Devil May Care Reviews
Asp9mm
Over the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,495MI6 Agent
Finished it today. It's OK, but too many nods to the past, a weak storyline, a bumbling if resourceful Bond (although Flemings was too), and an obvious twist to a character. In the end Bond was more lighter and more Craig-like, than Flemings synical, inner-thinking self absorbed Bond. And the villains demise, although good, was tenuous considering his resources. The tensions were lost and some things moved too quick, this should have been a book twice the size as we are now accustomed too, and details and atmosphere were lost in this, as well as Bonds inner contemplating and self diagnosis of situations and people that we are all used to. Characters just did not develop, and it does not feel 'period' as you know it was written in the present. The novel was written quickly and reads like it too, and you feel that you have read it all before, which you have as it borrows heavily on characters and plots of Fleming himself far too much, even the same lines are used at times, which does not sit right with Bonds character. Bond does not dwell on the past and this is his strength and weakness.
I know we pick up on the minutaie as we are die hard fans, and Faulks is not which accounts for some mistakes, then again Benson was like us and he missed the mark far wider than Faulks has. No one can produce the atmosphere and exitement like Fleming did, and no one ever will.
It feels like a hommage, not a serious Bond novel. And in the end, you feel like you just went through a pointless encounter with a family member that you lost contact with years ago. The connection is no longer there.
I know we pick up on the minutaie as we are die hard fans, and Faulks is not which accounts for some mistakes, then again Benson was like us and he missed the mark far wider than Faulks has. No one can produce the atmosphere and exitement like Fleming did, and no one ever will.
It feels like a hommage, not a serious Bond novel. And in the end, you feel like you just went through a pointless encounter with a family member that you lost contact with years ago. The connection is no longer there.
..................
...............
...............
Comments
But with DMC I feel let down, as if Im clearly reading someone copying the Bond books rather than adding something to them,
Its a shame they spent so much money marketting the book, seems like a bit of a waste to be honest.
Published on the centenary of Ian Fleming's birth, Devil May Care by Sebastian Faulks returns the literary Bond to 1967, exactly where Fleming's original series left off. I won't rehash the plot here, rather I'll just give some opinions now that I have finished the novel.
Sebastian Faulks has tried very hard to emulate the style of Ian Fleming, including Fleming's habits when it comes to the writing process itself. The result is an entertaining read with all the requisite elements, but it lacks a certain something. Ultimately it is just an entertaining pastiche, which doesn't really live up to the reputation of the author or the hype surrounding the book itself. Something which I dislike in all Bond books, whether official or fan fiction is excessive referencing of other Bond adventures. Unfortunately Devil May Care is packed full of references which I feel only cheapen the book. I guess it is to emphasise that the book exists within the continuity of the original series, but the level of referencing is unnecessary.
On the positive side, the book does fit quite comfortably within the Fleming canon, and it authentic in that sense. Faulks brings out a loaded supporting cast of Fleming characters such as Leiter, Mathis and May. The story it itself is quite good, with interesting use of locations unexplored in the original novels. The plot itself is not particularly inspired, and also quite implausible in some parts - but serviceable nonetheless. There are some good scenes, such as the tennis match. This particular scene is clearly a homage to the classic scenes in Moonraker and Goldfinger
, in which the villain attempts to cheat but is ultimately beaten by Bond. I enjoyed the chapter, but story wise it was a little unnecessary. The villain, Julius Gorner is pretty good, with a typical physical deformity. His henchman is also an imperfect human specimen, but with great physical prowess. The 'Bond Girl', Scarlett, is an interesting character although she and Bond have a somewhat distant relationship until the very end of the novel.
It may sound as if I have more criticism than compliments for the novel, but I must say that I found the novel an entertaining and engaging read despite its faults. I would even say that I enjoyed it more than some of the lesser Fleming novels, and it ranks as one of the best of the continuation novels in my opinion. Sebastian Faulks has stated that the novel was just a one-off and that he wouldn't be writing another. However, I hope that somebody does take up the challenge of continuing the Bond literary series!
there is a great deal of truth there IMO
In many ways Mathis' inclusion does seem surplus to reqirements -however it does give the plot a broader world wide threat -and helps with the period politically. However considering this is supposed to be set in the sixties -even with the weak reference to The Beatles and The Rolling Stones I don't feel like this is a period piece at all. However - that aside - I am still finding myself enjoying the novel and being able to enjoy something fresh in the Bond canon -even if it has used too many references to past tales in it. All in all a good pastiche and equally a good 007 romp.
I mean we've seen a lot of the set pieces before and therefore they were not quite as inspiring as they could be -and the supporting cast of including Felix and Mathis might have felt unnecessary -but then again from a comercial aspect -both Felix and Mathis are in the public consciousness thanks to Casino Royale and the soon to be seen Quantum of Solace and for the more recent Bond fans -the new generation as it were -that may have bought DMC seeing these characters in the book and as well as in Casino Royale -they may be inspired to buy the original Fleming novels. Therefore -Its all down to marketing for a bigger audience. That is what this book is about.
Anyway such things aside -the novel did follow Fleming's formula in many ways and although SF's Bond was not quite as flawed as IF's Bond -he still came accross as the same character in a comfortably familiar way. The test of time will determine how good this novel really is -and although it will undoubtedly be a bestseller of sorts -I doubt it will ever be regarded as a complete success. Much like Colonel Sun and the Chritopher Wood novels -it will be sort after in the future by later Bond fan's -and it will be their reactions when distanced by the hype of the "latest publication" that will really say how good this tale is. For me it was a very fine romp that is worthy of being added to the fanfiction library here at ajb - in other words it is a good pastiche and something worth adding to the collection of 007 tales out there between the release of the next 007 movie. I give it 8 out of 10 -which from me is good score.
At its core Devil May Care is an inferior rehash of Ian Fleming's Moonraker novel-- with a little bit of Goldfinger and From Russia With Love tossed in for good measure.And contrary to Fleming's novels, where the title is always incorporated within the storyline, the Devil May Care title is found nowhere in the story itself!It's not even in a line of dialogue.How lazy of Faulks.
One of the things that makes Fleming's novels work so well for me is his singular narrative "voice".As with Raymond Chandler,Ian Fleming's distinctive style is every bit as important as the story he tells.Sadly,that voice is silent throughout most of Devil May Care.Because Faulks doesn't have the talent to even suggest it.
And then there's the way the story is told:Faulks's attempt is not the equal of Kingsley Amis's postively eerie replication of Fleming's voice with Colonel Sun, or Christopher Wood's equally stellar Ian Fleming impersonation for his James Bond-The Spy Who Loved Me novel based upon his TSWLM screenplay(and the sequel adaptation James Bond and Moonraker).In Devil May Care there are some small moments when Faulks almost evokes Fleming, but they don't measure up when compared to Amis and Wood--or John Gardner and Raymond Benson,for that matter.Or Charlie Higson.
Frankly,I think that any writer who is credited as "writing as Ian Fleming" should make a concerted effort to write as much like 007's creator as possible, and Faulks doesn't even begin to live up to this billing--because as a writer of thrillers, he isn't Ian Fleming's equal.This whole "Writing as Ian Fleming" tagline probably serves as a great sop to Faulks's ego(perhaps the "Robert Markham" penname is beneath him), but it doesn't hide the fact that Faulks isn't worthy of that honor.Faulks would have been better served had he followed John Gardner's example and written Devil May Care in his own style.But that wouldn't have improved the ill-conceived story.
It's interesting to see that part of Devil May Care is set in one of the few locales Ian Fleming didn't use, and also that it takes place in 1967--shortly after the events in The Man With The Golden Gun(the same period as Amis's Colonel Sun).For Fleming fans there's a strong sense of deja vu permeating Devil May Care,as Faulks peppers his book with elements derived from previous Fleming novels.But that's not always a good thing to do,because it calls to mind Fleming's vastly superior material.
The Faulks story features a grotesque villain named Gorner(who really should've had a much more colorful name and appearance)whose surly attitude immediately recalls the overbearing manner of much better realized Sir Hugo Drax in Fleming's Moonraker novel.Gorner has a manservant/killer ala' Auric Goldfinger's Oddjob and a nefarious scheme which involves an unusual vehicle more suitable to the Eon films than any Fleming story.There's a charismatic figure very much in the mold of From Russia With Love's Darko Kerim Bey assisting 007.In fact,he's almost Kerim's twin.And speaking of twins,the book's femme fatales are not especially compelling.
And after all of the big build-up, the villain's demise comes across as an afterthought.The story is incomplete, and it's author obviously doesn't care to come up with a strong resolution.
Sebastian Faulks has explained in several interviews that he wanted to make certain that all of the most famous members of 007's supporting cast would appear in this story.And as the story progresses it becomes increasingly obvious that he's working from a list.
Devil May Care contains a few twists and turns, and there's even an attempt to create an O.Henry-like moment for the story's closing sequence--but most readers will have already deduced this "surprise" long before it arrives.
Additionally,at least two key sequences in Devil May Care would've been considerably more powerful had only James Bond been present when they took place.He isn't,however, and that severely damages them.
As for James Bond himself?Well,he's sort of in the story--but more often than not,there's another character called "James Bond" who's taking his place.
And there's an enormous whiff of political correctness at work in Devil May Care.It's evident that Faulks disapproves of Fleming and of Fleming's stories-- and he wants the public to be aware that he really doesn't want to be associated with 007, nor does he take this kind of storytelling especially seriously.
Although this adventure is set in 1967(there are a few historical references made throughout the course of the tale to support this),Devil May Care reads as though it could as easily be taking place in the 21st century.This is very disappointing coming from Sebastian Faulks, who is internationally famous for his many carefully reseached period novels like Birdsong and Charlotte Gray.Surely he could've done a much better job,researching this period--there's really no good excuse for the minimal effort expended by Faulks in this area.
Having said all of this,I did like some of Devil May Care-but only with considerable reservations.As stated earlier, I don't think it's the best continuation Bond novel ever written--in fact,it's easily one of the worst post-Fleming James Bond stories ever published.
Sebastian Faulks's name will doubtless sell this novel to people who are unfamiliar with Ian Fleming's original writings,and because of Faulks's connection,it'll probably become a bestseller.Considering how poorly written Devil May Care actually is,that's a shame.
Although I doubt anything could've lived up to this book's advance publicity, Faulks clearly didn't even TRY to come up with a good novel.Devil May Care would've been greatly improved by extensive revisions.In it's current condition DMC reveals that Faulks was perfectly content to bang out his story within a brief time period--as opposed to attempting to create a truly first class novel.What a shame.
Ian Fleming Publications approached the wrong writer for this special novel.Rather than seeking a critic's darling,they should have signed someone who really cared about 007--and someone who could really write a thriller.I still contend that had IFP gone with either Ken Follett or Charlie Higson,they'd have delivered a masterful novel--unlike Faulks's pathetic effort.I have no doubt that had Devil May Care been submitted to IFP by Sebastian Faulks using an assumed name, that it would've been rejected out of hand.
Although he always took care and time to research his books,Ian Fleming liked to claim that it only took him six weeks to write a James Bond novel.I don't believe that statement to have been true in every instance.
Conversely,Faulks has frequently stated that he wrote Devil May Care in six weeks, and I have absolutely no trouble believing him.
My grade:1/10
I got a paperback "airport" edition in Edinburgh airports WH Smith yesterday for £6.49 ,so try your nearest airport.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
According to the BBC, DMC has sold 44,093 copies in the first four days, shattering records for a Penguin publication. I guess all that publicity stuntwork paid off for them then.
Do you think the high sales will convince them to commision more continuation novels?
I hope so. Our little attempts at fan fiction prove there is a market for official continuation novels -we are always wanting a new adventure. The popularity of the young Bond series will have proved this too -so hopefully there will be many more to come.
It's not as good as I hoped it would be, but it's far better than anything produced during Raymond Benson's reign of terror.
Overall not bad but I found it lacking in its descriptions, there was just no atmosphere. when Fleming described a scene it realy drew you into the time and place. the scenes in Istambull from FRWL spring to mind as examples of the way fleming could evoke the feeling of a place even if you had'nt been there yourself.
As I said not bad but not great. Personally I would have got Charlie higson to do it, his young bond books show a love and understanding of the charactor and world he inhabits far more than Faulks did.
www.scottacademymartialarts.co.uk
The only thing that I hated about the book, is that he kept repeating scenes from one of the films or from the Flemming books.. It should of been more orignal...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A solid 4/5 for me.
The good: Loved the choice of locations, the details, atmosphere, and how Faulks infused the history and politics of the region into the story (also, THANK YOU whoever suggested that map in the front of the book). Tennis was an awesome choice for the big game. Gorner was a truly despicable villain, and while his death felt a touch anti-climatic, I thought it was a good Bondian death. Chagrin worked as a henchman. Great name. Scarlett was fine (shame I had accidentally discovered she was 004, because that would have surprised me.)
LOVED the Caspian Sea Monster. I thought the overall shape of the story was excellent; Rome teaser -- Britain -- France -- Persia/Iran (always wanted to see 007 in the Middle East) -- journey across Russia -- climax back in France. I do think Faulks experiment in style worked. It read like a rocket and had some wonderful passages that I re-read several times for the sheer pleasure. I also really liked how Felix was a part of the story without ever interacting with Bond. This was a very unconventional way to use Felix, but brilliant.
Quibbles: Was a little disappointed that Gorner's master plan turned out to be the most familiar of all Bond plots -- use stolen nukes and aircraft to provoke war between Britain and Russia. That was too movie-like. I thought his ambition to flood England with drugs was enough (the drug angle really vanished in the last part of the book, which was too bad because it was so well set up and developed). I could have used more sex, although the bath house scene was very sexy. The existence of "Poppy" was a little distracting as she was so clearly a red-herring. Stylistically, some of the Fleming references were a little ham-fisted. Would Bond really remember a hangover from 1955? I also didn't like when Faulks lifted whole lines from Fleming directly (..."holding his eye open in the shower spray until they smarted"). I understand he's "writing as Ian Fleming", but that's going too far. Also, the continued references to "destiny" were, for some reason, driving me nuts.
But these really are only quibbles. I throughly enjoyed reading this book. Is it a good Sebastian Faulks novel? I don't know. I've never read a Sebastian Faulks novel. But I have read every James Bond continuation novel, more than once, and on that measure, Devil May Care is, IMO, one the very best.
Cheers to all involved.
{[]
Perhaps I had my expectations raised at an unreasonable level; perhaps my enthusiasm waned as I moved further into the novel due to my own tiredness. I found the last half to be quite boring and rushed.
I found myself being a little too harsh on the book, so I gave DMC another chance. I picked up again half way a few days later, the parts where it fell down for me. Being fresher and knowing what to expect, I liked it a little more. The novel isn't that bad I suppose, if you know what you are getting and are willing to go along for the ride. I rank DMC 3/5. Not necessarily a great score, but not necessarily a scathing score. It was an acceptable novel, but not just what we may have expected.
- It didn't feel period.
- I re-read YOLT and TMWTGG prior to starting DMC, and even Fleming's weakest effort (TMWTGG), never properly finished (by him), is still far superior.
- Too many obviously derivative references to previous novels, and even a few very subtle wink-wink, nudge-nudge references to the films, even those not yet made in 1967.
- Final "twist" was predictable, villain was boring, and his death was more disappointing than Dr. No being smothered in a pile of bird feces.
- I'll only re-read to catalogue all of the "hey this is a James Bond novel, really!" moments.
On a lighter note, I've got a UK first edition- anyone know if Sebastian Faulks will be doing a signing tour? No hint of it on his webpage, yet.-{
My expectations were pretty high for Devil May Care, but those expectations weren't based on wishful thinking. Consider what we were promised: a "one-off" novel commissioned to celebrate Ian Fleming's centenary; an established and respected "literary" novelist; a period piece that more or less picks up where Fleming left off. DMC was supposed to be something special, not just another been-there-done-that Bond adventure to keep the literary flag flying.
What I was hoping for was a novel that wouldn't just imitate Fleming, but would really interrogate Bond's origins and his significance to us today. Novels like that have been written before: I'm thinking of Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea, which tells the "back story" of Jane Eyre from the point of view of the "insane" Bertha Mason, revealing some racist and colonialist attitudes in Charlotte's Bronte's original novel; or, more relevant to this situation, Nicholas Meyers' The Seven Percent Solution, which wonderfully mimics Conan Doyle's literary style yet also delves into how Sherlock Holmes's cocaine use affected his understanding of crime and reality. It seemed to me that Sebastian Faulks could have performed a similar feat with Bond: he could really have examined where Bond's self-destructive streak comes from, or queried if the kind of sado-masochism and Cold War posturing that characterizes so much of Fleming's work is simply a part of his time period or if it has meaning today.
It almost seems that Faulks wants to do these things. The novel opens with Bond in a "down" state, still mourning Tracy's death and still questioning if he wants to continue as a secret agent. What a perfect opportunity to look deeply into both the characters and the world Fleming created--to turn them inside out, to recreate them, to give them new life. But, alas, no sooner does this mournful Bond appear than he's put on a mission and his questioning disappears. It's on to business as usual.
It also appears that Faulks wants to say something with the setting of the novel. I'm intrigued by his placing of a large chunk of the action in Tehran ten years before the Islamic Revolution, and I think Faulks did a nice job of describing a certain hedonism and decadence that was afoot in the city. There's also a Graham Greene-ish touch in including a Tehran-based CIA agent who wants to push the British into supporting the U.S. in Vietnam. So is Faulks saying that these kinds of spy-vs.-spy games in Iran set the stage for the Revolution to come? Is he saying that Britain should look back to how it handled Vietnam and therefore get out of Iraq? These kinds of questions linger in the back of the Tehran sequences, and they're never answered. The scenes there are so fantastic and exotic they could have been set in the Arabian Nights--and it could be 1868 as well as 1968.
Maybe it's unfair of me to criticize Faulks for not writing the novel I would have wanted. No doubt he delivered what Ian Fleming Productions asked for, which was based on what they believed Bond fans would want. Well, I am a Bond fan, too, but the Bond fan in me isn't too pleased with DMC, either. As others have already pointed out, there isn't a whole lot here we haven't seen before. There's the baddie out to get a nuclear war started; a superstrong Asian henchman who doesn't feel pain; a plot that alternately gives out the scent of Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and the drug-smuggling elements from the films of Live and Let Die and The Living Daylights. I was also annoyed by the constant references to earlier Bond novels: Fleming rarely did this, Raymond Benson did it to excess, but Faulks does it to a downright shameless degree. And Faulks doesn't even get his Bond history right--007 and Scarlett take a trip through the Soviet Union, which, Faulks tells us, is Bond's first trip to Russia. Ummm. . .where was he between You Only Live Twice and The Man with the Golden Gun?
But what really sinks the book for me, what I consider to be its most unforgivable sin, is its cardboard depiction of James Bond himself. I could accept DMC as just another Bond adventure if Bond himself was a compelling and interesting character. Faulks's Bond is too gullible--he simply lets Scarlett tag along on the mission, never questioning who she is or trying to get rid of her. And he floats through this mission showing little emotion or concern. Faulks puts Bond through the requisite amount of hell--007 has a tooth kicked out of his jaw, gets his ribs cracked, has glass driven through his face, his back is sliced up, and Lord knows what else--but he doesn't so much as say "ow." When Fleming tortured Bond you felt it, because Fleming could describe pain: he had it exploding and cascading through Bond's body, and he showed you Bond sometimes willing himself to live or to die. Fleming's action scenes are compelling because you are there with Bond experiencing the pain and exhilaration; with Faulks the action is described with journalistic objectivity.
So this isn't the novel it should be or could be, and what it is is no great shakes. I guess if you want to kill some time, it's worthwhile, but so too are the Bond novels of Gardner and Benson and even our own fanfics.
It is wonderful that Sebastian Faulks deigned to write a James Bond novel.
It is wonderful that the book has sold so well.
It is wonderful that there will, almost certainly, be more adult Bond novels (and for us litBond fans, that is important)
It is wonderful that the literary Bond is riding high in Fleming's centenary year and many a DMC reader will pick up a Fleming original and discover litBond.
The truth is Fleming made it look too easy and was self-deprecating about the enormous effort that went into crafting the original novels and short stories. It seems Faulks took "How To Write A Thriller" literally. The undervalued and underrated skill of Fleming's writing is only now being noted. Those novels have matured like fine wine: thrillers designed to be read as literature and to be appreciated like Châteauneuf-du-Pape.
It is hard for me to put my finger on exactly what I didn’t like about the book. To me it seemed he tried to mix the movie Bond with the literary Bond and the result was incongruous. Little things in the book bothered me like when he first went to dinner with Scarlet and let her do all the ordering. Letting Scarlet tag along when he goes back to the warehouse and the way he went back and got caught so easily. Who would do that? The whole turning the plot from drugs to a nuclear attack, I didn’t like that either. I was happy to see Mathis in the book but then disappointed he had so little involvement. I felt that Felix was just kind of forced in the plot just for the sake of mentioning his name. I was expecting a scene with Bond, Mathis, and Felix having lunch or something in Paris at the end and perversely hoping for it but expecting it not to work out well. I did like the twist at the end with Scarlet.
In the end I enjoyed the book overall, it was well worth buying and reading. I hope they keep turning out more continuation novels.
(FICTION WRITING IN THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY 101 RULE 1. A strong and assertive woman with post-sexual revolution attitudes, who can also hold her own in a scrap against any man MUST be present in EVERY case. Even if such a character is completely ahistorical to the setting, or not in keeping with the genre she MUST be shoehorned in. Failure to do so shall constitute proof of chauvinism.)
From the first mention of 004 (phrased in clumsily gender neutral language by M) I had no doubt that the new agent would turn out to be a woman, and figured out the identity of Scarlett hundreds of pages ahead of schedule.
I grew tired of John Gardners endless twists and doublecrosses, but at least the man knew how to execute them and managed to surprise me occasionally.
As others have noted, the demise of the Electroplan is anticlimatic and makes its elaborate introduction pointless.
Most characters and scenes, (in the case of Dr Julius Gorner even half a name!) are simply cribbed from Fleming.
Such lack of originality would not have been an insurmountable obstacle if Faulks had managed to pull off his imitations with sufficient flair and style. However all he achieves is to highlight the quality of the originals by comparison.
The most successful scene of Devil May Care for me is the Tennis match between Bond and Gorner but even this is far weaker than the comparable game of bridge in Moonraker and golf in Goldfinger.
I also gained a far more vivid impression of Blades and of the Royal St. Mark’s golf club than of Gorner's tennis club.
At least part of the reason is probably because they were modeled on real places, (Boodles in St James street London, and Royal St George's Golf Club in Kent) with which Fleming was very familiar.
As a citizen of 1950s London clubland, Fleming was writing in large part of what he knew about.
Faulks by contrast seems neither knowledgable or interested in this world.
His arrogant claim that he wrote the thing in six weeks illustrates his underestimation of the task at hand . Fleming may have written his books in that time but he was writing on the one hand about a world he was deeply familiar with and on the other, about things that sprang from his own subconscious. Faulks confidence that he could replicate that just as easily as the original writer smacks of hubris.
I wonder how he would have responded to a writer who having read birdsong, breezily claims that he "could do Faulks easily enough" while leaving out "the boring bits" by copying Sebastians writing schedule.
Ahh, but Faulks is a literary writer while Fleming is a mere genre writer. Condescension is only permissible in one direction.
Faulks didn't read Bond novels by other writers, but at the very least, I wish he had bothered to read Kingsley Amis's nonfiction 'James Bond Dossier.' Although I am not a fan of Amis's own continuation effort, in 'Dossier' Amis displays a real appreciation of Fleming and what makes his writing work.
Faulks has ultimately walked into the same trap as all the other continuation writers and concentrated on faithfully imitating the weakest and least important aspect of Flemings writing (the preposterous and formulaic plots)at the expense of all the things that make Fleming worth reading (the absurd and stylish value judgments and digressions, the passion for descriptive detail, a flair for the bizarre outlandish and grotesque)
Flemings books always convey a strong sense of place, something DMC for all its globetrotting (It spans more locations than any other Bond novel that comes to mind) notably lacks.
Fleming once stated self deprecatingly that his books were the product of an adolescent imagination. It doesn't seem to be a trait Faulks either shares or respects (By his own admission he had outgrown genre fiction before his teens) and a sense ironic detachment and condescension for the whole thing comes through strongly all the way through and pollutes the whole thing.
Even the weakest of the Fleming bond novels contain individual scenes that are intensely memorable. Devil May Care has no comparable setpieces.
Its a tired Bond-By-Numbers effort.
Faulks described how he had to write what Bond was thinking when he looked back through a door, and suddenly realised he didn't have any idea what he would be thinking at all! So he just ploughed on regardless, straight ahead... 8-)
Really, when you write Bond, you are Bond. He isn't some other guy going through the motions.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Now that TWO literary heavyweights, (Amis and Faulks )have tried and failed to produce Bond novels even remotely approaching the quality of the originals, perhaps Fleming can finally get his due as one of the finest thriller writers of the twentieth century ,on a par with Chandler and Le Carre.