Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Gardner's World: John Gardner's James Bond Continuation Novels (1981-1996) General Discussion
Dragonpol
https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
As today, 20 November 2023, marks what would have been John Gardner's 97th birthday I thought it was time we had a general discussion thread on the longest serving and most prolific James Bond continuation author. Between 1981 and 1996 John Gardner (1926-2007) wrote 14 original adult James Bond continuation novels and two film novelisations, namely Licence to Kill and GoldenEye. So this is the thread to ask any general questions about John Gardner's 15 year tenure as Bond author from 1981 to 1996 or to post any observations about his novels, novelisations, plots, characters, themes and so on.
^ 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
That he did.
Also have a Saab Turbo keyring on the shelf. I like the idea of Bond having a more inconspicuous car.
Yes, it was good to see the Gardner Bond novels being picked up by a famous name in the online Bond fan community. While his reviews weren't always the most positive he did really seem to like one of my favourites from Gardner, Never Send Flowers (1993), almost in spite of himself!
If you look at his biography I think you'll find that it's anything but dull. I don't think he really dulled Bond's world in his novels but he did seek to make the Intelligence Services and the threats that faced them more in line with the real world and less in the realm of outrageous fantasy.
Look at the bottom of the spine of the dust jacket, what logo is it? I have the Book Club Associates (BCA) copy of Licence Renewed, which shares the chopping artwork with the Johnathan Cape (JC) 1st edition.
Yes, there's that and the fact that the Book Club edition uses more glossy paper on its dust jacket as well as containing subtle differences to the Jonathan Cape Chopping cover art. I was lucky enough to buy a Gardner signed Cape first edition of Licence Renewed earlier in the year from eBay at a more reasonable price than is usually the case.
Good point. What are the other differences? I only have the BCA edition of Licence Renewed, I don't have the proper 1st Edition to compare.
My first edition copy of Licence Renewed has a copyright page identical to this image.
https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/licence-renewed-john-gardner-first-edition-rare/
Later printings would be called out plus a different publisher noted on the spine as mentioned.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/875529310/james-bond-books-john-gardner-licence
First Edition cover, hardcover has black boards.
Book Club Edition cover, believe originally has brown boards as below.
I also note still later hardcover versions with the Chopping cover, like the 2011 copy I have of For Special Services printed by Swordfish and Orion Publishing. Differences like the 007 label, other things like pictures of the following novels.
2011 edition on top, bottom is 1982 First Edition. Books themselves both have black boards.
However, I do need to confess my fascination for The Man from Barbarossa. Objectively, this may not be Gardner's best novel. On this note, I think Icebreaker and Nobody Lives for Ever are much stronger and engaging. Nevertheless, The Man from Barbarossa has something very unique about it.
First of all, I love the geopolitical backdrop. While it would have been easier for Gardner to distance himself from the rapid evolutions in the Soviet Union and, let's say, to do what Eon was going to do at the time with Bond 17, focusing on Asia and future tech, I find it brilliant to have such time capsule. This story directly tackles what could have happened in the middle of the writing process, to the point it could have made the novel irrelevant if it was published a few months later. It's creatively quite courageous from Gardner and it makes the story very grounded and engaging.
To have Bond carrying a more or less realistic mission, with a more or less real world threat, creating something close to John Le Carré's The Russia House and its movie adaptation, is very nice. On a more personal level, I really like to have a whole novel set in the USSR and I think Gardner is really good at using the setting.
Secondly, I'm very fond of the high concept of Bond investigating a terrorist group that claims to bring war criminals to justice, before discovering it has a hidden political agenda. It's a very good concept that could be used on the big screen for future bad guys. To link such concept to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and the massacre at Babi Yar is also a very strong idea, very Fleming in the spirit. The first chapter for example is one of the strongest of the novel, creating a mood that distinguishes it from other Gardner's novels.
Obviously, beyond this high concept, The Man from Barbarossa's main antagonist is quite weak and it's a shame since Gardner could have made something brilliant with a Soviet military hardliner who plans to become the country's new strong leader. It doesn't help that he doesn't have a memorable name either.
Still on a personal level, I do enjoy this novel because it's easy to imagine this Bond to be Timothy Dalton who is my favourite incarnation of the character on the big screen. The late Cold War backdrop, the real world threats, all of that quite encapsulate the spirit of the Dalton era in my mind and while the Bond 17 screenplays from '90 and '91 were quite different from that, it's easy to picture The Man from Barbarossa as a third Dalton story, based on TLD and LTK only. It does work all the more when you think about Michael France's GoldenEye script written for Dalton.
In a way, it's a very cinematographic novel, especially when you saw movies from this time period that echoes this plot (The Russia House in particular). The early parts of the novel, when Bond is in London, works with Natkowitz, is confronted to French agents, it's all very good, very dynamic. Again, it reminds me of the scenes from The Russia House that involve CIA and MI6. While to have a team of foreign operatives may be redundant after Icebreaker, I like the concept enough to see it used again.
Anyway, early on in License Renewed, right after Bond is called in on Friday evening from his recently purchased cottage in the country and is briefed by MI5 on the terrorist Franco's movements in and out of the UK and his meetings with Murik. When Bond and M are left alone to discuss his upcoming operation, 007 makes the comment to M, basically saying that a terrorist and a scientist teaming up and developing some type of nuclear weapon has been a scenario they have feared for a long time. Bond mentions a fellow named Achmed Yastaff that he "took out" on a previous assignment. It sounds like this man was involved with hijacking nuclear weapons or something, I'm not sure. Was this Yastaff character in an old Fleming novel?
I have only read a couple of Fleming's novels, unfortunately, but I am preparing to read his complete Bond series in order. So I am not familiar with most of his writing. However, a quick Google search returns nothing on Achmed Yastaff. It only brings back search results related to that very line, above, from License Renewed.
So, is this just a meaningless reference? Yastaff was never explained or part of a previous novel?
I purchased used copies of Casino Royale and Live and Let Die online, bc I want to read Fleming's old novels in order. But the seller accidentally sent a copy of Doctor No instead of CR. So it has been extremely difficult, to not break down and start reading those to books while I wait for a copy of CR lol. I have read bits and pieces of both so far and from what I have seen, I'm excited to dig into Fleming's series!
BTW, in LR Gardner explains how the Double-O section was abolished in (probably) the early- to mid-70's. Different methods were introduced in the Secret Service, the license to kill was revoked, etc. Bond reflects that since those changes came about, he had only been sent on four different missions that had stirred any excitement in him like the ones from the glory days of the Cold War. It would be interesting if a writer filled in those gaps, added some stories to the Bond archives. Anyone have any suggestions on what would make for an interesting read? The time frame would probably be from 1975(-ish) until 1981, when the LR story takes place.
Basically, he's Roger Moore in Licence Renewed but then once Dalton was in the role he became a younger man again.
I always pictured NSNA Sean Connery in Licence Renewed and the other early Gardner novels (For Special Services and Icebreaker). In latter novels, I do pictures Dalton too. I didn't read all novels, but it was particularly the case with No Deals, Mr. Bond (that felt very close to TLD) and The Man From Barbarossa.
To answer your question, no, Achmed Yastaff was an unseen deceased character created by Gardner solely for Licence Renewed in order to give his Bond a bit of a backstory. I suppose it was to fill a bit of the gap since Bond's last reported mission in Colonel Sun. He doesn't appear in any of Ian Fleming's work. I like to think that's he makes up one of the four missions Bond had been on that Gardner references. I suppose it's quite topical now in the aftermath of the atrocities carried out by Al-Qaida, ISIS and others in more recent times. Gardner would return to the theme of quasi-Islamist terror in his Bond novel Win, Lose or Die (1989) which featured the terrorist organisation BAST (Brotherhood for Anarchy and Secret Terror) led by one Bassam Baradj.
You might be interested in these articles which I wrote a good few years ago which cover some of this subject matter:
https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-literary-james-bond-in-1970s.html?m=1
https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/disbanding-of-double-o-section-first.html?m=1
Gardner's Bond has a fairly physical role and the SAS "refresher" courses he is frequently sent off to in Hereford are mentioned often. I couldn't picture Moore or Connery, for example, going thru flight training on the Harrier as Bond does in Win, Lose or Die or the bizarre O-keep-a duel he challenges Brokenclaw to in the following novel.
I didn't start reading the Gardner series with any particular Bond actor in mind, but I guess my brain just automatically went with Pierce Brosnan lol. That's just the temperament and personality Gardner's Bond conveys. Mixed with the necessary physical requirements. Dalton would possibly be the next closest option. Or Lazenby, if you wanted to go with an "older" Bond.
Daniel Craig's Bond would not fit lol. Gardner's Bond has way too much dialogue and he has a sense of humor ha ha. Craig has, what? About 15 or 20 lines during his entire tenure in the films? Craig plays the role with a chip on his shoulder and he is on suspension or not sanctioned in hardly anything he does. Gardner's 007 breaks the rules sometimes and he goes on several missions where M warns him the government will deny him, but its usually at M's behest. And Bond usually seeks out M's blessing when he needs to go "rogue" or at least tries to keep him informed of his whereabouts. Actually, M is the one who breaks the rules in the series by still recognizing Bond as 007 and sending him out into the field on various assignments that are off the books.
I don't think Roger or Sean would ever fit, especially by the end of the series. Bond has a pretty intense motorcycle chase in SeaFire and also takes flight in what sounds like a parahawk. And, in Cold or Cold Fall, he escapes a villian's mansion on a jet sky and later drops back in with a parachute. As a rough guess, 12 or 13 years after License Renewed (because Gardner seems to follow the same time frame as the year his novels are released), they both would be too old to visualize in those scenes lol.
While I get that Brosnan was in his mid-40s during TND, he doesn't play like it, frankly because times have moved forward and people in their 40s are quite fit. Brosnan feels like he's at his peak in the TND, and Goldeneye was an origin story for him, like CR almost. Gardner's Bond feels no where near that level of his career (not to any of his detriment). The Connery-Moore run feels quite apt because of Connery's peaks in the character being parallel to many of Fleming's stories (continuing a little into Moore's run) and then films such as Moonraker, TSWLM, and FYEO bein Gardner's Bond. At which point Moore was already 50 but didn't seem to lag behind with stunts and fights.
LR 5/10: Alright start for the series, however Bond girl, villain, and plot are really basic. I very much find the third act with all the title stuff quite low stakes and not very relevant: better if Murik went out on the plane I think.
FSS: 7.5/10 I read this right after LALD and this has a really Fleming atmosphere about it. It's quite silly: there's the stuff about Felix's daughter, Blofeld's daughter and ice cream. But the twist is quite well handled and Walter Luxor is also quite a good henchman.
I: 3/10 The double-crossing is horrific in this novel. The American's existence of a triple agent does nothing to serve the plot, and when's revealed to be good in the end it does nothing for the story. Bond is also incredibly emotional and illogical in this book: after one night, he cannot stand the thought of moving on with the mission without her which doesn't feel right. Even when he's trapped with her after being tortured I don't know why he doesn't consider bugs, especially after he's shown checking for them earlier in the story.
RoH: 7/10 Percy Proud is probably the second best Bond girl of Gardner, I buy their relationship and chemistry, if their relationship end is a bit iffy. The plot is fine, although I do feel that the disarmament twist only existed because nobody though mutual disarmament was that bad a belief for SPECTRE. Quite enjoyable. One thing I noticed is that all the Bond girls have alliterative names, which is a bit weird.
NBLF: 7.5/10 Great chase plot, feels like Gardner's Bond now. SPECTRE's plan is a bit convoluted though, and Nannie's motivations are a bit whack. She works for them sometimes, so they rigged the game for her, and made her kill the rival gangs? And what was that about "manipulating" SMERSH into kidnapping Moneypenny and May? Fun read despite this though, and a plot like this would have been a great final film for Craig.
NDMB: 8/10 Really well done intelligence based plot which makes me feel the stakes. All the stuff in Ireland is quite fun, albeit the events in Hong Kong do slow the story a bit. I do wish Smolin was presented as straight from the start, and that Chernov was focused on more, and the double-cross of Norman Murray is one too much for me. But in the rest it is a really fun Gardner Bond story.
S: 4/10 Don't enjoy it, especially the double climax at the end where in the last 5% they try to shove in a threat on the PM and the President. It is also a massive coincidence that the guy who happens to drive Bond back from the SAS training is a big part of the story, and I don't like how successful Scorpius is in the grand scheme of things. He's killed quite a few important politicians, and the whole thing feels like a failed mission, played off as a success.
WLOD: 7.5/10 Quite an interesting story, and Bond does feel like a bit of a detective throughout the story, which makes this feel a bit like a classic Bond story. Not exactly a fan of the faked death of Beatrice though, and dead Russian agent on board that Bond slept with feels a bit of a callous inclusion. Part of me wishes that BAST was SPECTRE though, because BAST is supposed to be threatening and they don't really feel that way
B: 6/10 The intelligence based plot is quite good and this almost feels a bit like Benson's HTTK in terms of chasing a military device. It's a bit broken with Brokenclaw's stock market motivations, which are quite cloudy and I don't understand, and again the double climax of the ritual is a bit bizarre. This is really one of the times I ask why doesn't he just kill Bond? Why do all this?
TMFB: 4.5/10 This book is infuriating, because the end goal of the Scales of Justice is so hidden that the payoff isn't really there. And all that stuff with the airline that's told afterward would make for so much more of an interesting plot then what really is a story that drudges along.
DiF: 5/10 No Deals but with 10 times the characters. A set of double agents working for MI6 are being killed off: exact same premise. This time though props for making Weisen a little bit more of a villain and not really clouding him. Same twist as before though, of the doubles is actually a triple and gets the rest trapped while Bond has to go and save them. The fake Harry Spraker is a cool-ish idea, until you realise it's the 90s and that they would surely have some sort of picture on file of him. Despite this, it's a great cast of henchmen, only let down by a weak Bond-Bond girl relationship. From the start of the book to her death, Easy doesn't feel like a Bond love. Crudely put, she seems a bit too "MeToo" for Bond (he implies that himself), and for Bond to try to put her in the category of Vesper and Tracy (and ignore people like Percy, Beatrice, even Harriet) rings hollow, especially because he goes off with Praxi straight afterwards.
NSF: No rating (didn't get to read again) I've read it once and it was bizarre, with twins and EuroDisney and serial killers. It feels a bit out of place for a Bond story: I'm questioning why nobody from MI5 or Special Branch handles gets involved, and although Flicka is quite a good Bond girl, she does feel slightly out of place with the mostly UK plot (so I remember). Will edit when I reread
SF: 5/10 A Nazi plot is feeling a bit outdated at this point. I mean the whole thing progresses oddly. Lady Trish would be quite an interesting Bond girl, if Bond wasn't taken, but the two henchwomen also are a bit weird. Tarn's plot is slightly nonsensical, and also relatively low stakes when you're talking about a potential 4th Reich. There's also the whole thing about faking his death: how's he going to get around that publicity nightmare of him being perfectly healthy and his wife being legit dead?
Cold: No rating (unavailable)
Average: 5.8/10
One missed trick with Gardner was villains. Only Scorpius and Brokenclaw really deliver as strong crazy villains. I think Gardner would have done better with reoccurring organisations or villains because that kind of lends more credence to the weaker villains. Fleming used SMERSH and SPECTRE to this effect, and this raises the stakes because it becomes Bond vs the organisation, or at least one leg of it, rather than Bond vs a man.
Another reason why the villains aren't as strong, as said in the video, is the doubt and double-crossing over who the main villain is. In this process Bond kind of feels passive, you don't see him discovering the mole, just you find out who the mole is when they have a gun to him.
I do wish we got some overarching enemies. Something like BAST or even the Scales of Justice would be a lot better with past history. Even COLD, without reading it, would have been quite a finale if it was a previously established Gardner organisation
In terms of Bond girls I also feel that Gardner puts too many love interests and Bond feel very easily tipped into love. Bond can't leave Rivke behind, he wants to marry Percy, the death of Harriet drives him to a tantrum like killing, Beatrice is a brunette Tracy, Chi-Chi Sue feels extremely close to Bond, there's the stuff with Easy, ignoring the fact Praxi says she loves him. And of course Flicka. And then all of this rings hollow when he doesn't really feel the impacts of their death later or he's gone by the next book.
Fair point, but the reason that Bond seems that old is a lot of the actions he does. He's sometimes complaining about people saying he's past-it and useless, he's much softer than the Fleming novels that naturally only be described with age, he's more keen to fall in love and go off with girls (we're presented with at least two Vesper/Tracy contenders) and he's also a direct continuation of Fleming's Bond, who was already close to retirement (45) in TMWTGG. The way he bickers with an out of character M also feels like a man who is frankly tired of all this, and also all the mistakes and times he is double-crossed also makes me feel he's a little bit older (mid-40s to early 50s)
While I get that Brosnan was in his mid-40s during TND, he doesn't play like it, frankly because times have moved forward and people in their 40s are quite fit. Brosnan feels like he's at his peak in the TND, and Goldeneye was an origin story for him [/quote]
Gardner never gives any indication of how old Bond is supposed to be but I have read his series twice and I don't recall a single time when Bond's abilities were ever in question. Certainly not related to age or that he is slipping physically. And Bond never questions or doubts his own abilities. In fact, in succeeding novels Bond often reflects on the injuries he sustained during a previous mission and observes that he is fully recovered and in the best condition of his life.
I think that is one reason why Gardner made the controversial decision to make Bond drink less and smoke light cigarettes in his series. By the end of the series he only occasionally enjoys a stiff drink and in his last novel, it is revealed that Bond had quit smoking altogether several years earlier. Gardner defended his decision, saying that he felt that having Bond continue on with his unhealthy habits would be "death". And he probably meant it literally. I don't think there is any mention of Bond smoking after "Icebreaker." He also exercises more in an effort to keep himself in top form, so that could indicate he is getting older.
You may be thinking of one of Benson's novels - possibly "Doubleshot". He thought it would be interesting to write a story where 007 wasn't in top form and have him struggle with physical and mental issues. I believe M questions his abilities and at some point Bond does as well.
About halfway through the series M begans dropping hints that Bond should consider settling down and getting married but it's not because he wants to push him out or force him to retire. In fact, M reveals in SeaFire thar he wants Bond to succeed him as head. (Though I'm not sure why Tanner wouldn't be considered).
I don't really understand the "putting him to sleep" concept that Gardner and the publishers did when they decided to start the continuation series. Everything that Fleming (and Markham/Amis) wrote is considered canon, but the decade of the 70's was by passed as if it never happened. If Gardner followed that, then followed the same actual year in his story, 007 would be have been 75 when his final novel Cold/Cold Fall was written. It doesn't really make sense but Bond's age was never mentioned and there was not indication that the was losing any of his ability due to age.
I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on all the Gardner novels that you've read! And that you took the time to post some feedback on each one. So many people dismiss his work on Bond or disparage it and I think most of the criticism he receives is unfair.
There are many things you mentioned that I'd like to respond to, but I'll just post a few quick comments for now. I totally agree with what you said about "Icebreaker" - Bond religiously checked for bugs and listening devices leading up to the journey to the Ice Palace. Then, he completely slips up and falls into the trap with Rivke in the hospital ward at the end of the novel ! Lol.
I like to think that he was a little doped up and delirious after the ice water torture scene and he wasn't in top form, so he wasn't thinking clearly. And Gardner's constant writing of Bond looking for sound stealing devices early-on was a setup for that scene later on. I was lulled into a false sense of security just as Bond was ha ha.
In "Never Send Flowers" you said that you thought that MI5 should have handled the Dragonpol affair, and I thought that, as well. But the Grant character, who was the Service's Chief (right?), made so many mistakes running the department and he failed so miserably in properly vetting his agents - I thought that was Gardner's way of writing them out of the loop. They were temporarily compromised and thus couldn't adequately contribute to the investigation.
Gardner did this a couple of times in his series lol. I've wondered if purposely wanted to make them look incompetent ha ha. (Mi5).
And, Finally! Someone who gave "Role of Honour" a decent rating! Most readers say that was their least favorite Gardner entry, but I enjoyed it! I read books 1 through 5 in order and up until NLF, ROH was my favorite, early on. Even Gardner said it was his least favorite Bond novel, and working on it was the only time he ever experienced "writer's block" as an author. (Or one of the few times he did in his career). He even briefly considered ending his time as the 007 continuation author, especially after he was forced to rewrite his original "Bunker Hill" war game scene, between Bond and Holy.
It wasn't a coincidence that 1985, after the release of ROH, was the only year Gardner didn't release a Bond novel, during his entire time writing the continuation series. He needed a break, apparently.
In terms of Bond's age this is just the setting of the novels as well. Gardner makes it clear with direct references to characters and events that this is Fleming's Bond still. That's why Gardner gave Bond grey hair at the temples to start, but I suppose he kills any references to age in the second half of the novels. The image of a salt and pepper Bond who is emotionally softer just sort of stayed with me, and I suppose I fit the rest of the evidence of my post around that.
Bond doesn't exactly question his abilities or strengths but he questions his relevance sometimes by quoting the "spy authors" who say computers will end up doing his job. Sometimes he tosses this out, but I remember once where he reflects on this and takes it seriously. MicroGlobe One is just another way to question Bond's relevancy in a changing world, which again implies age.
And while Bond is physically in shape, I have to question him mentally based on the many times Bond was caught unsuspecting and double-crossed. Even the random SAS man who drove him back to HQ in Scorpius was tied up in the affair via his daughter! Sometimes this is just bad luck, but too many times suggests sloppy work.
One could argue this is because Bond knows nothing (M withholds a lot more info in this series) but Bond shows a sort of crabby annoyance to M that seems like a son rebelling against his father. Bond interrupts M, cracks jokes during briefings, and shows distaste for M's plans. Different from the reverence a supposedly younger Bond had for M.
Thanks for actually trawling through my short reviews.
In Icebreaker I don't think the bug-checking was intentional foreshadowing: Gardner wrote novels as they came to him and didn't have a sketch for the end as he wrote.
With NSF, sadly I couldn't get through it on my most recent read. With the sort of ridiculousness that showed up and the stuff I already knew was to come I just couldn't continue. Castles with projections and all that: and Flicka was grating on my nerves.
Role of Honour is lovely. The prose is excellent and Gardner really saves what is perhaps a dubious premise with how he crafted the story.
I got my hands on COLD, and I posted my thoughts in the "Which Bond are you reading" thread. To keep it brief in what is already a very long post: it wasn't good. I didn't enjoy the fractured storytelling and the villains didn't make sense and Sukie's change of heart really didn't make that much sense.