Worst Fleming Bond Novel?

123468

Comments

  • Posts: 2,921
    peter wrote: »
    TB is a terrible slog. It was a screenplay-square, first, that Fleming then tried to peg into the novel-circle... it has none of his flow and and he forces all his talent onto something that was already written.

    Hardly. Anyone who's read the synopses of the screenplays and Fleming's original treatment knows that Fleming departed greatly from both and fashioned his own work. Thunderball was never "screenplay-square, first--it was a collection of drafts, none near finality, that differed wildly from the novel. Fleming cherrypicked what would work and what personally appealed to him--as a result, the novel in fact has more "flow" than its antecedents. Furthermore, building from those drafts ensured a more solid plot for his novel, freed from the inconsistencies and lapses of logic that usually marred his plotting.
    Yes, who evidently evolved from Fatima Blush in the original screenplay. I've always wondered why Fleming didn't put Fatima in the novel. Maybe he felt there was only so much he could "safely" adapt under his own name.

    Fleming was also not interested in femme fatales or their opposites. His Domino mixes both "good" and "bad" girl elements, and is thus a more interesting character than the film's Domino and Fiona.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Ok @Revelator, to each his own and I’m very happy others enjoy the book; the last time I read it, I found it dense and wandering, and, other than a few exceptions (Blofeld and Domino), it dropped like a dead weight on my favourite list.

    I chalked it up to the fact that this was the closest Fleming came to a collaboration and that the seed of the concept was born for film first. I wasn’t saying that the original drafts were identical at all, but you nailed it for me when you said he cherry picked the ideas he thought would work.

    I was underwhelmed by the novel. However, I’m engaged in my own read-a-thon (inspired by our dear members), and I will be facing off with TB in the very near future. I look forward to see if my feelings are still negative...!
  • Posts: 15,229
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would say that the most notable addition was Fiona Volpe.

    That's two. (Sorry had to say something silly!)
  • PussyNoMore subscribes to the view that all Fleming is good Fleming albeit some morsels are stronger than others.
    Apart from TMWTGG which he wrote when he was clearly very ill and therefore shouldn’t be judged by, his weakest suit was probably DAF in which he tried to write an American gangster story and didn’t entirely pull it off.
    But hey, all Fleming is good Fleming we were so lucky to have him.
  • Posts: 15,229
    PussyNoMore subscribes to the view that all Fleming is good Fleming albeit some morsels are stronger than others.
    Apart from TMWTGG which he wrote when he was clearly very ill and therefore shouldn’t be judged by, his weakest suit was probably DAF in which he tried to write an American gangster story and didn’t entirely pull it off.
    But hey, all Fleming is good Fleming we were so lucky to have him.

    Raymond Chandler if I'm not mistaken had only praises for DAF. I always thought the novel was slightly out of touch with the others. James Bond doing a Philip Marlowe of himself. Not bad at all and it has great moments, but not his best.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,078
    I'm quite fond of DAF. some good nasty American characters, and Fleming's 'travelogue' prose is always fascinating.

    Love the scenes at the race track and mud baths. And of course the scenes in 'Spectreville'

    Another book I would love to see adapted faithfully.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Revelator wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    TB is a terrible slog. It was a screenplay-square, first, that Fleming then tried to peg into the novel-circle... it has none of his flow and and he forces all his talent onto something that was already written.

    Hardly. Anyone who's read the synopses of the screenplays and Fleming's original treatment knows that Fleming departed greatly from both and fashioned his own work. Thunderball was never "screenplay-square, first--it was a collection of drafts, none near finality, that differed wildly from the novel. Fleming cherrypicked what would work and what personally appealed to him--as a result, the novel in fact has more "flow" than its antecedents. Furthermore, building from those drafts ensured a more solid plot for his novel, freed from the inconsistencies and lapses of logic that usually marred his plotting.
    Yes, who evidently evolved from Fatima Blush in the original screenplay. I've always wondered why Fleming didn't put Fatima in the novel. Maybe he felt there was only so much he could "safely" adapt under his own name.

    Fleming was also not interested in femme fatales or their opposites. His Domino mixes both "good" and "bad" girl elements, and is thus a more interesting character than the film's Domino and Fiona.

    +1.
  • Posts: 2,921
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Raymond Chandler if I'm not mistaken had only praises for DAF. I always thought the novel was slightly out of touch with the others. James Bond doing a Philip Marlowe of himself. Not bad at all and it has great moments, but not his best.

    Chandler was a bit more critical:
    BONDED GOODS
    By RAYMOND CHANDLER

    Some three years ago Mr. Ian Fleming produced a thriller which was about as tough an item as ever came out of England in the way of thriller-writing, on any respectable literary level. “Casino Royale” contained a superb gambling scene, a torture scene which still haunts me, and of course a beautiful girl. His second “Live and Let Die,” was memorable in that he entered the American scene with perfect poise, did a brutal sketch of Harlem, and another of St. Petersburg, Florida. His third, “Moonraker,” was, by comparison with the first two explosions, merely a spasm. We now have his fourth book, “Diamonds are Forever,” which has the preliminary distinction of a sweet title, and of being about the nicest piece of book-making in this type of literature which I have seen for a long time.

    “Diamonds are Forever” concerns, nominally, the smashing of an international diamond smuggling ring. But actually, apart from the charms and faults I am going to mention, it is just another American gangster story, and not a very original one at that. In Chapter 1 Mr. Fleming very nearly becomes atmospheric, and with Mr. James Bond as your protagonist, a character about as atmospheric as a dinosaur, it just doesn’t pay off. In Chapter II we learn quite a few facts about diamonds, and we then get a fairly detailed description of Saratoga and its sins, and a gang execution which is as nasty as any I have read.

    Later there is a more detailed, more fantastic, more appalling description of Las Vegas and its daily life. To a Californian, Las Vegas is a cliché. You don’t make fantastic, because it was designed that way, and it is funny rather than terrifying. From then on there is some very fast and dangerous action; and of course Mr. Bond finally has his way with the beautiful girl. Sadly enough his beautiful girls have no future, because it is the curse of the “series character” that he always has to go back to where he began.

    Mr. Fleming writes a journalistic style, neat, clean, spare and never pretentious. He writes of brutal things, and as though he liked them. The trouble with brutality in writing is that it has to grow out of something. The best hardboiled writers never try to be tough, they allow toughness to happen when it seems inevitable for its time, place and conditions.

    I don’t think “Diamonds are Forever” measures up to either “Casino Royale” or “Live and Let Die.” Frankly, I think there is a certain amount of padding in it, and there are pages in which James Bond thinks. I don't like James Bond thinking. His thoughts are superfluous. I like him when he is in the dangerous card game; I like him when he is exposing himself unarmed to half a dozen thin-lipped processional killers, and neatly dumping them into a heap of fractured bones; I like him when he finally takes the beautiful girl in his arms, and teaches her about one-tenth of the facts of life she knew already.

    I have left the remarkable thing about this book to the last. And that is that it is written by an Englishman, The scene is almost entirely American, and it rings true to an American. I am unaware of any other writer who has accomplished this. But let me plead with Mr. Fleming not to allow himself to become a stunt writer, or he will end up no better than the rest of us.

    Chandler afterward wrote to Fleming "I thought my review was no more than you deserved considering your position on the Sunday Times and I tried to write it in such a way that the good part could be quoted and the bad parts left out. After all, old boy, there had to be some bad parts. I think you will have to make up your mind what kind of a writer you are going to be. You could be almost anything except that I think you are a bit of a sadist!" In a later letter he added "anyone who writes as dashingly as you do, ought, I think, to try for a little higher grade" and "Of course I liked Diamonds are Forever and I enjoyed reading it, but I simply don’t think it is worthy of your talents."
    Anyone interested in Chandler's review of Dr. No can read it here.
  • Posts: 15,229
    Oh boy I stand corrected. A lot of truth in what Chandler said and I think Fleming most likely listened to him.
  • Posts: 2,921
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Oh boy I stand corrected. A lot of truth in what Chandler said and I think Fleming most likely listened to him.

    I think so, especially since From Russia With Love was a clear advance from DAF.

  • PussyNoMore loves reading Revelator's posts. He is so spot on. Nobody knows more about the subject than him.
    Over the years, PussyNoMore has read all this stuff but hasn't retained it in the same way. Revelator is a real source.
    Back to DAF, Chandler was right, it wasn't worthy of Fleming's talents.
    The Fleming paradox was, when he was good, he was truly great. A writer with enormous talent and a descriptive prowess that left you breathless. The 'sweep' was all encompassing.
    When he was average, he was truly average. Maybe it was down to his health or his mental state, who knows?
    Chandler was, himself, a lot more consistent albeit, his plots were always either indecipherable or non-existent but atmosphere. Boy could that guy write!
  • Posts: 2,921
    Thank you Pussy, both for the very kind words and for giving me the opportunity to say Thank you Pussy in a non-pornographic context. I will try to live up to your praise.
    Chandler was, himself, a lot more consistent albeit, his plots were always either indecipherable or non-existent but atmosphere. Boy could that guy write!

    Fleming would agree entirely with you. As he wrote in his London Magazine article on Chandler:
    I pulled his leg about his plots, which always seem to me to go wildly astray. What holds the books together and makes them so compulsively readable, even to alpha minds who would not normally think of reading a thriller, is the dialogue. There is a throw-away, down-beat quality about Chandler's dialogue, whether wise-cracking or not, that takes one happily through chapter after chapter in which there is no more action than Philip Marlowe driving his car and talking to his girl, or a rich old woman consulting her lawyer on the sun porch. His aphorisms were always his own. 'Lust ages men but keeps women young' has stuck in my mind.

    Interestingly, Fleming's own dialogue was adequate and not nearly as memorable as Chandler's, which might explain his admiration. When Fleming tried writing throwaway lines and wisecracks he often came across as stagey. That said, when it comes to aphorisms the Bond books are very rich--Goldfinger in particular is full of them, perhaps because it dates from around the time Fleming and Chandler were most busily corresponding.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 15,229
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Oh boy I stand corrected. A lot of truth in what Chandler said and I think Fleming most likely listened to him.

    I think so, especially since From Russia With Love was a clear advance from DAF.

    Partially because he was far more in his element. I think Fleming was trying to please the American market with DAF. Come to think of it, there are a lot of parallels between the novel DAF and LTK.
  • Over the fifty three years that PussyNoMore has been ploughing this furrow his opinion about Fleming’s best work constantly vacillates between MR, OHMSS & FRWL.
    His position regarding the weakest also used to involve three: DAF, TSWLM & TMWTGG.
    A recent re-reading of TSWLM has seen this reduced to just two as PussyNoMore has taken it permanently off his ‘weak’ list. The work is in fact a very successful attempt to do something different that resulted in a great noir / gangster novel.
    The moral of the story is that you can always teach an old PussyNoMore new tricks!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    TSWLM is a tad drab and kitchen sink drama for a Bond novel. Don't get me wrong it's still an interesting and engaging read....but it is by far the weakest novel.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I love TSWLM, always have; an impressive piece of writing where the female first person is quite bloody authentic, especially since it was written by our favourite “misogynistic dinosaur”!!
  • Posts: 15,229
    suavejmf wrote: »
    TSWLM is a tad drab and kitchen sink drama for a Bond novel. Don't get me wrong it's still an interesting and engaging read....but it is by far the weakest novel.

    It's a great underrated novel, just an atypical Bond novel.
  • peter wrote: »
    I love TSWLM, always have; an impressive piece of writing where the female first person is quite bloody authentic, especially since it was written by our favourite “misogynistic dinosaur”!!

    PussyNoMore says hear hear !

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    TSWLM is a tad drab and kitchen sink drama for a Bond novel. Don't get me wrong it's still an interesting and engaging read....but it is by far the weakest novel.

    It's a great underrated novel, just an atypical Bond novel.

    True. But as a Bond novel I'm always underwhelmed.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Has to be TMWTGG for me.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Personally,DAF is my favourite Fleming novel.
    I used to have it in audio as well,read by Ian Ogilvy no doubt !

    TSWLM & GF don't do much for me.
    If I had to choose the worst book then I would say TSWLM.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    suavejmf wrote: »
    TSWLM is a tad drab and kitchen sink drama for a Bond novel. Don't get me wrong it's still an interesting and engaging read....but it is by far the weakest novel.

    Couldnt agree more. The last third is passable but if I want to read about female melodrama I'll get hold of some Mills & Boon.

    There are people out there who genuinely think this should be adapted into a film! Christ knows my hopes arent high for B25 but theres simply nothing here that could be filmable. A 5 minute gunfight round the back of a grotty motel? My cup runneth over.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 12,837
    suavejmf wrote: »
    TB is one of my top 3 Flemings, and this time around is off to a great start so far!

    +1.

    A large part of the allure for me was the exotic Bahamas setting and the scuba diving sequences (especially when Bond first checked out the Disco).

    Unlike many of the Bond novels, Thunderball, had almost its entirety in the film adaptation. Of course there were additions, most notably Bond's jet pack escape at the start! But otherwise the film follows the novel with very minor changes. Overall I think because of this the film is as solid as the novel. I love the film, but then again there isn't a Connery Bond film I don't like! The film definitely shows Fleming's touch, and desire, of wanting it adapted to a film.

    TB is top three for me as well. I just love the setting as well as how epic and cinematic it feels and how the stakes gradually escalate as the book goes on (from Bond on a health kick to the west being held to ransom). I'm actually not a huge fan of the film though. It's good but not great imo, think it just works better as a novel, Fleming's detail keeps it engaging.

    I think TSWLM is definitely the weakest. It was an interesting experiment and I actually quite like the idea of a book from the perspective of an outsider drawn into Bond's world. The problem is she isn't drawn into Bond's world really is she. She's drawn into an insurance scam with two low rent thugs then Bond turns up at the end and sorts it. Since Bond was investigating SPECTRE anyway, I think it would have been much more interesting to have her stumble onto one of their schemes before meeting Bond.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,343
    suavejmf wrote: »
    TSWLM is a tad drab and kitchen sink drama for a Bond novel. Don't get me wrong it's still an interesting and engaging read....but it is by far the weakest novel.

    Couldnt agree more. The last third is passable but if I want to read about female melodrama I'll get hold of some Mills & Boon.

    There are people out there who genuinely think this should be adapted into a film! Christ knows my hopes arent high for B25 but theres simply nothing here that could be filmable. A 5 minute gunfight round the back of a grotty motel? My cup runneth over.

    Just as well for you then that Fleming forbade it ever being filmed bar the use of the title.
  • Posts: 1,031
    TMWTGG
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,380
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    TSWLM is a tad drab and kitchen sink drama for a Bond novel. Don't get me wrong it's still an interesting and engaging read....but it is by far the weakest novel.

    Couldnt agree more. The last third is passable but if I want to read about female melodrama I'll get hold of some Mills & Boon.

    There are people out there who genuinely think this should be adapted into a film! Christ knows my hopes arent high for B25 but theres simply nothing here that could be filmable. A 5 minute gunfight round the back of a grotty motel? My cup runneth over.

    Just as well for you then that Fleming forbade it ever being filmed bar the use of the title.

    Nevertheless, we got bits and pieces in TSWLM film and QoS.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited November 2017 Posts: 18,343
    Birdleson wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    TSWLM is a tad drab and kitchen sink drama for a Bond novel. Don't get me wrong it's still an interesting and engaging read....but it is by far the weakest novel.

    Couldnt agree more. The last third is passable but if I want to read about female melodrama I'll get hold of some Mills & Boon.

    There are people out there who genuinely think this should be adapted into a film! Christ knows my hopes arent high for B25 but theres simply nothing here that could be filmable. A 5 minute gunfight round the back of a grotty motel? My cup runneth over.

    Just as well for you then that Fleming forbade it ever being filmed bar the use of the title.

    Nevertheless, we got bits and pieces in TSWLM film and QoS.

    What did we get from the novel TSWLM in the film QOS? I can definitely find 007INY in the later, but I can't place the other.

    Me either, to be honest. Unless there's a link with the fire trauma of Vivienne Michel and Camille?
  • dbowen007dbowen007 Virginia, United States
    edited December 2017 Posts: 8
    I've never been fond of Diamonds are Forever. The villains were nondescript and the plot just wasn't very interesting. I've always had a soft spot for The Spy Who Loved Me. I applaud Fleming for trying something different. Sure, it was more miss than hit, but it's a fast read and mildly entertaining.
  • LFSLFS
    edited March 2018 Posts: 40
    I enjoy all of Fleming´s novels. If I had to pick a least favorite, it would probably be "The Man with the Golden Gun" or "Diamonds Are Forever".
    "Goldfinger" I never found to be as fantastic as everybody claims it is - neither the book nor the film.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    Birdleson wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    TSWLM is a tad drab and kitchen sink drama for a Bond novel. Don't get me wrong it's still an interesting and engaging read....but it is by far the weakest novel.

    Couldnt agree more. The last third is passable but if I want to read about female melodrama I'll get hold of some Mills & Boon.

    There are people out there who genuinely think this should be adapted into a film! Christ knows my hopes arent high for B25 but theres simply nothing here that could be filmable. A 5 minute gunfight round the back of a grotty motel? My cup runneth over.

    Just as well for you then that Fleming forbade it ever being filmed bar the use of the title.

    Nevertheless, we got bits and pieces in TSWLM film and QoS.

    What did we get from the novel TSWLM in the film QOS? I can definitely find 007INY in the later, but I can't place the other.

    To my eternal shame I have never read 007INY. It wasn't part of my old copy of OP.

    What do they use from that book in QOS?
Sign In or Register to comment.