Princess Diana in Never Send Flowers - problematic nowadays?
Silhouette Man
The last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
This thread is designed to collate opinion on the use of HRH Princess Diana as an assassination target in John Gardner's serial killer novel Never Send Flowers (1993).
Is this considered problematic since she was killed on 31 August 1997 in a car crash in a Paris tunnel trying to escape the ruthless French paparazzi - the modern-day equivalent of David Dragonpol in many ways.
I'd really love to hear your opinions on this issue. Who do you think woulsd be a suitabnle target in today's world to
replace the late tragic figure of Princess Diana?
As always, your opinions are appreciated. Never Send Flowers really fascinates me as a James Bond novel!
Is this considered problematic since she was killed on 31 August 1997 in a car crash in a Paris tunnel trying to escape the ruthless French paparazzi - the modern-day equivalent of David Dragonpol in many ways.
I'd really love to hear your opinions on this issue. Who do you think woulsd be a suitabnle target in today's world to
replace the late tragic figure of Princess Diana?
As always, your opinions are appreciated. Never Send Flowers really fascinates me as a James Bond novel!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Comments
Once hesitates to suggest a modern day alternative out there, just a superstitious thing really! But I would not want to see a famous person like that in a Bond novel, it goes on to date it badly.
I don't think the main tragedy of Princess Diana's early demise is that it messed up John Gardner's crappy Bond book!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Can't argue with this point at all -{
I think NSF is a pretty poor Bond novel...I'm surprised you like it so much... ?:)
I never for once suggested that it was - agree about the Hugo Drax reference - Fleming also rather compares him to Jack Hobbs.
Yes, Gardner's tactic of using famous people in his novels does rather date a lot of his work, sadly.
It was just a speculative point - I'm analysing NSF to within an inch of its life - I may yet surprise both of you on this one - just wait until July 2013!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No, of course not!
What were you thinking!
I mean, the article might surprise you, of course!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yes, that's a point - more grist to the mill there!
Of course, Faulks has Bond reference the Stones in Devil May Care, but it doesn't really ring true for me cos it makes Bond seem like a square, whereas no one much cares if he hates Tommy Steele. Who is still going strong, incidentally.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yes, he's doing a stageshow now. Saw him on the front of one of the newspapers on Sunday - couldn't believe that he was still alive!
Umm, she might have been a "celebrity" but aren't you guys forgetting that she was also a public figure- an HRH. This fact probably comfortably figures into Fleming's world of Bond. Afterall, does Bond not work "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and is not the queen in Bond's realm THE Queen. Seems like, dare I say, a welcome bit of realism in the Bond cannon? No?
Thanks for this.
Yes, across the board, Gardner did try to make his Bonds more realiastic. See TMFB and the many changes he ushered in.
I think the use of Lady Di is problematic now as it rather dates the book since she died in 1997 - a problem that occurs with any celebrity/royalty used in fiction books - see also Forsyth's The Day of the Jackal.
The thing about Jackal the film is that even though you know De Gaulle must survive, you're still on the edge of your seat somehow. Each time you watch it you're thinking, hey, he might get him this time. With the book, I think it would be the Flemingeque attention to detail that makes it worth the ride.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yes, not really equating it with NSF, though.
It's a good read - I can confirm that. Go to it!
It was also in Patriot Games by Tom Clancey.
Thanks for that tidbit. I'm writing a lengthy article on Gardner's NSF which I hope to post on my blog next year.
Now of course all of Fleming's novels are dated (he mentions the war a fair bit, especially in refernce to M, and the Cold war plays a heavy presence) but as he generally ensures his cast of characters and incidentals are all fictional, therefore you only have to accept the circumstances of the story, not the time frame. So we all know the war ended in 1945 and the Cold War in 1991, but you can still have warmongers in positions of power (eg. George W. Bush) and you can still imagine evil Russian secret services - in fact are they not actively murdering oligarchs on London's streets as I write?
Gardner has form in this regard, as he used Margaret Thatcher twice (Scorpius & Win, Lose or Die) when it would have been far easier to merely call the character the PM. With the Diana angle, Gardner constructs a very ordinary premise: Dragonpol is merely an elaborate assassin. He has no motive other than his own bizarre thrill seeking and his killings are entirely random. He could have been trying to kill Gloria Estefan and it would have made no difference at all to the novel or its denoument.
The movie FYEO also suffers with a brief foray into contemporary culture during the coda with those two impersonators, a joke which is lost on anyone not familiar with 1980s television entertainers.
Personally, I think its best for all novellists to try to desist from contemporising their work unless there is a narrative driven necessity and I'm afraid there isn't one in NSF.
Brilliantly put, chrisno1. Well said. As I'm banned from CBn, I see AJB as a much more positive place to do business!