The man from Barbarossa :
Oddly, I couldn't remember much of this book at all. it seems a little odd
as like TSWLM, it pretty slow for two thirds, then picks up for the last third.
Gardner has all his signature moves double and triple agents ( most easy to spot)
An organisation doing terrorist attacks not for a political ideal, but to order. To
Take funds, and Bond working as part of a team.
The actual villain's plan is very good and is slotted into world events at the time.
One final idea at the end almost predicts a 9/11 type attack.
This was apparently J Gardner's favourite of his Bond novels, but not mine. Very slow
To get going and chapters of background ( padding in my view). An example would be
Bond getting a briefing from a Russian General, which must go on for three chapters !!
( well it feels like that ) )
Still my quest continues, tonight I'll make a start on, Death is Forever.
From Wikipedia :
Death Is Forever is significant as the first James Bond novel to be published after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, two elements that were part and parcel of Bond's creation 40 years earlier
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Some years ago I got The Man From Barbarossa out from the library and took it with me on holiday, I only got about a third of the way through the book and didn't bother to continue reading when I got home. I definitely need to give it another shot, but there is always another Bond novel that looks more appealing/exciting and I read that instead. I'm busy re-reading Colonel Sun at the moment. I should be done with that in the next couple of days and then I have copies of Brokenclaw and The Man From Barbarossa sitting here waiting to be read. Which would you say is the better read?
By the way, I thought Death is Forever was a very entertaining novel. It may be a rehash of No Deals, Mr Bond but I enjoyed it.
I thought that The Man From Barbarossa suffered from too many Briefing Chapters. It's defiantly Gardner's most experimental Novel, but the Novels Pace bogs it down too much.
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
As Barbel points out, they're both pretty weak, but I too would go for
Brokenclaw, as it's a more traditional Bond story.
From here on, I think Gardner rehashes many ideas from the earlier
Books.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I'm not the fastest on the uptake sometimes but with reading TMFB
I got to thinking how Fleming always kept a simple story, but told
it well. With many interesting characters and plots. While Gardner seemed to
Go in for more complicated plots, but less interesting characters, with the
Story sometimes getting bogged down with plot explanations. In fact Gardner
Very quickly seemed to drop the " Fantastical " elements which so embodied
Fleming's novels.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
True, but I'm fast joining in the opinion that the first half dozen of
Gardner's Bond novels were entertaining and enjoyable, but the later half
Weren't anywhere near as good.
Which is a shame ,as first time round I seem to remember them all as
Very good. it's amazing what going back and reading " Fleming" can do
For your opinions. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
I can agree -{ , it's so similar to several of his past books, with so many familiar
Ideas, that have been used by him several times, it sort of reads like a book you've
Already read.
I have said before the beauty of Fleming was he could write a simple story but
Keep you fully absorbed in it, while Gardner writes complicated plots, that become
Almost boring at times.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Oh yeah, totally agree. If the writer is involved then the reader is too, assuming the writer has the necessary skills (which Fleming obviously did). I'm not knocking Gardner as a writer- when involved with his work he was excellent (the early Boysie Oakes stories are very enjoyable), but in his later Bonds he was clearly doing it because he had to.
Sidestep- this is why I enjoy reading Stephen King so much. He lives to write, and his total involvement with his stories and characters is effortlessly conveyed to the reader.
I used to read a lot of Stephen King, Salem's Lot and The Stand are fantastic
but with work, family etc. I fell away from reading, once I'm finished my Bond
Marathon ( Snickers now). I'm going to go back and reread some of those older
Books.
Ever read any Dean R Koontz, very like King. He wrote a great book " Phantoms"
which Hollywood made a really crap film of.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Quick view on Death is Forever, I'm not enjoying it.
Nope...another poor book...there is very little *spark* in his latter books...and I do agree - he was just fulfilling his contract with these latter ones...
Just a quick mention for Stephen King.
A born storyteller who writes about characters you genuinely care about (or fear). The list of novels he has written is very impressive and the quality of his work overall is amazing. I don't know how he does it.
And they usually translate into great films - helped by the fact the story is so good and the characters so well written.
Can I just give a special mention to The Dead Zone one of my favourites, and Christopher Walken is great in the film as usual.
Comments
Oddly, I couldn't remember much of this book at all.
as like TSWLM, it pretty slow for two thirds, then picks up for the last third.
Gardner has all his signature moves double and triple agents ( most easy to spot)
An organisation doing terrorist attacks not for a political ideal, but to order. To
Take funds, and Bond working as part of a team.
The actual villain's plan is very good and is slotted into world events at the time.
One final idea at the end almost predicts a 9/11 type attack.
This was apparently J Gardner's favourite of his Bond novels, but not mine. Very slow
To get going and chapters of background ( padding in my view). An example would be
Bond getting a briefing from a Russian General, which must go on for three chapters !!
( well it feels like that )
Still my quest continues, tonight I'll make a start on, Death is Forever.
From Wikipedia :
By the way, I thought Death is Forever was a very entertaining novel. It may be a rehash of No Deals, Mr Bond but I enjoyed it.
Brokenclaw, as it's a more traditional Bond story.
From here on, I think Gardner rehashes many ideas from the earlier
Books.
I got to thinking how Fleming always kept a simple story, but told
it well. With many interesting characters and plots. While Gardner seemed to
Go in for more complicated plots, but less interesting characters, with the
Story sometimes getting bogged down with plot explanations. In fact Gardner
Very quickly seemed to drop the " Fantastical " elements which so embodied
Fleming's novels.
And the first to go overboard on the double and indeed triple crosses - Brad Tirpitz for example, and the girls of the novel.
Gardner's Bond novels were entertaining and enjoyable, but the later half
Weren't anywhere near as good.
Which is a shame ,as first time round I seem to remember them all as
Very good.
For your opinions.
That's true....especially when you have to churn out a book a year PLUS your own works...it's inevitable that quality will suffer...
Yes, that's correct, then I think he signed for another three and so on.
Nothing left from Raymond Benson !
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Ideas, that have been used by him several times, it sort of reads like a book you've
Already read.
I have said before the beauty of Fleming was he could write a simple story but
Keep you fully absorbed in it, while Gardner writes complicated plots, that become
Almost boring at times.
Sidestep- this is why I enjoy reading Stephen King so much. He lives to write, and his total involvement with his stories and characters is effortlessly conveyed to the reader.
but with work, family etc. I fell away from reading, once I'm finished my Bond
Marathon ( Snickers now). I'm going to go back and reread some of those older
Books.
Ever read any Dean R Koontz, very like King. He wrote a great book " Phantoms"
which Hollywood made a really crap film of.
Nah, couldn't take to Koontz.
Nope...another poor book...there is very little *spark* in his latter books...and I do agree - he was just fulfilling his contract with these latter ones...
A born storyteller who writes about characters you genuinely care about (or fear). The list of novels he has written is very impressive and the quality of his work overall is amazing. I don't know how he does it.
And they usually translate into great films - helped by the fact the story is so good and the characters so well written.
Can I just give a special mention to The Dead Zone one of my favourites, and Christopher Walken is great in the film as usual.
Like Sir Miles said, Gardner was just churning out the Novels by this Point.