLisle. After about 10 rounds the baffles became worn and their effectiveness as a suppressed weapon diminished with every shot after that. Up until somewhat recently, you could still shoot and test these weapons at Bisley.
That's good to know, @Asp9mm. I hoped that what Gardner said was correct and I like to think he knew his stuff. He also had tomes of military history in his house so he also had plenty of material from which to draw on. I suspected it might have not been silent after the first rounds were fired as Gardner says. This is where military experience comes into play as being very useful to an author of spy thrillers or war stories etc. That's because they used the guns practically and in action and, for example, weren't just trying them out in a shooting range. I think such military experience is a good background for any aspiring spy novelist as research from books and the internet only goes so far. There is no substitute for real practical experience, however it is attained.
(Sorry for accidentally tagging you. I can't get rid of the tag now!) @Abel
The silence Sten was probably good for units like Gunnar Sønsteby's group of sabotuers. The worked in an occupied city full of German soldiers and Gestapo. If they were caught in a road check or a guard at a facility they were going to blow up, the silenced Stengun gave the agent a decent chance to kill the guards before they were able to raise the alarm. If they had to fire much more than ten rounds it didn't matter much if the sound reducing effect went away. At that point the enemy was shooting back and the mission was no longer covert.
That’s true. They were mostly used for assassination or for taking out sentry’s, not for full on battle. So suppression was only needed for a few rounds before things got loud anyway.
Yes, the silenced Sten was used for assassinations too. For example a major nazi double agent and torturer got killed using silenced Stens (the resistance fighters also had a Welrod pistol) in the largest town in this region.
Now I've read the whole book. It's a short book, but I've had other things on my mind. What to say? Like I said above there are mistakes, almost certainly because of the rushed writing of the book, but it's not the type of mistakes that destroys a book. The plot and the villain is sort of obvious given the title and context of the project, but it works. I did of course noticed how contemporary ideologies and even political figures are mentioned in the book. This has been done before to some extent. Fleming used the Soviet Union and communism in his early books. But communists we're hardly likely readers of the Bond books anyway. Later the neo-nazis in some of Gardners books spring to mind. But the neo-nazis we're a fringe movement in the 1980's. Now the far right populist movement is a major power in many countries and has come to power in a few. And unlike the communists there are many Bond fans in that movement. While I can buy Higson's reasoning for doing this, I'm not sure it's right to do this in an escapist work.
The characters? I liked the villain, his henchmen and the main Bond girl well enough, but I think Higson could've milked more cultural flavour out of having an Icelandic character in the novel. The locations? I liked them. I've never been to Budapest, but I think it on my top ten list of capitals I'd like to visit. I have visited the road on the Croatian coast, so that's nice. Both Croatia and Hungary are places that seem Bondian without having been used before. There are also really nice moments that I really liked, such as the use of paprika. The use of a coin on the other hand was too heavy-handed in my opinion.
To sum ut all up I think OHMSS2 is a good Bond novel, especially with the constraints of the project. It's not a great one, but it will do while we wait for bigger projects.
Now the far right populist movement is a major power in many countries and has come to power in a few. And unlike the communists there are many Bond fans in that movement. While I can buy Higson's reasoning for doing this, I'm not sure it's right to do this in an escapist work.
I think it's a fair point, but then also I guess if you're going to bring Bond into the current day, it may as well be the actual current day otherwise there's not much point doing it. And the populists are one the greatest threats around.
That's the big pro argument. I'm not sure what's the right thing to do, but it's worth thinking about.
Bond also comes from a mission in Syria, a less controversial way to make the book feel current.
Despite any contentiousness, I found it to be a properly audience-pleasing, light Bond adventure which ticks all of the boxes you might want from a 007 story. And I think that means it does take a few nods from the films, and that's never a bad thing in my book. The paprika, as you mention, is basically a Q gadget in everything but name. And the big moment where Bond gets to say his catchphrase... well you can practically hear the Bond theme coming in 😁
The paprika serves the function of a Q-gadget, but it'cheap, dirty and simple. There's been some discussion (after I saw a video that suggested it) of making the 00-section underfunded, and that's the sort of trick that would fit perfectly into that sort of style.
Regarding the contemporary political background to the novella, I like how Higson summed up the danger of the sharply polarised nature of modern culture and politics:
"Bond had always felt that the far right was closer to the far left than it was to the centre. He disliked anybody, and any movement, that was too 'far' in any direction ... He'd spent his life cleaning up the mess these people left, and he was sick of it."
Paperback cover by Mecob - I think it's a rather striking idea and looks great.
It's a clever yet simple use of the themes of the novel. Very nice. Glad this is getting a paperback release as I wasn't sure if they'd do one. Also looking forward to the text corrections and extra material promised.
IMO, it looks a bit cheap, as if someone in marketing decided it would have been too expensive to reproduce the Imperial State Crown and dab it with a blood stain so they got a child to rustle one up on PaintWorks. Clearly these days, from the print size, it is the title, author and James Bond OO7 that sells the books. They may as well not bother with a illustration at all.
It's only my guess but perhaps there is a certain sensitivity about using official Royal crests or symbols as the target in the novel is a real person and still alive. I presume there are certain protocols to getting permission to use official royal symbols or emblems too, as Harry and Meghan have found out. Any cover art has to be tasteful and not come across as cheap and shoddy exploitation. This does make the options rather limited for the prospective cover artist.
I think it's cleverer than using the real crown (which wouldn't have been hard to buy a licensed image of). Just because something is simple it doesn't make it bad, and it can make it better for my money. The 007 logo could use a real gun for example, but I think it's more striking that it's a simple illustration. I wouldn't call it the work of a child.
We've all got the idea that it is a blood splash forming a royal crown so it's pretty successful.
I think the blood crown is a good idea and works well, but should have been more authentic claret in colour than Hammer Horror blood red. I'm not keen on the font or it's 'in yer face!' size either. It's a busy front cover, writing wise. Having Charlie Higson's name the same size as the book title doesn't work, for me.
I did think that Higson went a bit too far with the political stuff. It just felt somewhat clumsy and on the nose, and I think a good editor with adequate time would have pared it way back. Alas, it didn’t affect my enjoyment of the book because the author’s views mostly align with my own. But I can see how it would really turn off someone of a different ideological persuasion. After all, not everyone who supports populist political figures is akin to the Nazis or communists who were the Bond antagonists of old.
Spybrary Podcast Interview with Charlie Higson:
Sorry, the blood crown looks like something off a Wallace and Gromit character - a hen or something, like a penguin disguised as a hen.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
you mean this nefarious villain? now I want to read the book, if he's in it
I quite like it actually. It's something simple yet different and conveys the story nicely. I know people also complained about how plain the hardback first edition looked so I suppose they can't win!
Forget Blofeld. He is the real author of all Bond's pain!🐧
That's it! Nightmares await me tonight!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Actually, the sound of Donald Trump's reverb voice echoing round my head in imitation of DeNiro's Al Capone in the finale of The Untouchables will probably supplant that...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
meanwhile I've been thinking bout grumpy Daniel Craig helplessly trapped in the mechanical trousers marching down the street crying "theyre the wrong trowsas, Q! the wrong trowsaaaas!!!!"
a Wallace & Gromit/James Bond mashup would be good, maybe an improvement. Wallace regularly designed better gadgets than we've seen in a BondFilm for decades. He shoulda been given Q's job when they were recasting.
You thought that too? Wonder how many people got that impression.
I think Higson did a good job given the very short window he had to deal with. This modern iteration of Bond fits well with Fleming's (a feeling I didn't have with Carte Blanche) and the few adjustments to make Bond credible in view of the current standards are relevant.
Nevertheless, I miss some of the usual tropes. Bond not smoking anymore is a shame (lighting a cigarette while enjoying a glass of whisky after sex in a hotel room doesn't appear conflicting with modernity, not to mention a novel is not a movie). Furthermore, some of Higson's choices are clumsy, and sometimes even off-topic. For example, pointing the finger at inclusive writing doesn't necessarily mean you share extreme ideas yourself. Even Bond can have clear-cut opinions, but he doesn't intend to impose it, which is why he never stands on the wrong side.
The main threat and the villain's plot are quite relevant IMHO, but I regret Higson didn't have the opportunity to develop it. I found the climax involving Æthelstan's daugther very unsatisfying plotwise. The girl comes from nowhere and we learn about her only seven pages before the very last one ! Nothing prevented Higson from giving one or two clues before. We can easily feel the man had to hurry up to conclude his story, and it's a shame because the heart of the novel (in the castle) is excellent.
I was thinking I'd posted my opinion earlier, but I hadn't. So let me say it now: a godawful book, hardly worth the time I spent reading it. The villain is ludicrous; the plot is clumsy (there's a whole chapter about the villain's wife that adds up to nothing); and the problem with Bond isn't that he's "woke"--he really isn't--he's just a cardboard figure who reacts to the events around him. There. I said it.