It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
Next on my list as well as Never Send Flowers.
;)
If you read the review, you will have seen that said reviewer is knowledgeable & well spoken, as well as highly detailed in his review(s).
And my main point was that rating Icebreaker rather highly has more to do with individual taste than anything else. The book itself is well written from what I can tell (me being barely literate & all; sounding out the words as it were...). :P
For that matter I struggle to rank the Fleming titles. I am tempted to rank them all tied for first place. I love each one of them. Maybe this week, YOLT is my favourite, but next week it could be DN or GF. Meanwhile OHMSS is basically flawless. Greatness is greatness. Only the TMWTGG doesn't seem to have the same heft as the other titles, but its still a very exciting Fleming read.
When I borrowed it from my school library I had no idea that Gardner wasn't the original Bond novelist so I assumed I was reading one of the books on which the film series was based.
I was about 11 years old and I haven't read the book since but I still remember being quite impressed with the opening chapter which involved an assassin (I think) changing out of an elaborate disguise at either Gatwick or Heathrow airport.
Hmm.
Not sure how one reconciles these comments with then awarding a 9/10 at the end of it all:
'The premise of the novel, that an aging Nazi is attempting to resurrect the glories of the Third Reich, has been touched on by authors before, but while James Bond has confronted terrorists, they’ve never had such an ideological slant. Gardner doesn’t quite make the most of this angle and the motive of his central villain remains somewhat obscure. We have to take the strength of his organisation at face value. Equally his perplexing plot, with cross and double cross, duplicity and secrecy does not bear close examination. '
'The web Gardner has weaved unravels badly at the end. He spends two whole chapters untying his knots (one of the episodes is even entitled “loose ends”) and Bond himself states “I find it hard to swallow.” It does seem odd that M sends his top agent to work without the full facts and even odder that the NSAA has been penetrated by several foreign agents who all wait for 007 to arrive before announcing their real interests. It’s odder still that von Gloda appears in broad daylight and no-one, not even Bond, makes a move on him.'
At least the guy prefaces the whole thing further up the page with the comment that he is ignoring Fleming as it is taken as read that they are all better so the marks out of 10 only apply to Gardners work, which then makes more sense awarding a 9. Although that is still far too high IMO. Icebreaker not Gardner's worst but its the weakest of the first 4 or 5.
However by giving ROH 1/10, NLF 3/10 yet the abysmal SF 4/10 he clearly shows himself to be just a fan with his own opinions which are no more or less valid than the rest of us. Dont really see why your singling him out as 'respected' (although could it be its because he agrees with you?). I much prefer Raymond Bensons reviews in his seminal Bedside Companion (no matter what you think of his own Bond novels, the guy has a lot more respect in the Bond world than this random poster on a fan site) or even our own Dragonpol despite his chronic NSF blindness!
If we're marking out of 10 on a separate Gardner scale that doesnt apply to Fleming then I would go:
LR - 9/10
FSS - 7/10
IB - 6/10
ROH - 7/10
NLF - 10/10
NDMB - 8/10
Scorpius - 7/10
WLOD - 8/10
BC - 4/10
TMFB - 5/10
DIF - 7/10
NSF - 4/10
SF - 1/10
Cold - 2/10
One question? I know Dragonpol does his best but why dont we have debates like that around here? Have I been labouring under the misapprehension all these years that this is the best Bond fansite forum? When you see all the troll crap we have had to put up with and interesting concepts like the 'bash your favourite Bond film' descending into trite teenage attempts at humour I'm starting to wonder am I missing something not being on AJB?
I agree with @chrisisall that the topics on AJB tend to be more in-depth an analytical but it can also be very quiet.
Really? Right I'm off there for the rest of the night then to check the place out. I dont really know why I've never thought about it before. I suppose I used to be satisfied with the level of debate here but over recent weeks that has been sorely lacking.
Thanks for the honourable mention, Ice. And yes, I of course rank Fleming much higher than Gardner - ILF created the character. I see Gardner as a continuation author and judge him by a different scale. And no, I don't consider Never Send Flowers "the greatest work of prose in the English language" by any stretch. True, I'm very interested in it, but I know its limitations as a mere James Bond continuation novel. I'm writing a monograph on it - something akin to Dr. Andrew McNess's AVTAK book from 2011 - it might make you see the novel in a different light altogether, with any hope. I may make you a believer yet, though I have a hard act on my hands with yourself, Ice!
Really? Better than Shakespeare, Doyle, Wells or Fleming? Wow...
There's your answer, chrisisall!
;)
confused.com
I was kidding you, good sir.
Oh, I knew that! As old Ian might have said, "I'm not in the Shakespeare stakes."
Read 'No Deals Mr Bond.' yet?
It's at the library , so I might get that one next.
Yes, go for it!
Never Send Flowers is a good one! You should enjoy it! I'm currently writing a monograph on that one!
Exactly. That's what you have to realise when approaching all of the Continuation Bonds 1968-2013.
Woah there Dragonpol. I think you meant to say 1968-2003?
Thats a fair enough comment reargding Amis and Gardners Bond output and to a certain extent Bensons. But theres no way I'm letting you include Faulks in with the rest of them. Absolute travesty of a Bond book.
Yes, I happen to agree on Faulks, almost impossible to read, but what of Deaver's Carte Blanche in 2011?
Faulks was an easier read but felt less Bond.
Roll on Solo to steady the ship.
Yes, I have a good feeling about Solo.
Hmm, what next? Onto 'No Deals Mr. Bond' perhaps.
Yes, For Special Services is a good one, if a little contrived at times, as you note. Still, John Gardner has proved a very hard act to follow.
What do y'all make of this:
http://teeritz.blogspot.com/2013/03/bond-fan-fiction-no-7.html