How would you compare Devil May Care with Fleming's work?

Ask Dr No

I myself, though Faulk's novel to be very good. The writting felt like Flemings' style and the story set up is like Femings' too. I though that it was a true way to continue with Bond. i was just wondering if any other Devil may Care reader agrees with me.

Hardyboy

I suggest you have a look at the DMC reviews here:

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/30771/devil-may-care-reviews/

A lot of people talked about it in comparison to Fleming (including Yours Never-So Humbly). In a nutshell, I don't think the book can hold a candle to Fleming. . .the rest you can read on page 2 of that thread!

hegottheboot

It wasn't terrible by any means, but it never really sounded like actual Fleming. If people had dropped that whole idea, and just credited it to Faulks I probably would have liked it more. Still, good effort and hopefully we won't have to wait a few years for the next novel.

superado

Like Colonel Sun, it's tough that DMC draws closer scruitiny with Fleming, compared to Gardner, Benson and even Higson. But unlike Colonel Sun (which was a very good Bond novel that stood on its own), DMC obstinately threw down the gauntlet by its deliberate dialing back to the timeline of the original stories and yet failing to deliver at even the most basic level; not even counting the lazy character and plot development, any references to the era can be replaced with whatever period within the mid-20th century up to the present time and it wouldn't make a difference. However, the fundamental difference between DMC and Fleming is best summarized here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsyS0oHLNFA

Yankee Mike Bravo

I thought Faulk did a good job mimicking Fleming. Devil May Care had the feel of a Fleming novel. Where I thought the novel fell apart was with the bad guy's plot. It was so outlandish that, even if Bond had called in sick that week, the plot would still have failed. A bad guy with a dastardly plan is essential to a Bond book, and it just wasn't there.

Willie Garvin

I th Ghristobter Wood did fantasic witr wit ras two Bon books.

Napoleon Plural

Post New Year's hangover Mr Garvin?

Hardyboy

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Post New Year's hangover Mr Garvin?

Willie has had some medical problems which he's overcoming. Be gentle.

Napoleon Plural

Here's a tonic for Willie:

zig zag

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Here's a tonic for Willie:

Hmmmm........ Reminds me of a girl I used to know!

j.blades

i believe devil may care is actually pretty decent and i enjoyed it, you cant really compare it to flemings work though it was better than nothing at least their continuing bonds story right, im hoping for another story by someone as or more inclined then faulkes [spelling] right! he could have been writing as john gardner instead of fleming.

Solaris

The main problem for me with DMC is that I think Faulks tried too hard to mimic Fleming, showing off as to how clever he was to mimic another Author's wirting style, writing by numbers, and in doing so did nothing but pantomime him. Giving is an ally that is a poor man's Darko Kerim and a villian who is a poor man's Drax / Goldfinger with plot points stolen from all over the place. I originally liked the idea that Faulks was returning the Bond books to Fleming's time period and Fleming's Bond instead of giving is a strange amalgamation of the bond of Fleming's novels and the Bond of the films as other authors have done, but in also trying to be better at being Fleming than Fleming backfired horribly in my oppinion because Fleming wasn't the best writer in the fist place but many of the problems with his work could be ignored because of the time period in which the books were written, the ideology of the writer and the fact that the protaganist was the best written aspect of Fleming's work. But with Faulks he just transposed all of Fleming's weaknesses to a new story, forgetting Fleming's strengths and then trying to market this supposed new and Improved Fleming story to a reading public who want more from a thriller novel, let alone a Bond novel, than Faulks gave them.

Now, if I had any control over what was to happen with the next adult Bond book, and sadly I don't, I would keep to Fleming's time frame, be it set somewhere between the original novels or some time after TMWTGG. this is so it is still fleming's Bond and not the almagamation of Movie and Novel that I mentioned earlier, it also means that the novel would fit with Flemings work and will not become out of date with the audience, the 50s and 60s are far enough back in time that they appear classic whilst I still feel that some of Gardner's and Benson's work trying to fit Bond into the modern climate have not aged as well for it is nigh on impossible to fit them either with Fleming's Bond or with the Bond of the films with them instead inhabiting some strange paralell universe. the use of Fleming's timeline also means that any author does not need to try to keep both Novel and Movie fans happy in a modern setting.
Unlike Faulks however I would drop of Fleming's writing style, Neither Fleming Fans noe the general public need someone trying to be Fleming 2.0 and a writer doesn't need the pressure of having to mimic him. I would instead would find a writer who's exsisting wirting style could be used to tell an interesting story using Fleming's character of Bond, for if Bond is kept recognisable the reader does not need new character being imitations of previous characters and whatever new author tasked with continuing Bond's story can be left to their own devices to create interesting new allies and adversaries for 007.

Napoleon Plural

Agreed, fair comment. One problem is that by tying it into Fleming's world you run up against the problem that Bond had reached the end of his natural arc by The Man With The Golden Gun. Maybe the answer would be to have a fresher, revived Bond do a different kind of adventure but otherwise it's hard to ignore the trauma he's gone through and attempts to ignore it can just seem shallow while attempts to incorporate it can ignore that Bond is really running on empty and is at the end of the line. As WG pointed out, Wood managed to write in the style while making no mention really of his recent traumas in OHMSS and YOLT. But then again, it doesn't pretend to be in the same time period either.

Ask Dr No

Those are good points. The one thing I didn't like was how weak Scarlet's character was created through the story.

I myself love writting and am thinking of getting a degree in it and writting some novels to sell. I always wondered what I would do if I ever dared to write about Bond... anyway...

Yankee Mike Bravo

Ask Dr No wrote:

Those are good points. The one thing I didn't like was how weak Scarlet's character was created through the story.

I myself love writting and am thinking of getting a degree in it and writting some novels to sell. I always wondered what I would do if I ever dared to write about Bond... anyway...

First, you'd either get licensed by Fleming's Estate or limit yourself to fanfiction.

& IMHO, it's a mistake to write a Bond novel and not mimic Fleming's style. I can still remember how heartbroken I was when Colonel Sun came out and it was nothing like a Bond book.

superado

Solaris wrote:

The main problem for me with DMC is that I think Faulks tried too hard to mimic Fleming, showing off as to how clever he was to mimic another Author's wirting style, writing by numbers, and in doing so did nothing but pantomime him...

...I would instead would find a writer who's exsisting wirting style could be used to tell an interesting story using Fleming's character of Bond, for if Bond is kept recognisable the reader does not need new character being imitations of previous characters and whatever new author tasked with continuing Bond's story can be left to their own devices to create interesting new allies and adversaries for 007.

Honestly, I didn't get the impression that Faulks in the slightest tried to mimic Fleming's style based on my reading, except for the usual villain/henchmen/plot formulas that borrowed from the movies as well, not to count the fact that it was publicly mentioned that he intentionally did not attempt to even do so and would write in his own style. What I was looking for in terms of the "Fleming style" is a richness in the narrative through the rendering of the unique mood and characterization from the original books...capturing Fleming's soul, so to speak.

Christopher Wood has been mentioned and I forgot to consider him; the challenge for Wood was even greater because he practically transplanted Bond a decade into the future and yet managed to retain the Fleming characterization of James Bond, the recurring characters and even brought the fleshing out of the Bond girls (literally as well) up a couple of notches. On top of that, Wood had to deal with the restraint of the film plot lines which he reconciled nicely with a good writer's integrity by adding to the outlandish plots his own layers of realism, plausibility and character development at a level over Fleming's IMHO. Alternatively, I believe if Wood were to naturally pick up Bond from the timeline where Fleming left off, like what Amis and Faulks did, it would have been easier and more natural to preserve the characterization and flavor of the original stories, making his achievement more impressive. I don't think Wood received the credit he deserved, and I am very surprised at the fanfare and professional literary recognition that Faulks received for DMC.

Napoleon Plural

It's true, I can't add much to that except the backstory afforded by Wood to Jaws, which seemed to be on a par with that of Red Grant, really rather nasty and sinister. Imagine the fun you could have with other villains' backstories, Elliot Carver for instance.

j.blades

faulks made have barrowed some plot points but, there were some interesting original parts, one of my favourite parts, when bond is trying to get into the building and he trys swimming in, barley fitting in-between a piece of scrap metal [cutting himself] and then finally reaching the top only to be surrounded by men. :007)

i really could feel the intensity of the scene a nice feeling that i find to be only present in fleming novels but, faulk managed to pull it off in a way.

avenger

I enjoyed Devil May Care just as a Bond story.
I never compared it to Fleming's work,but I also
enjoyed the Gardner and Benson books that I
have read.
It is only natural that we should enjoy one book over another
just as we enjoy one Bond movie more than another.
It 's only one opinion versus another .

kybassmaster

I read DMC at the beach last summer. I really liked it, even though you cannot compare it to Fleming. It is like comparing Bond actors to each other. They both have written good works, but comparing the two is impossible. My nod goes to Fleming as far as personal preference is concerned.