Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Gardner's NSF - JB's love of Disneyland, EuroDisney etc.
What are the considered views of the literary James Bond fans here on the MI6 forums concerning James Bond's stated love of Disneyland in Never Send Flowers? More specifically, Gardner has his version of James Bond enthuse about a past trip (with a girlfriend) to Disney World in Orlando, Florida in the United States. He also enjoys some of the rides in the Euro Disney locale that forms the last third or so of the 1993 continuation novel. Some fans blanche at this characterisation of James Bond, but we must remember his rather lustful recalling of the innocence of his childhood in Chapter 1 of OHMSS (1963) and in FRWL (1957).
Would Ian Fleming be spinning in his grave at the idea of his creation James Bond ("blunt instrument" and secret agent) going to any Disneyland facility in the world, even though he had his Irma Bunt refer to "a Disneyland of Death" in YOLT (1964)? In Gardner's Licence Renewed (1981) he refers to Murik's castle as being like the one at Disneyland (the original one at Anaheim opened back in 1955, presumably). Likewise, in Never Send Flowers, Gardner has his Bond refer to villain David Dragonpol's castle Schloss Drache as "bigger than the one at Disneyland" (to his Swiss spy companion Flicka von Grusse) many chapters before the Euro Disney locale is even revealed.
Does James Bond, cast in the mould of a homicide detective throughout, hunting a crazed ex-actor and serial killer of politicians, intelligence operatives, royalty and celebrities come across as at all credible in Gardner's Never Send Flowers (1993)? Does Gardner, with the Cold War over and the New World Order and 'the end of history' theory at its height, do James Bond justice in Never Send Flowers? Does a plot involving HRH Princess Diana and her sons Princes William and Harry in a plot to have them assassinated as a Royal Party visit to the new (1992) Euro Disney facility outside Paris repel readers after the tragic death of Lady Diana in the early hours of 31 August 1997 in a high-speed car crash which also killed her lover 'Dodi' Al-Fayed, and her driver? Is Never Send Flowers considered by readers to be more unpalatable to a modern audience now that events have taken the course that they have? In this way, the novel is rather similar to Frederick Forsyth's "docu-thriller" The Day of the Jackal (1971) where The Jackal's (OAS ordered) target for assassination is the hated President Charles de Gaulle of France. The only problem was, on 9 November 1970 it was announced by the French Government that "General de Gaulle est mort" which some observers felt rather took the sting out of the tale for readers of the docu-thriller on the novel's publication the following year, in 1971. It is still an excellent thriller which works on many levels, IMO. We know that, in any event, de Gaulle and Princess Diana and her sons, will not be allowed to be killed by an assassin as the hero always saves the day in this type of book. Perhaps if Gardner had used a fictional celebrity as the target at Euro Disney (like some of his targets were in Scorpius) the novel's climax at Euro Disney would have been much more effective. Gardner had originally planned for an open park, but was stopped by the Disney orghanisation - the climax could only be held in a closed park with no Royal Party there. Gardner had also originally planned to have famous rock band/stars as the target as indficated in OO7 Magazine Raymond Benson interview 'Gardner's World'. Perhaps this too might have been more effective.
What is the fan consensus, then, on the elephant in the room: a novel involving the assassination of the famous princess, which precedes her death by only four short years? Does this take away any suspense from the novel at all, in the same way as happened to Forsyth's (admiottedly much more famous and successful) 1971 novel? Also, the recent attempts by Al-Queada/ the rump of the Taliban to assassinate Prince Harry in Helmand province at Camp Bastion at the time of writing (September 2012) come to one's mind. The novel Never Send Flowers again seems relevant almost 20 years after its publication in July 1993. I see Never Send Flowers as a polemic against our modern-day celebrity-obsessed culture - another thing Gardner predicted IMHO. Everything we have experienced since 2000 and the new Millennium has been predicted here by Gardner: Big Brother, OK! Mag, Hello! Mag, Reality TV, The X Factor - the cheap scramble for fame and fortune in the fast life of the modern world he so obviously hated. Dragonpol's slayings around the globe are the perfect antidote to this...almost like Gardner is using this character to act out his agent against the evils and perversions of the post-Cold War world - a world of high fashion, high politics, wars and rumours of wars, mass media 24 hour news and content everywhere - no such thing as useless information.
As a side note to all of this Ian Fleming himself also refers in two places to Disneyland in his non-fiction travel book Thrilling Cities (1963). It also gets a mention (along with another American theme park whose name escapes me) in his first-person viewpoint novel The Spy Who Loved Me (1962). Also, what are literary Bond fans' thoughts on the villain of the piece, ex-world famous film and stage actor David Dragonpol? Dragonpol keeps the Fleming villain theme of St. George against the Dragon going, as does Bond and his Swiss counterpart Flicka von Grusse's 'Dragonfly' nickname. We are told that Dragonpol is a name that goes all the way back to the Doomsday book of the 11th century - 1085, to be exact. Dragonpol apparenently translates as 'DragonHead', and is of Anglo-Irish origin. The name Dragonpol is obviously a fantastic, fantasy name like Pussy Galore or Lavender Peacock. It sounds silly, bizarre and Dragonpol comes across as a bit of a buffoon, dressed as Richard II and spinning a globe of the world (when his sister Maeve Horton is painting him in his most famous roles) when he first meets Bond and Flicka at his Schloss Drache castle home.
As well as the Euro Disney element, which Bond supports and defends trhroughout (although Fleming's Bond had a noted hatred of all things Americana in DAF, 1956), another interesting element of the novel is its theatrical museum with holograms etc. which feels like a reworked 'Bunker Hill' role playing game scene of Role of Honour, which had originally been envisioned as the Battle of Waterloo involving a (then) futuristic Bond computer strategy game of the type Gardner himself said he played in his leisure time in a 1984 radio interview with Don Swaim, available to listen to on the internet currently.
Your reasoned opinions on this novel are very much appreciated - I'm currently writing a lengthy article on this, as may be apparent from the length of this post! These questions keep running round my head like little white mice and I'd really love to hear your opinions on these issues. Perhaps only I think about this stuff in my den, but I'd like to think others here on MI6 think about it too!
UPDATE EDIT: What do MI6 forum members think of the decision to have James Bond cast as a homicide detective throughout? Does this tally with Ian Fleming's "blunt instrument" and spy, James Bond?
Would Ian Fleming be spinning in his grave at the idea of his creation James Bond ("blunt instrument" and secret agent) going to any Disneyland facility in the world, even though he had his Irma Bunt refer to "a Disneyland of Death" in YOLT (1964)? In Gardner's Licence Renewed (1981) he refers to Murik's castle as being like the one at Disneyland (the original one at Anaheim opened back in 1955, presumably). Likewise, in Never Send Flowers, Gardner has his Bond refer to villain David Dragonpol's castle Schloss Drache as "bigger than the one at Disneyland" (to his Swiss spy companion Flicka von Grusse) many chapters before the Euro Disney locale is even revealed.
Does James Bond, cast in the mould of a homicide detective throughout, hunting a crazed ex-actor and serial killer of politicians, intelligence operatives, royalty and celebrities come across as at all credible in Gardner's Never Send Flowers (1993)? Does Gardner, with the Cold War over and the New World Order and 'the end of history' theory at its height, do James Bond justice in Never Send Flowers? Does a plot involving HRH Princess Diana and her sons Princes William and Harry in a plot to have them assassinated as a Royal Party visit to the new (1992) Euro Disney facility outside Paris repel readers after the tragic death of Lady Diana in the early hours of 31 August 1997 in a high-speed car crash which also killed her lover 'Dodi' Al-Fayed, and her driver? Is Never Send Flowers considered by readers to be more unpalatable to a modern audience now that events have taken the course that they have? In this way, the novel is rather similar to Frederick Forsyth's "docu-thriller" The Day of the Jackal (1971) where The Jackal's (OAS ordered) target for assassination is the hated President Charles de Gaulle of France. The only problem was, on 9 November 1970 it was announced by the French Government that "General de Gaulle est mort" which some observers felt rather took the sting out of the tale for readers of the docu-thriller on the novel's publication the following year, in 1971. It is still an excellent thriller which works on many levels, IMO. We know that, in any event, de Gaulle and Princess Diana and her sons, will not be allowed to be killed by an assassin as the hero always saves the day in this type of book. Perhaps if Gardner had used a fictional celebrity as the target at Euro Disney (like some of his targets were in Scorpius) the novel's climax at Euro Disney would have been much more effective. Gardner had originally planned for an open park, but was stopped by the Disney orghanisation - the climax could only be held in a closed park with no Royal Party there. Gardner had also originally planned to have famous rock band/stars as the target as indficated in OO7 Magazine Raymond Benson interview 'Gardner's World'. Perhaps this too might have been more effective.
What is the fan consensus, then, on the elephant in the room: a novel involving the assassination of the famous princess, which precedes her death by only four short years? Does this take away any suspense from the novel at all, in the same way as happened to Forsyth's (admiottedly much more famous and successful) 1971 novel? Also, the recent attempts by Al-Queada/ the rump of the Taliban to assassinate Prince Harry in Helmand province at Camp Bastion at the time of writing (September 2012) come to one's mind. The novel Never Send Flowers again seems relevant almost 20 years after its publication in July 1993. I see Never Send Flowers as a polemic against our modern-day celebrity-obsessed culture - another thing Gardner predicted IMHO. Everything we have experienced since 2000 and the new Millennium has been predicted here by Gardner: Big Brother, OK! Mag, Hello! Mag, Reality TV, The X Factor - the cheap scramble for fame and fortune in the fast life of the modern world he so obviously hated. Dragonpol's slayings around the globe are the perfect antidote to this...almost like Gardner is using this character to act out his agent against the evils and perversions of the post-Cold War world - a world of high fashion, high politics, wars and rumours of wars, mass media 24 hour news and content everywhere - no such thing as useless information.
As a side note to all of this Ian Fleming himself also refers in two places to Disneyland in his non-fiction travel book Thrilling Cities (1963). It also gets a mention (along with another American theme park whose name escapes me) in his first-person viewpoint novel The Spy Who Loved Me (1962). Also, what are literary Bond fans' thoughts on the villain of the piece, ex-world famous film and stage actor David Dragonpol? Dragonpol keeps the Fleming villain theme of St. George against the Dragon going, as does Bond and his Swiss counterpart Flicka von Grusse's 'Dragonfly' nickname. We are told that Dragonpol is a name that goes all the way back to the Doomsday book of the 11th century - 1085, to be exact. Dragonpol apparenently translates as 'DragonHead', and is of Anglo-Irish origin. The name Dragonpol is obviously a fantastic, fantasy name like Pussy Galore or Lavender Peacock. It sounds silly, bizarre and Dragonpol comes across as a bit of a buffoon, dressed as Richard II and spinning a globe of the world (when his sister Maeve Horton is painting him in his most famous roles) when he first meets Bond and Flicka at his Schloss Drache castle home.
As well as the Euro Disney element, which Bond supports and defends trhroughout (although Fleming's Bond had a noted hatred of all things Americana in DAF, 1956), another interesting element of the novel is its theatrical museum with holograms etc. which feels like a reworked 'Bunker Hill' role playing game scene of Role of Honour, which had originally been envisioned as the Battle of Waterloo involving a (then) futuristic Bond computer strategy game of the type Gardner himself said he played in his leisure time in a 1984 radio interview with Don Swaim, available to listen to on the internet currently.
Your reasoned opinions on this novel are very much appreciated - I'm currently writing a lengthy article on this, as may be apparent from the length of this post! These questions keep running round my head like little white mice and I'd really love to hear your opinions on these issues. Perhaps only I think about this stuff in my den, but I'd like to think others here on MI6 think about it too!
UPDATE EDIT: What do MI6 forum members think of the decision to have James Bond cast as a homicide detective throughout? Does this tally with Ian Fleming's "blunt instrument" and spy, James Bond?
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Anyway that aside, as probably one of the few who has read this book (I'd be surprised if more than about 20% of people on this website have got round to it as Gardner isnt particularly popular and this is one of his worst) let me try and address some of your points - although it is about 15 years since I read it so to say recollections are hazy is somewhat of an understatement.
It is certainly true that Bond expressing a love of Disneyland is not something Flemings Bond would ever do. The examples you give from Flemings work exhibit Bond has an awareness that Disneyland exists but not a 'love' of it and it is certainly the last place one would expect to see James Bond so I think accusations of Fleming spinning in his grave are not without foundation.
However its important to remember that by this stage Gardners Bond was Flemings character in name only.
Although Gardner started out trying to incorporate the facets of Flemings Bond as time wore on the character became ever further from Fleming and Gardner had him doing and saying things that not only did not ring true but were very jarring and a total anathema to the character.
By the time we reach NSF Gardners inspiration had well and truly run dry. His first half a dozen or so were decent efforts but after Win, Lose or Die they really started to tail off alarmingly. Death is Forever was a slight improvement but overall after WLoD the downwad curve was quite precipitous reaching a nadir with NSF and the even worse Seafire. Cold I have no recollection of at all except it wasnt as bad as Seafire - make of that what you will.
So in NSF Bond as a character is a million miles away from Flemings Bond and also a fair way from Gardners early work. I think its fair to say that by this stage John was thinking of his pension and didnt really put as much effort into it as he might have done so these character anomalies are hardly surprising (in Gardners defence I believe he may have been ill during this period, or maybe it was his wife. Somebody feel free to put me right there but I dont think it was the best time in his personal life).
I tend to agree with your point about Bond being reduced to merely an average gumshoe detective in Gardners latter efforts. I think as his inspiration ran out his plots and villains lost a lot of that larger than life sheen required in Bond that elevates Bonds adversaries above the ordinary. What we are left with is Bond tracking down fairly mundane Euro criminals and poor imitations of rich men in the Goldfinger and Drax mould and consequently their crimes are similarly dull.
Having not read the book for well over a decade I cannot comment on your analysis that it references our modern celebrity cultutre. Perhaps it does, although it strikes me that you might be reading way too much into a pretty average and inconsequential entry into the Bond literary canon.
As for the 'elephant in the room' being an attempted assasination of Princess Diana, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
You seem to mean that as we know how she really dies the novel loses any suspense but who reads these things with reality in mind? I would say the fact that its a Bond adventure and you know Bond will save the day drains suspense away far more than the fact that you know she must survive in order to die in a tunnel a few years later.
The comparisons with Day of the Jackal are only valid in that the books incorporate real life characters. However the suspense is ever present in DOTJ because it is one of the all time great thrillers and the fact the De Gaulle may or may not be dead when you come to read it is irrelevant.
DOTJ is suspenseful because it is a good book. NSF isnt because it isnt a very good book. Its as simple as that really.
I do enjoy Gardners early Bonds and in Nobody Lives Forever the suspense is there when Bond is collared by SPECTRE and about to be guillotined even though you know he will escape so John certainly had the talent. Its just by the time of NSF, for whatever reason, I think the Bond novels were becoming a bit of a chore he just banged them out by the numbers to pick up his pay cheque.
I remember that when my mother bought me a copy of For Special Services as a present I was astonished that there were new Bond books. I read it and Licence Renewed several times - how cool it was that not only were there more Bond books but that they were set in the modern day. That made me relate to them more and I enjoyed them very much.
But I was at that age where you mature quite rapidly and I quickly lost interest in the Gardner books. I realized that they didn't "feel" like Bond and the quality seemed to slide with each book. I can't remember which was the last book that I read but I remember thinking that it was actually extremely poor - not just as a Bond story but as a book, period.
Then a friend who was a bit of a Bond completest was surprised that I didn't read each new book and suggested that I read Gardner's newest (?) one. I can't remember the name but I'm sure that others here will be able to provide it - it was the one where a character tells Bond that he looks like a young Sean Connery! And that tells you everything you need to know about the quality of the book...it was like bad fan fiction written by my 12 year old self. I was actually angry that I wasted time reading the book; I was working two jobs at the time so my free time was quite precious. Again, the quality was quite poor not just as a Bond story but as a story period.
A few months back I re-read all of the Fleming books and was quite pleased with how well Colonel Sun fit in with them. I was tempted to read Licence Renewed afterwards but then though that I didn't want to end on a down note...do the people here think that it would be worth reading again?
That being said I never again wasted money on anything that had the names Gardner and Bond in it.
You wanted to know why I'm choosing to write a review of this nove, Never Send Flowers. Probably for the following reasons:
1. I'm interestred in the controversial aspects of Bondology
2. I'm interested in James Bond being cast in the role of a homicide detective/policeman.
3. I like to write about overlooked areas in the Bond universe.
I must say I found this very interesting to read. Though part of me says Bond belongs in the 50s (in the books) and the 60s onscreen, I do love to see him bought up to date and interacting with (a heightened version of) the real world. Real figures in the Gardner novels is exciting, IMO. In Win, Lose or Draw, Thatcher, Gobachev and Bush on an aircraft carrier attacked by terrorists - that makes it into a story you can imagine on the SiX O'Clock News, and it makes it more believable.
SILHOUETTE MAN is now Dragonpol on MI6 HQ.
Thanks for the interest - I agreee with your comments.
I know that this is an obscure area alright, but that is the nature of my work.
Please visit my The Bondologist Blog here:
http://www.thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/
Any closet Never Send Flowers fans?