SOLO by William Boyd ::: September 26, 2013

Interesting. Though, to correct myself, I thought Deaver was writing as Fleming while it was actually Faulks.

Still, this doesn't look any better:

Devil May Care:
It was a wet evening in Paris. On the slate roofs of the big boulevards and on the small mansards of the Latin quarter, the rain kept up a ceaseless patter.

vs

Casino Royale:
The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion produced by high gambling - a compost of greed and fear and nervous tension - becomes unbearable and the senses awake and revolt from it.

Like I said, Faulks was writing a pastiche that demanded your approval, then resented you when you didn't give it.

So, Higson won't be writing the next series of Young Bond books. What a shame. Still, I'm glad IFP have plans to keep it going. I hope Bond won't still be13 though. We need a Bond in his early twenties in wartime. Unfortunately I'm starting to lose confidence in authors writing Bond due to the disappointing DMC and CB.

DEVIL MAY CARE and CARTE BLANCHE were such staggering disappointments that I can't muster any enthusiasm for Boyd. They managed to make Benson look good (staggeringly inadequate though his prose may have been, Benson had a knack for colorful plot devices and sequences).

Yes, that's true about Benson. Too bad he couldn't write better...alot better.

I'm still excited about a new young Bond series and an adult Bond yarn but to a lesser extent than I would have been a few years ago due to CB and DMC. I still feel greater enthusiasm for a new Bond book though than I do a new Bond film.

Harmsway wrote:

DEVIL MAY CARE and CARTE BLANCHE were such staggering disappointments that I can't muster any enthusiasm for Boyd. They managed to make Benson look good (staggeringly inadequate though his prose may have been, Benson had a knack for colorful plot devices and sequences).

I'm in agreement with your there on all those points.

Harmsway wrote:

DEVIL MAY CARE and CARTE BLANCHE were such staggering disappointments that I can't muster any enthusiasm for Boyd.

If you haven't read it, Harms, you should read Boyd's THE NEW CONFESSIONS. I think you'd love it.

I have no enthusiasm whatsoever for his Bond novel, though (even though, in theory, he would seem to be a wonderful choice). Like I say, the problem with the continuation novels today doesn't seem to be the writer but the nature of the gig.

While I agree that the last two continuation novels did lack in the -in-awe-department I always look forward in hope of a better novel.

I find it most dissapointing that Charlie Higson currently isn't doing something in the 007 series as he did got the mood very right in the Young Bond series.

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

DEVIL MAY CARE and CARTE BLANCHE were such staggering disappointments that I can't muster any enthusiasm for Boyd.

If you haven't read it, Harms, you should read Boyd's THE NEW CONFESSIONS. I think you'd love it.

I have no enthusiasm whatsoever for his Bond novel, though (even though, in theory, he would seem to be a wonderful choice). Like I say, the problem with the continuation novels today doesn't seem to be the writer but the nature of the gig.

How do you mean, the nature of the gig? I think IFP give the writers alot of freedom. I can't help thinking that the latter is to blame. Faulks didn't take it seriously, Deaver did his usual thing with the abundance of twists, and rebooted the character with the intention of creating a man who "everyone should like" (he told me this) who turned out to be very bland and generic, and Benson couldn't write. Pearson, Wood, Higson, Amis (although I find CS somewhat ploddish in parts) and Gardner to a decent extent in some of his books (although I realise many disagree with me in terms of this author) can prove they can do it and I'm sure there is another author out there who can also deliver a fabulous adult Bond novel. Whether it's Boyd or not I could never say. Maybe they'll never find the right author but if I'm right in understanding you, I really don't think it's the "nature of the gig".

Quote :

I think IFP give the writers alot of freedom.

I'm not so sure. The last two novels read like they were brainstormed and written by a comity.

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

I think IFP give the writers alot of freedom.

I'm not so sure. The last two novels read like they were brainstormed and written by a comity.

That's what I thought too. I said to Deaver that I had heard that IFP placed restrictions on him and he said that he didn't know where I had heard that because the only thing they had told him to change was when Bond was in Dubai and had some wine with Felix. Originally, Deaver wasn't going to have him drink it because he was soon going out on the job but IFP said that Bond would never turn down what ever kind of wine it was. Unless he was lying it seems like IFP give the writers a fair bit of freedom. It certainly sounds like they didn't back in the Benson and Gardner days though. Gardner's son said that many restrictions were placed on his father.

HA! Of course Deaver didn't even want him to drink!

A man "everyone should like". That's Deaver's problem. Postman Pat is a man everyone likes, not James Bond.

Seems to me there's total freedom. The writers can write what and how they like in return for th use of their name.

The only thing IFP seem to demand is that the lead character is named James Bond.

Sharky wrote:

Based upon this little interview I am not certain that the man does know the difference between the movie Bond and the literary Bond.

Faulks, Boyd.... and Craig???? Sounds like a Guardianistas plot to neuter James Bond.

And, obviously, make a lot of money out of it.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

HA! Of course Deaver didn't even want him to drink!

A man "everyone should like". That's Deaver's problem. Postman Pat is a man everyone likes, not James Bond.

IFP couldn't have chosen a writer more ill-suited to Bond if they'd tried.

saint mark wrote:

Based upon this little interview I am not certain that the man does know the difference between the movie Bond and the literary Bond.

This was quite a problem with Faulks, and from that interview, it does sound as though it will be a problem with Boyd.

"I'm very familiar with that Cold War, World War II, world of secret service operations, and so I'm not having to research that..."

That could be a problem, as well--an author basing the 1960s setting in his book on his "vivid" childhood memories, rather than extensive research.

To be fair, I think he's talking about the research he's done for previous WWII/Cold War novels, not just his childhood memories.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

IFP couldn't have chosen a writer more ill-suited to Bond if they'd tried.

I think Carte Blanche would have been a great book if it weren't a Bond novel. It's actually one of Deaver's stronger novels, because:

a) He actually provides evidence for the reader to work things out. Most of the time - particularly in the Lincoln Rhyme series - the reader needs to know a lot about where certain types of dirt can be found in Manhattan.

b) His plot is pretty stable. There is the shift in the final act that reveals Hydt was being paid to set off the Cutter (personally, I think he broke character there) and that Willing was responsible, but it's pretty straightforward. Compare that to the likes of The Cold Moon and Edge, where the plot changes about fifteen times, as if Deaver is trying to confuse the reader so they don't guess the ending.

c) The action doesn't jump back and forth. I've noticed that Deaver has a tendency to cut away just as something is about to happen, switching to another character who receives news of what was about to happen. For example, in The Empty Chair, Amelia Sachs believes a suspect is innocent and can lead them to a body. As she prepares to break him out of a county prison cell, three rednecks decide the suspect is guilty and are prepared to torture him for information. Just as they are about to break into the cell while Sachs is in there, the story cuts to Lincoln Rhyme being told that Sachs has escaped with the suspect and the three rednecks are unconscious - and the reader never saw any of it.

d) He doesn't aim below the belt. I noticed - again in The Empty Chair - that Deaver can be contradictory. He presented a character as an expert on a certain subject. The reader was given no reason to doubt this character's abilities or motives. The character emphatically said "no" when asked if a particular scenario had played out. However, three hundred pages later, we learned that it had happened in precisely the way the expert had said it did not.

I think Deaver was an okay choice for Bond. He wasn't perfect, but he did craft a decent thriller, with the occasional surprise - the revelation that Niall Dunne was planning to derail the freight train to get scrap metal rather than dump the methyl isocyanite into the Danube was particularly clever.

Well, as I've said, I found the CB story relatively enjoyable. The main problem was obviously Bond himself. This man just didn't seem like the literary or the cinematic James Bond at all. Gone were most of his personality traits. We could have been reading about anyone who shared the same name. That's what made the book so disappointing for me. There were two or three times too when Deaver shouldn't have hopped right to the end of a scene in order to suprise the reader. I feel it would have been more exciting to follow the narrative step by step. It's the inaccurate portrayal of Bond himself that largely makes this book a flop for me though.

The most Bondian bit of Carte Blanche for me was probably this -

'Usually we never hear the sound that wakes us. Perhaps we might, if it repeats: an alarm or an urgent voice. But a once-only noise rouses without registering in our consciousness. James Bond didn't know what lifted him from his dreamless sleep. He glanced at his watch. It was just after one p.m. Then he smelt a delicious aroma: a combination of floral perfume - jasmine, he believed - and the ripe, rich scent of a vintage champagne. Above him he saw the heavenly form of a beautiful Middle Eastern woman, wearing a sleek burgundy skirt and long-sleeved golden shirt over her voluptuous figure. Her collar was secured with a pearl, which was different from the lower buttons. He found the tiny cream dot particularly appealing. Her hair was as blue-black as crow feathers, pinned up, though a teasing strand fell loose cupping one side of her face, which was subtly and meticulously made-up. He said to her, 'Salum alaikum'. 'Wa alaikum salam' she replied. She set the crystal flute on the tray table in front of him, along with the elegant bottle of the king of Moets, Dom Perignon. 'I'm sorry, Mr Bond, I've woken you. I'm afraid the cork popped more loudly than I'd hoped. I was just going to leave the glass and not disturb you.' 'Shukran,' he said, as he took the glass. 'And don't worry. My second favourite way to wake up is to the sound of champagne opening.' She responded to this with a subtle smile. 'I can arrange some lunch for you too.' 'That would be lovely, if it's not too much trouble'. She returned to the galley.'

The multiple 'Could this character be the villain? Ah no they're not, had you going there ... maybe it's this one?' stuff towards the end got on my nerves.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

The most Bondian bit of Carte Blanche for me was probably this

Unfortunately, it's square in the middle of the least-Bondian part of the story - Bond's flamboyant Arabian friend loaning him a private jet to chase Hydt as thanks for having saved his son from a gang of bullies.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

The multiple 'Could this character be the villain? Ah no they're not, had you going there ... maybe it's this one?' stuff towards the end got on my nerves.

That's standard Deaver fare. He tends to try and set up multiple characters as being the primary villain, but rather than show evidence linking them to the plot, he prefers to give everyone a motive for being bad, and then clears the board by having the characters treat each potential villain as being the villain. And the audience is forced to go along for the ride because there is no exculpatory evidence. When Bond fixed on Hydt as the villain, there should have been something to suggest that Hydt was not as guilty as first believed - as something for the reader to pick up on - and as Bond chased after Hydt, there should have been more evidence that the reader could process into a theory of the crime.

That's the thing about a good mystery: the audience should be working things out at the same time as the characters. If all goes according to plan, they will begin to suspect one character just as the characters do, and their suspicions should be confirmed within a page or two of the characters finally working it out. If the reader comes to the conclusion too soon, there is no real mystery to the mystery. If the characters work it out before the readers, it makes the readers feel stupid. Especially when you're reading a book like Carte Blanche and the only evidence presented is some metal shavings and an organisation changing its name. We as an audience are never given a reason to suspect Willing until Bond starts feeling that something is amiss. And it is never really explained how Bond came to the conclusion that Willing was guilty. It just happens, and it's maddening. I could tolerate the way the story presents Hydt, Dunne and Lamb as being equally-viable suspects if only we were given a reason to suspect Willing was a suspect. It's almost as if Deaver is afraid the audience will work things out before he wants them to, so he deliberately muddies the waters to slow the readers down.

Bounine wrote:

Well, as I've said, I found the CB story relatively enjoyable. The main problem was obviously Bond himself. This man just didn't seem like the literary or the cinematic James Bond at all. Gone were most of his personality traits. We could have been reading about anyone who shared the same name.

And that alone thoroughly discredits the novel as a Bond work. Unlike the films, the character of James Bond is everything to the novels.