For those of us (Bounine, myself and anyone else) that have finished the book and wish to discuss its pros and cons.
Having now digested the read and let it settle I do have a few issues with the book.
It was a good read. Deaver knows how to craft a thriller but upon reflection I am not crazy about his style.
In The Costco Connection magazine of all places, he seems to be very pleased with himself.
" I was very conscious of the fact that I have not written a spy book before but.....I have to say, immodestly, that I think I pulled it off pretty well."
Ok if you do say so yourself. Actually I think he overcompensated, trying to show off his tradecraft research. It feels like one is being lectured on the spy business half the time. Maybe this is helpful for his regular readers but its not quite so necessary for those of us that have read Bond before.
He says it was important that he not disappoint his regular readers.
" I made sure when I was coming up with the idea for the story, and then outlining it, and then writing it, that my fans were going to enjoy the story that I told because they've come to expect a certain type of novel from me,..."
Deaver does a lot of, "what appears to be happening, isn't what's really happening". This literary device permeates the entire book. It does get a bit tiring after a while as it never lets up.
Overall the plot was kind of lame. The book was quite interesting in parts but by the end, so many red herrings and false flags had been dispensed with, that it wasn't terribly clear what the story was supposed to be all about.
Felicity Willing turns out to be the big bad, which really wasn't that interesting a development.
I would have been more entertained if he had stuck to his original lead villain who was a pretty dastardly character, and not emasculated him later in the book as the pawn of Irish killer boy, who turned out to be the pawn of the femme fatale.
He said he read all of the Fleming books as inspiration. If so, why couldn't he have curbed his mystery thriller inclinations a little better and written something closer to a Fleming spy thriller.
As Bounine suggested in another thread, Bond is a little too nice. The SAPS chick throws a lot of attitude at him early on, which Bond just rolls with.
But one really grevious fault I think, is Bond failing to dispense with the killer who killed Leiter's man in Dubai. This guy was a fully deranged killer, with Bond-ally blood on his hands, who was also determined to kill Bond because of some BS about Bond letting down his useless operative brother in the first chapter train derailment adventure.
When the two finally clash though, Deaver wrote the section so that Bond would be interrupted by Miss law and order SAPS chick, who screams at Bond not to kill homicidal-killer boy. But our poor misunderstood Double O Agent assassin, had no intentions of killing him. No Bond was going to take him to hospital, if only Dudley-Do-Right SAPS girl understood. Poor misunderstood Bond. He's not a really a stone killer, if only she understood. Gag.
Reality check, Deaver. Yes Bond is. Bond kills bad guys. He doesn't take them to hospital especially not after they have wasted one of his trusted allies and tried to kill him 6 different ways.
Unless I have got this all wrong and vengeful brother wasn't the Dubai killer but was just hanging around the scene, stalking Bond.
Forgive me. Deaver's never ending sleight of hand and twist and turns can leave one confused.
Carte Blanche is a good read but its not quite what I want in a Bond adventure. A nastier Bond would be a step in the right direction. Less twist and turns too.
More straightforward Bond on the job, blunt instrument, pursuing the villain, unraveling his scheme, and blowing it all to hell would be good, along with Fleming style intrigue, betrayal revenge, reflection etc.
Home 
Events 
WIN! 
