Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.24 AVERAGE
3.24 AVERAGE
The first thing I’ll say about Devil May Care is that it feels like a Fleming novel – Sebastian Faulks has certainly done his homework. I read that he is a long-time fan of Fleming and it certainly shows. I have only read 9 of the original 14 Bond novels and this is up there with the best of them. The difference between Faulks and Flemings writing style is so little the only thing I noticed – and this may be my imagination - is that perhaps Faulks uses a little less descriptive text, in favour of keeping the story flowing and maintaining a high pace.
The story itself feels like a mashup of previous Bond novels, with the characters and locations all feeling very familiar. The villain, Dr Julius Gorner, comes across as a hybrid of Dr No and Auric Goldfinger. The game of tennis Gorner and Bond play is certainly very reminiscent of the round of golf Bond plays with Goldfinger. Even the villain’s sidekick, Chagrin feels like a clone of Oddjob and the love interest, Scarlett Papava is very much like Tatiana Romanova of From Russia With Love.
All of these similarities serve to give you the feeling that you are reading classic Bond, but also make the story perhaps just a little too predictable. As much as Faulks has done fantastically well writing as Fleming, I would have liked to see him bring something a little different to the table.
My only other criticism is that there seems to be an entire section missing from the story. Old hands Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis form part of a sub story arc that is brought to a halt without so much as a thanks-for-coming. The explanation for what happens to Gorner’s super-boat-with-wings feels like a mere footnote that should have merited far more. I can only imagine the editors were keen to shorten the novel, in keeping with Fleming’s works, and removed a large part.
That said and as mentioned before the pace is high and Faulks, from me at least, easily gets a 4 star rating, something I’ve only given to two Fleming novels so far (‘From Russia With Love’ and ‘Live and Let Die’). The biggest shame of all is that Faulks stated soon after publication that, though he enjoyed working on it, he wouldn’t be writing any more Bond – I would have certainly liked to read more.
The story itself feels like a mashup of previous Bond novels, with the characters and locations all feeling very familiar. The villain, Dr Julius Gorner, comes across as a hybrid of Dr No and Auric Goldfinger. The game of tennis Gorner and Bond play is certainly very reminiscent of the round of golf Bond plays with Goldfinger. Even the villain’s sidekick, Chagrin feels like a clone of Oddjob and the love interest, Scarlett Papava is very much like Tatiana Romanova of From Russia With Love.
All of these similarities serve to give you the feeling that you are reading classic Bond, but also make the story perhaps just a little too predictable. As much as Faulks has done fantastically well writing as Fleming, I would have liked to see him bring something a little different to the table.
My only other criticism is that there seems to be an entire section missing from the story. Old hands Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis form part of a sub story arc that is brought to a halt without so much as a thanks-for-coming. The explanation for what happens to Gorner’s super-boat-with-wings feels like a mere footnote that should have merited far more. I can only imagine the editors were keen to shorten the novel, in keeping with Fleming’s works, and removed a large part.
That said and as mentioned before the pace is high and Faulks, from me at least, easily gets a 4 star rating, something I’ve only given to two Fleming novels so far (‘From Russia With Love’ and ‘Live and Let Die’). The biggest shame of all is that Faulks stated soon after publication that, though he enjoyed working on it, he wouldn’t be writing any more Bond – I would have certainly liked to read more.
Faulks has done a great job of writing this new Bond adventure in the style of Ian Fleming. A great read for those who are fans of the original Bond books.
I have never read an Ian Fleming book so I have nothing to base the comparision on ... does he stay true? I don't know. I do know I did like the characterization of Bond. Somehow he came across as vunerable, yet swaggering at the same time. I don't want to spoil anything but I didn't like the representation of the female double 0 (I hope that is ambiguous enough) she just wasn't cool enough and she was emotional and slightly blubbering. But other than that and the abrubtness at the end I enjoyed it.
First Bond book I've read since I was a child and so far it seems to live up to what I enjoyed as a kid.
Not entirely bad. There were a few parts that were a little dry...
Case 1: In Devil May Care, Sebastian Faulks writes as Ian Fleming. "as Ian Fleming?" Personally, I don't think this novel read like a Fleming. Some parts, maybe; others, certainly not. Faulk's Bond's dialect didn't truly capture Fleming's Bond's dialogue(just something about it). He's not a bad writer, he's actually good, he just should have not tried to force himself to write with Fleming's style.
Case 2: Sebastian Faulks said that he was trying to write a "best of Bond" book. For one, I didn't even think that this story was as grand scale as some of the other Fleming novels; and he was TRYING to make it GRAND SCALE! Also, instead of Devil May Care being a "best of Bond" book, all it did was steal scenes and things from other Bond books and piece them together into this "278 page DoubleDay bound, ripoff of other Bond books" book. For instance, Odd Job and Chagrin... What is the difference? They're practically the same character but just with different names. The tennis match-- which I actually rather enjoyed -- rivaled the golfing game with Auric Goldfinger. There were a lot of other scenes and elements of the book that resembled previous Bond scenes and elements from earlier books which made me feel rather cheated. However, for sake of time, I'll stop with those two.
Why this book is getting a 3 Star: This book is getting a 3 Star because there were two scenes that I really did like...
Tennis Match with Gorner
and
Final Showdown with Gorner on the Huckleberry Finn
These two scenes catching my attention and my appreciation of the fact that Faulks placed this novel in the 1960s (unlike Gardner and Benson) made me my rating from a 2* to a 3*.
Reflecting: This book was just too cliche to really attract much attention. Halfway through I thought I might be better off not finishing it. (I did finish it however by skimming the last 50 pages or so)
3/5 Stars
Case 1: In Devil May Care, Sebastian Faulks writes as Ian Fleming. "as Ian Fleming?" Personally, I don't think this novel read like a Fleming. Some parts, maybe; others, certainly not. Faulk's Bond's dialect didn't truly capture Fleming's Bond's dialogue(just something about it). He's not a bad writer, he's actually good, he just should have not tried to force himself to write with Fleming's style.
Case 2: Sebastian Faulks said that he was trying to write a "best of Bond" book. For one, I didn't even think that this story was as grand scale as some of the other Fleming novels; and he was TRYING to make it GRAND SCALE! Also, instead of Devil May Care being a "best of Bond" book, all it did was steal scenes and things from other Bond books and piece them together into this "278 page DoubleDay bound, ripoff of other Bond books" book. For instance, Odd Job and Chagrin... What is the difference? They're practically the same character but just with different names. The tennis match-- which I actually rather enjoyed -- rivaled the golfing game with Auric Goldfinger. There were a lot of other scenes and elements of the book that resembled previous Bond scenes and elements from earlier books which made me feel rather cheated. However, for sake of time, I'll stop with those two.
Why this book is getting a 3 Star: This book is getting a 3 Star because there were two scenes that I really did like...
Tennis Match with Gorner
and
Final Showdown with Gorner on the Huckleberry Finn
These two scenes catching my attention and my appreciation of the fact that Faulks placed this novel in the 1960s (unlike Gardner and Benson) made me my rating from a 2* to a 3*.
Reflecting: This book was just too cliche to really attract much attention. Halfway through I thought I might be better off not finishing it. (I did finish it however by skimming the last 50 pages or so)
3/5 Stars
A few years ago I read about half of the original Ian Fleming 007 series and generally found them quite enjoyable and different than I had expected based on the film franchise. Don't get me wrong, they're not great literature, but they are ripping yarns that reflect their era and are much darker than one might expect. Since Fleming's death, there have been several writers authorized to continue the franchise (including Kingsley Amis!), but I'd never been that interested in trying any of them. However, the involvement of a non-thriller writer like Sebastian Faulks -- whom I've never read, but have heard many good things about -- intrigued me enough to pick this up and give it a whirl.
The first good thing is that the book follows the chronology just of the original Fleming books, taking place after the last one, in 1967. It opens with Bond on extended physical and mental convalescent leave, seriously considering whether or not he's had enough of working in the field and is ready to settle down to the quiet life of a desk agent. M calls him away from this break to help out a new 004, by "talking to" a curious businessman named Dr. Gorner, a Lithuanian who just might be the world's foremost heroin dealer. (This set up is a little odd, unless "talk to" is supposed to be a dry euphemism for "kill" or something like that.) In any event, soon enough, Bond is off to Paris to sniff around Gorner, and the stage is set for a classic Bond adventure. And, it has to be said, that it all feels very much like a blend of the original books and some of the better elements from the films:
* The villain is diabolical and deformed (he has a monkey paw for one hand!)
* Bond and he go mano-a-mano in their first meeting (on a tennis court)
* The story takes Bond to an exotic locale (Iran),
* The villain has crazy military vehicle called an Ekranoplan (which is entirely real and historically accurate, right down to its nickname)
* Bond has a suave, likable local ally on the ground a la Darko Karim.
* Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis both have supporting roles
* There are two beautiful women (twins!)
* The window-dressing is all in place (plenty of descriptions of food, booze, cigarettes, clothing, etc.)
* There's plenty of action, including gunplay, hand-to-hand combat, a car chase, and an exciting action sequence in an airplane.
Indeed, the book struck me as a rather effective imitation of the classic Bond novels from its structure down to the various details. I know some Bond fanatics feel like the Fleming style isn't there, but quite honestly, I don't recall Fleming having much style to begin with. There are some minor missteps in terms of continuity with the Fleming books (likely only to bother the trainspotters among the readership), a few bad Roger Mooreish puns creep in, and rather disappointingly, the villain delivers an extended monologue to the captured Bond explaining his master plan in enough detail to give Bond all the info he needs to thwart it. There's also a "big twist" at the very end concerning the identity of one of the major characters which is unlikely to surprise most readers (even Bond admits that he had worked it out early on).
One final aspect of the book that's worth mentioning is how Faulks, as Fleming did in many of the original books, takes an issue contemporary to the time (the rise of heroin) and uses it as the catalyst for the adventure. And although the villain's plan is as insane and grandiose as any Bond villain's, he weaves in quite a number of historical British colonial atrocities as justification (Opium War, Potato Famine, the Malay and Mau Mau rebellions), which Bond has no response to. All in all, a completely satisfying return to the 1960s, when Bond had to save the world without the help of computers and cell phones!
The first good thing is that the book follows the chronology just of the original Fleming books, taking place after the last one, in 1967. It opens with Bond on extended physical and mental convalescent leave, seriously considering whether or not he's had enough of working in the field and is ready to settle down to the quiet life of a desk agent. M calls him away from this break to help out a new 004, by "talking to" a curious businessman named Dr. Gorner, a Lithuanian who just might be the world's foremost heroin dealer. (This set up is a little odd, unless "talk to" is supposed to be a dry euphemism for "kill" or something like that.) In any event, soon enough, Bond is off to Paris to sniff around Gorner, and the stage is set for a classic Bond adventure. And, it has to be said, that it all feels very much like a blend of the original books and some of the better elements from the films:
* The villain is diabolical and deformed (he has a monkey paw for one hand!)
* Bond and he go mano-a-mano in their first meeting (on a tennis court)
* The story takes Bond to an exotic locale (Iran),
* The villain has crazy military vehicle called an Ekranoplan (which is entirely real and historically accurate, right down to its nickname)
* Bond has a suave, likable local ally on the ground a la Darko Karim.
* Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis both have supporting roles
* There are two beautiful women (twins!)
* The window-dressing is all in place (plenty of descriptions of food, booze, cigarettes, clothing, etc.)
* There's plenty of action, including gunplay, hand-to-hand combat, a car chase, and an exciting action sequence in an airplane.
Indeed, the book struck me as a rather effective imitation of the classic Bond novels from its structure down to the various details. I know some Bond fanatics feel like the Fleming style isn't there, but quite honestly, I don't recall Fleming having much style to begin with. There are some minor missteps in terms of continuity with the Fleming books (likely only to bother the trainspotters among the readership), a few bad Roger Mooreish puns creep in, and rather disappointingly, the villain delivers an extended monologue to the captured Bond explaining his master plan in enough detail to give Bond all the info he needs to thwart it. There's also a "big twist" at the very end concerning the identity of one of the major characters which is unlikely to surprise most readers (even Bond admits that he had worked it out early on).
One final aspect of the book that's worth mentioning is how Faulks, as Fleming did in many of the original books, takes an issue contemporary to the time (the rise of heroin) and uses it as the catalyst for the adventure. And although the villain's plan is as insane and grandiose as any Bond villain's, he weaves in quite a number of historical British colonial atrocities as justification (Opium War, Potato Famine, the Malay and Mau Mau rebellions), which Bond has no response to. All in all, a completely satisfying return to the 1960s, when Bond had to save the world without the help of computers and cell phones!
A materialist's dream of international affairs. Quite nice for the thing it is.
Faulks, while closely adhering to Fleming's streamlined style, works more of a 21st sensibility into the proceedings. Fairly absent is the casual racism that marred Fleming's works, a product of their time that always left me a little queasy. Faulks' take on the secret agent shows a little alteration as well. This Bond is slower to anger, more aware of others. Less of a sociopath, I'd guess you'd say, and a little closer to the movie Bonds in spirit. This has its good points and less-than-good points. Part of the real appeal of the literary manifestations of Bond was how absolutely ruthless he was, ruthlessness of a level rarely seen in the films - although Quantum of Solace (highly and unfairly regarded as a lesser Bond, in my opinion) was likely the closest we've come to seeing Bond as the conscience-absent machine of the novels. Seeing Bond develop feelings for Scarlet was a crack in his emotional armour that may have signified a new growth and maturity for the uber-spy, but felt false.
Read the rest of the review here.
Read the rest of the review here.
I've never read any of Ian Fleming's books, but 'Devil May Care' certainly captures the feel of the early James Bond movies. After growing up with Bond marathons on TBS, it was very easy to picture Sean Connery swaggering his way through these pages. The characters and plot points were a little cliched, but overall I enjoyed it, and I think any fan of the old James Bond movies will enjoy this one too.