Royale Redux

Discussion & Review Forum For James Bond Books Written By Jeffrey Deaver (born May 6, 1950)
Post Reply
User avatar
Blowfeld
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Defence
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:03 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Goldfinger
For Your Eyes only
The Living Daylights
Location: the world

Royale Redux

Post by Blowfeld »

Here is my review of the newest Bond adventure. It probably needs more work a better spell check and a editor to fix all of the mistakes.

I decided to make it a more substance based over spoiler laden. I was inspired by many of the discussion we had here so feel free to give me both barrels on this if you disagree. :?

In 2002 a peculiar thing happened James Bond 007 had seeming hit then end of the line…Cinematically and literal!

We are all familiar with the history, EON bereft of ideas and any direction whatsoever suddenly decided to chuck 40 years of history in the rubbish bin late 2005. What was happening around the same time was the James Bond books series was place on hiatus after the Raymond Benson last book The Man With the Red Tattoo 2002. Raymond was taking a much need break after his last novel and Glidrose now Ian Fleming Publications decide to concentrate on reissuing Ian’s tomes for the 50th anniversary in 2003, subsequently they decide not to renew Raymond’s double-oh licence with no hard feelings on either side. However Bond books sales had slipped considerably over the years do more to the publishers mismanagement than to any other issue.

To make the books successful once more Bond would have to wait and then be rolled out in spectacular fashion, making the next book release an event to capture the imagination of the world and the fans pocketbook . This happened in 2008 with the memorable roll out of Sebastian Faulks stab at the world of 007. Where it all went wrong.

I do not how well Sebastian’s book sold, good marketing and slick packaging can sell almost anything. The problem for me was at the heart of Sebastian’s book Devil May Care (having read the book the answer to the title is ‘no he will not’) is that it was essentially a pulping of all of Ian’s writings and a cleaver word processor Pentium- iCore powered Something –or-other rearranged the words to make a new albeit dull and lifeless story.

Sebastian was not writing as Sebastion Faulks author, no he was writing as Ian Fleming! As a devoted fan a chill should have gone down my spine at the spectacular brilliance of it! However I was left feeling incredulous it seemed cheeky to wrap ones self in the trappings of a dead man’s legacy unbidden to continue the man’s life work.
Devil May Care was Ian Fleming Publications first attempt at restarting the book series, I can see why they thought it was a good idea, the book series after Ian's death had become cumbersome and convoluted trying to balance previous authors work as well as certain aspects of the movies series. The plan was to re-root the book franchise firmly by disregarding every that followed The Man With the Golden Gun Ian’s last 007 novel, the end result being Devil May Care a direct continuation of Golden Gun firmly set in the 1960s cold war era.

Sebastian may be a good mimic, indeed he gathered fame for his ability to mimic other authors, a short story of his imitating Ian is what brought him to the attention of the IFP. However he didn’t have the heart to successfully write a 007 adventure so the end result was a lukewarm effort not worthy of Ian or 007. Thankfully Sebastian gracefully bowed out of writing a sequel. Good to know some people involved with 007 know their limits ;)

Sebastian’s departure bring us to 2011 and Jeffrey Deaver’s attempt at the world of 007 Carte Blanche. However Carte Blanche does not continue Ian’s life work rather it upends it by rebooting James Bond in the 21 century. This is Jeffrey’s Casino Royale, the question is does it work as such. I was dubious it would be worth the time to read, being a fan of Ian it was hard to see anyone could try to recreate his alter ego. However being a Bond fan I of course pre-order the book at Amazon.UK, it wasn’t a thought it was routine. A routine developed over a lifetime enjoying the fictional world of 007. (being such a amenable fan it makes me wonder how things ended up like this, me here and the producers of the movies series I love on the other side diametrically opposed to me, fighting so hard against me and common sense.)

There was a majesty to Ian tomes, he had a way with words that made his writing a treat to read over and over. A rarity in the modern world of book publishing. The world Ian created for his alter ego was not a gritty realistic one as we have been told in recent years, in fact every spy agency in existence decried Ian’s spy world as too fantastic, completely missing it was escapism fiction wrapping itself around the modern realities of the cold war only as a means to an end. Adventure!

Seeing as how adventure was the goal of Ian’s books, how does Jeffrey’s book measure up. Definitely, without giving away too many spoilers it was a breakneck ride that had the right combination of action and adventure for a 007 story.

If the story measures up the next and most important question is does his James Bond measure up? With some qualifications yes it is James Bond, however it is not Ian Fleming’s James Bond it is Jeffrey Devers’ James Bond an important distinction. Despite the modern trappings the world of James Bond is essentially the same. ‘M’, Moneypenny, Bill Tanner, Felix Leiter, Ms Goodnight, May (Bond's Scottish housekeeper) are present, accounted for and in proper order. Darvers 007 operates in the modern world, to reflect this something have changed in an attempted to keep them the same, James Bond is still a 00 agent with the rank of commander in the Navy, M is still his boss, he still fights to save the world, however how this is accomplished is rather different. Bond works for a off the books unofficial agency, ODG (Overseas Development Group). Bond is given operational Carte Blanch (thus the name) in concert with the ODG’s goal to protect the realm by any means necessary.

Given the current political realities it would be hard to imagine a 00 section not being well off the books and away from any plausible public scrutiny.
All of this works well, not perfect but the bare bones are correct, a very good frame to flesh out. One of the fascinating aspects of Ian’s stories was his real world experience, althou written as a fantasy a certain amount of Ian’s understanding and intuition flowed through the pages, a difficult task to recreate but Jeffrey does an admirable job, I think he must have done an inordinate amount of research on the intelligence world to write about it so casually. I love to learn from people with real world experience how correct his take on some of this is.

Jeffrey got a surprising amount correct, his writing style while not imitating Ian’s is surly inspired by Ian, with rich descriptions and lavish wordplay. One aspect hard to get correct is Bond’s automotive passion he is an aficionado, in some ways Ian writings were automotive porn, if Ian were alive today he be an executive producer on a show like Top Gear. Jeffrey Dever takes great joy in his automobile outings . Almost as much relish as he has describing 007’s observations and speculations about the opposite sex. While James maintains his appetites his humanity is brought forward a tough balancing act. 007 continues to be a consummate profession as he was in Ian’s tomes, like Casino Royale Bond is a young agent however he is seasoned by his years of experience in the double-oh branch. I think the core of the character was best described by ‘M’ ;
‘There’s no shortage of Special Air or Boat Service chaps about who know their way around a knife and sniper rifle. But they don’t necessarily fit into other, shall we say subtler, situations. And then there are plenty of talented Five and Six fellows who know the difference between . . .’ he glanced at Bond’s glass ‘. . . a Côte de Beaune and a Côte de Nuits and can speak French as fluently as they can Arabic –but who’d faint at the sight of blood, theirs or anyone else’s.’ The steel eyes zeroed in. ‘You seem to be a rather rare combination of the best of both.’
Concisely summing up what is wrong with the rebooted Bond from EON productions. They cast precisely the wrong kind of Bond, Broccoli’s Bond is a Special Air chap who knows his way around a knife but is unsuitable for subtler situations. In many ways Carte Blanche is open condemnation of rebooted Bond. In all honestly if this book had been what was offered to us as Casino Royale in 2006 I wouldn’t nearly was upset with it. This may actually pave the way forward for the movies after Daniel Craig leaves.

Where does it leave the book series, I truly do not know. While I enjoyed this book as a standalone it may not be worth the effort to promote it. If Jeffrey can pull 4 more like it while following the Bond story arc as set up by Fleming I believe it will be extremely rewarding series. Biggest complement I can offer Dever’s effort is to say I do believe his Bond is capable of meeting Tracy Di Vicenzo falling in love, defeating Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Doctor Julius No, Auric Goldfinger, Mr. Big, Aristotle Kristatos, Francisco (Paco) "Pistols" Scaramanga, all while being true to Ian’s original vision.
The one aspect that was monumental mistake was the inclusion of ‘Steel Cartridge’, to keep from giving it completely away it dealt with how Bond was made an orphan. This should be left well alone.

Overall I was surprised to be as taken with the book, even more so that an American wrote it! At the moment I have the euphoria of enjoying a book I was quietly dreading and may revise my opinion of it as time passes and rereading it. Jeffrey Dever has the passion to make a great Bond author, Sebastian Faulks’ dislike of James Bond was palpable on every page it was a mistake to go with a author who did not love what he was writing about.
This is Jeffrey’s take on Casino Royale, while not as good as the original to my mind I would recommend it as good Bond adventure althou it might not be to everyone’s taste.
Image
"Those were the days when we still associated Bond with suave, old school actors such as Sean Connery and Roger Moore,"
"Daniel didn't have a hint of suave about him," - Patsy Palmer
User avatar
Dr. No
006
Posts: 3453
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:28 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Dr. No
Favorite Movies: Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade
SpiderMan 2
Empire Strikes Back
Shawshank Redemption
Location: Crab Key

Re: Royale Redux

Post by Dr. No »

Blowfeld wrote:
I decided to make it a more substance based over spoiler laden. I was inspired by many of the discussion we had here so feel free to give me both barrels on this if you disagree. :?
So its our fault if you got it wrong? :wink: :D
Image
Chief of Staff, 007's gone round the bend. Says someone's been trying to feed him a poisoned banana. Fellow's lost his nerve. Been in the hospital too long. Better call him home.
User avatar
Blowfeld
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Defence
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:03 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Goldfinger
For Your Eyes only
The Living Daylights
Location: the world

Re: Royale Redux

Post by Blowfeld »

by Greg Hatcher
in Fridays...with Greg Hatcher
*
Bond, James Bond: I’m a devout fan of James Bond, particularly the original books by Ian Fleming (as I recounted in this space a couple of years back.) However, I don’t really keep up with the Bond fan sites and press and such, so I was mildly surprised to see that Ian Fleming Publications had already chucked Sebastian Faulks in favor of a new series of Bond novels by Jeffrey Deaver.

Admittedly, I didn’t think Faulks was all that great either. But then I haven’t really liked any of the attempts at straight-up new Bond novels very much. (Not since 1968′s Colonel Sun, anyway, which we’ll come back to.)
ImageImageImage
Gardner's were terrible, Benson's were passable, and the one from Faulks seemed like it was about some completely different guy who also happened to be named Bond.
I’ve gone on at length about what’s wrong with the approach most of the writers use trying to capture what Ian Fleming did, but the short version is this — they keep trying to nail James Bond’s character, and that’s really the least important part of the Fleming books. The worst crime is when writers of Bond pastiches try to make James Bond “cool.” That inevitably means they’ve been misled by the movies, or worse, they’re deliberately trying to cater to the movie fans. (Gardner was often guilty of this, I think.)

Here’s the secret to re-creating Fleming’s Bond. James Bond isn’t a cool character, he’s just a viewpoint for readers into a world that’s incredibly cool. We don’t want to visit with James Bond and tag along with him, like we would Sherlock Holmes or Mr. Spock or someone like that. We want to be James Bond and live in his world for a little while. The Bond of the novels is just a suit for readers to step into, so the more character touches you put in, the more you detract from that. It’s all about the adventure and the incredibly exotic world that is just underneath the one you and I live in, one filled with genius supercriminals and amazing gadgets and fast cars and hot girls. Fleming’s brilliant storytelling decision was writing the books largely from Bond’s point of view, but keeping it as a limited third-person narrative. So we aren’t having it narrated to us by James Bond, as we would in a first-person approach — we are living it along with him, seeing everything from inside his head.

That’s a really hard literary mark to hit. For years I’ve maintained that the only guy to honestly get there was Kingsley Amis in his magnificent Colonel Sun.
Image
THE BEST of the Fleming fakes. Period. Try to get the edition with the awesome Frank McCarthy cover art on the right.
That was back in 1968 and I figured he was probably the only guy that would ever really suss the trick out, considering how the Bond movies have come to overshadow the novels.

For my money, the other successful attempts at doing new, non-Fleming James Bond books have been the ones to find a different viewpoint, and thus sidestep the Fleming comparisons entirely.
Image
Fake biography, fake diaries, or doing a take on Bond at a completely different point in his life -- all resulting in more Bond-like tales than the ones from the 'official' James Bond novelists.
But now Jeffrey Deaver’s decided to take on the challenge. An honest-to-God new Bond novel.

The latest.

So what approach does Mr. Deaver take? And how did that work out?

Honestly? I think he might join the short list of writers who actually understand the job the estate’s given them: Do Fleming’s Bond — but new. (It’s not a mandate that’s a lot different from the one given to comics writers who are taking over a long-running series character like Batman or Spider-Man, honestly.)

Sebastian Faulk tried to solve the narrative problem by making his Bond novel a period piece set in the sixties, but Deaver’s done the polar opposite of that. His Bond is set squarely in the here and now.

What I really like is that he’s doing the same kind of ‘re-imagining’ of James Bond that Steven Moffat and company did with Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series Sherlock. Deaver is absolutely writing Ian Fleming’s Bond, he’s got the real cast there and they all are sounding and acting as they should. The original, male M with the steely eyes; delectable secretaries (okay, ‘assistants’) Miss Moneypenny and Mary Goodnight; Bond’s friends Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis; even Bond’s Scottish housekeeper May are all present and authentic enough to satisfy the most picky Fleming fan. (Which, yeah, probably includes me.) Evil supergenius villain with a weird sadistic quirk? Check. Scary henchman? Check. Hot babes with exotic names? You bet. (I love “Ophelia Maidenstone,” but I think even Fleming might have winced at “Felicity Willing.”)

But it’s all in a counter-terrorism spy milieu that’s much more like the one of Jack Bauer on 24. It shouldn’t work but it does… I think because Jeffrey Deaver understands about the daydream quality of what Fleming did. His James Bond is a veteran of Afghanistan and understands about satellite intel and running assets in Arab countries and whatnot, he has to deal with jurisdictional bureaucracy and coordinating with foreign intelligence allies and all of that… but Severan Hydt is still an old-school demonic Fleming-style supercrook that only James Bond can take down. It’s a remarkable tightrope walk of literary technique and Mr. Deaver deserves applause for pulling it off.

I only arrived at these conclusions afterward, thinking it over, because the reading experience itself was immersive. The narrative moves with the kind of headlong hell-for-leather drive that even Fleming himself only brought every once in a while — like, say, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, easily the fastest-moving of the original Fleming novels. Deaver’s Bond reads like that. I couldn’t put the d**n book down, and I never could say that about Gardner, Benson, or Faulks. But Deaver’s Carte Blanche delivers in spades. Recommended.
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.co ... july-2011/
Image
"Those were the days when we still associated Bond with suave, old school actors such as Sean Connery and Roger Moore,"
"Daniel didn't have a hint of suave about him," - Patsy Palmer
User avatar
Blowfeld
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Defence
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:03 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Goldfinger
For Your Eyes only
The Living Daylights
Location: the world

Re: Royale Redux

Post by Blowfeld »

'007 Carte Blanche: the New James Bond Novel': An EverySpy for Our Times
By Gabrielle Malcolm 31 October 2011
There are those who say that James Bond jumped the shark long ago (and I don’t mean those scenes in Thunderball). They say he is a dinosaur – fossilised and misogynistic. Gosh, even ‘M’ accuses him of this in one of the Pierce Brosnan outings of the spy’s adventures. But then, that is when ‘M’ is played by Dame Judi Dench and she spends the entire film telling him off like a school ma’am – exquisitely played – but a school ma’am nonetheless.

I for one felt that the shark-jumping occurred when Roger Moore’s Bond went all Smokey and the Bandit in the ‘70s (and the stepping-stone alligator moment, in Live and Let Die 1973, remember?) and crippled the franchise – after which it had to be reinvented and revived ostensibly by Timothy Dalton, but it was not until Brosnan entered the frame that Bond really became relevant and entertaining once more. Now that I have sparked off the debate (which Bond is the best?) I will proceed with this review!

I began with a digression. Those are the screen portrayals, embedded in all our visual vocabulary. The novels are something different.

Ian Fleming’s original hero would not be all that welcome these days. He hits women, drinks and smokes heavily, is way too promiscuous for anyone’s comfort, and relishes the prospect of killing his enemies off.

Jeffery Deaver hits a different note, however: his Bond chastises a fellow operative for smoking on the job! Deaver now joins the ranks of prominent writers who have tested their strengths on a continuation of the James Bond myth. And Bond is now a mythic figure. He’s more versatile than a superhero, not being fixed in an essential ‘self’ of powers conflicting with flaws. Bond is far more flexible. He’s Robin Hood, he’s a dashing pirate, an inventive and chivalrous man of honour. Yes, that’s right – he’s chivalrous.

Deaver recreates Bond as an old-fashioned figure, but a gentleman; not a ‘relic of the cold war’ as Dench’s ‘M’ accused him of being, but a persuasive, astute and – dare I say it? – kindly colleague particularly to the women in his division of MI6. So this comes as quite a surprising and not unwelcome read for someone who, like myself, did suffer from Bond fatigue throughout my youth as a popular culture consumer.

Deaver gets a lot of things just right. For example, the British secret service is depicted as a far more multicultural place than it used to be, and when the question arises of what device to use for surveillance and encryption, well, Bond has an ‘app’ for that, now. The ‘Q’ division has diversified and upgrades existing technology for him, so that his spymasters can provide him with – wait for it – the ‘iQ-Phone’.

Bond has to exist in the directly contemporary world in order to work properly as an archetype. He must be up-to-date and updated continuously to be the ‘EverySpy’ for our times. He cannot be retro, for example a Mad Men style reinvention might be tempting – the suits, the attitudes, the cocktails. But that was Bond back then, Connery’s Bond, now he must be conversant in millennial Gen X/Y opinions and outlooks.

He’s seeking across the globe, in that fluid way he manages, for an identity; speaking the local dialects and ordering the local drinks as he goes. In some ways he’s the perpetual student forever on a gap year – now able to communicate with anyone, anywhere thanks to the global interface on his phone. In the process he encounters the macabre villain Severan Hydt, a multi-millionaire recycling and waste expert – obsessed with death and decay.

Bond must tackle the abuses and hypocrisy that twist the message of green politics and the movements that tackle global poverty. He learns more about himself, inevitably, and is inspired by the characters of the ‘new’ South Africa.

This is a good take on the Bond myth, and involves an interesting twist on the events surrounding the deaths of his parents in that infamous skiing accident. Like his many gadgets, Bond is in danger of built-in obsolescence if writers and directors are not careful, but in this case Deaver has done a good job of future-proofing our hero. He’s covered for the next couple of up-grades, at least.
Image
"Those were the days when we still associated Bond with suave, old school actors such as Sean Connery and Roger Moore,"
"Daniel didn't have a hint of suave about him," - Patsy Palmer
User avatar
Blowfeld
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Defence
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:03 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Goldfinger
For Your Eyes only
The Living Daylights
Location: the world

Finally, another real Bond writer: 007 is back where he belo

Post by Blowfeld »

Written by
Ron Panarotti | Staff Writer

In the decades since the death of James Bond creator Ian Fleming, several other authors have tried their hand at continuing the British secret agent’s adventures in print, with mixed results. Aside from Kingsley Amis (the superb 1968 Bond novel “Colonel Sun”), Jeffery Deaver may be the best of the Fleming successors to date.

At roughly 400 pages, “Carte Blanche” lacks the tighter prose of the original Fleming books. But what Deaver brings to Bond is a talent for creating plausible, intelligent and frightening scenarios and for effectively weaving numerous plot twists and red herrings into a suspenseful story. It is set in the present day, with 007 assigned to stop a planned terrorist attack known as “Incident Twenty.” Deaver also makes this an origin story, explaining how Bond served in Afghanistan before being recruited by his boss, known of course only as “M”.

Deaver weaves in traditional Bond elements, adding his own touches. Moneypenny and Felix Leiter appear, but instead of crotchety Q, the gadgetmaster is the younger Sanu Hirani — although he proves just as helpful to Bond.

There are the women with eyebrow-raising names, in this case Felicity Willing. And the villain, who has made his fortune in the recycling business and has a particular fascination with death and decay, redefines creepy.

The book isn’t filled with chases, explosions and scenarios designed to serve as special effects-laden set pieces in a future film. Parts of the book are talky, in fact — but never dull. Deaver puts the characters and their interaction at center stage, carefully setting up the main players and sometimes taking things in unexpected directions.
Image
"Those were the days when we still associated Bond with suave, old school actors such as Sean Connery and Roger Moore,"
"Daniel didn't have a hint of suave about him," - Patsy Palmer
Post Reply