John Gardner's Never Send Flowers (1993) - James Bond's love of Disneyland, EuroDisney etc.

What are the considered views of the literary James Bond fans here on the BAB forums concerning James Bond's stated love of Disneyland in Never Send Flowers? More specifically, Gardner has his version of James Bond enthuse about a past trip (with a girlfriend) to Disney World in Orlando, Florida in the United States. He also enjoys some of the rides in the Euro Disney locale that forms the last third or so of the 1993 continuation novel. Some fans blanche at this characterisation of James Bond, but we must remember his rather lustful recalling of the innocence of his childhood in Chapter 1 of OHMSS (1963) and in FRWL (1957).

Would Ian Fleming be spinning in his grave at the idea of his creation James Bond ("blunt instrument" and secret agent) going to any Disneyland facility in the world, even though he had his Irma Bunt refer to "a Disneyland of Death" in YOLT (1964)? In Gardner's Licence Renewed (1981) he refers to Murik's castle as being like the one at Disneyland (the original one at Anaheim opened back in 1955, presumably). Likewise, in Never Send Flowers, Gardner has his Bond refer to villain David Dragonpol's castle Schloss Drache as "bigger than the one at Disneyland" (to his Swiss spy companion Flicka von Grusse) many chapters before the Euro Disney locale is even revealed.

Does James Bond, cast in the mould of a homicide detective throughout, hunting a crazed ex-actor and serial killer of politicians, intelligence operatives, royalty and celebrities come across as at all credible in Gardner's Never Send Flowers (1993)? Does Gardner, with the Cold War over and the New World Order and 'the end of history' theory at its height, do James Bond justice in Never Send Flowers? Does a plot involving HRH Princess Diana and her sons Princes William and Harry in a plot to have them assassinated as a Royal Party visit to the new (1992) Euro Disney facility outside Paris repel readers after the tragic death of Lady Diana in the early hours of 31 August 1997 in a high-speed car crash which also killed her lover 'Dodi' Al-Fayed, and her driver? Is Never Send Flowers considered by readers to be more unpalatable to a modern audience now that events have taken the course that they have? In this way, the novel is rather similar to Frederick Forsyth's "docu-thriller" The Day of the Jackal (1971) where The Jackal's (OAS ordered) target for assassination is the hated President Charles de Gaulle of France. The only problem was, on 9 November 1970 it was announced by the French Government that "General de Gaulle est mort" which some observers felt rather took the sting out of the tale for readers of the docu-thriller on the novel's publication the following year, in 1971. It is still an excellent thriller which works on many levels, IMO. We know that, in any event, de Gaulle and Princess Diana and her sons, will not be allowed to be killed by an assassin as the hero always saves the day in this type of book. Perhaps if Gardner had used a fictional celebrity as the target at Euro Disney (like some of his targets were in Scorpius) the novel's climax at Euro Disney would have been much more effective. Gardner had originally planned for an open park, but was stopped by the Disney orghanisation - the climax could only be held in a closed park with no Royal Party there. Gardner had also originally planned to have famous rock band/stars as the target as indficated in OO7 Magazine Raymond Benson interview 'Gardner's World'. Perhaps this too might have been more effective.

What is the fan consensus, then, on the elephant in the room: a novel involving the assassination of the famous princess, which precedes her death by only four short years? Does this take away any suspense from the novel at all, in the same way as happened to Forsyth's (admiottedly much more famous and successful) 1971 novel? Also, the recent attempts by Al-Queada/ the rump of the Taliban to assassinate Prince Harry in Helmand province at Camp Bastion at the time of writing (September 2012) come to one's mind. The novel Never Send Flowers again seems relevant almost 20 years after its publication in July 1993. I see Never Send Flowers as a polemic against our modern-day celebrity-obsessed culture - another thing Gardner predicted IMHO. Everything we have experienced since 2000 and the new Millennium has been predicted here by Gardner: Big Brother, OK! Mag, Hello! Mag, Reality TV, The X Factor - the cheap scramble for fame and fortune in the fast life of the modern world he so obviously hated. Dragonpol's slayings around the globe are the perfect antidote to this...almost like Gardner is using this character to act out his agent against the evils and perversions of the post-Cold War world - a world of high fashion, high politics, wars and rumours of wars, mass media 24 hour news and content everywhere - no such thing as useless information.

As a side note to all of this Ian Fleming himself also refers in two places to Disneyland in his non-fiction travel book Thrilling Cities (1963). It also gets a mention (along with another American theme park whose name escapes me) in his first-person viewpoint novel The Spy Who Loved Me (1962). Also, what are literary Bond fans' thoughts on the villain of the piece, ex-world famous film and stage actor David Dragonpol? Dragonpol keeps the Fleming villain theme of St. George against the Dragon going, as does Bond and his Swiss counterpart Flicka von Grusse's 'Dragonfly' nickname. We are told that Dragonpol is a name that goes all the way back to the Doomsday book of the 11th century - 1085, to be exact. Dragonpol apparenently translates as 'DragonHead', and is of Anglo-Irish origin. The name Dragonpol is obviously a fantastic, fantasy name like Pussy Galore or Lavender Peacock. It sounds silly, bizarre and Dragonpol comes across as a bit of a buffoon, dressed as Richard II and spinning a globe of the world (when his sister Maeve Horton is painting him in his most famous roles) when he first meets Bond and Flicka at his Schloss Drache castle home.

As well as the Euro Disney element, which Bond supports and defends trhroughout (although Fleming's Bond had a noted hatred of all things Americana in DAF, 1956), another interesting element of the novel is its theatrical museum with holograms etc. which feels like a reworked 'Bunker Hill' role playing game scene of Role of Honour, which had originally been envisioned as the Battle of Waterloo involving a (then) futuristic Bond computer strategy game of the type Gardner himself said he played in his leisure time in a 1984 radio interview with Don Swaim, available to listen to on the internet currently.

Your reasoned opinions on this novel are very much appreciated - I'm currently writing a lengthy article on this, as may be apparent from the length of this post! These questions keep running round my head like little white mice and I'd really love to hear your opinions on these issues. Perhaps only I think about this stuff in my den, but I'd like to think others here on BAB think about it too!

UPDATE EDIT: What do BAB members think of the decision to have James Bond cast as a homicide detective throughout? Does this tally with Ian Fleming's "blunt instrument" and spy, James Bond?

I'm very interested in the 'James Bond in the role of a policeman/homicide detective' side of this topic. Many of Gardner's previous novels read like Agatha Christie-style mystery detective novels as well as Cold War thrillers, so this aspect of Never Send Flowers does not, perhaps, come as a surprise altogether.

What are fans thoughts of this aspect of Never Send Flowers? The 'James Bond in the role of a policeman' aspect of the novel?

Does this tally with Ian Fleming's original conception of the James Bond character at all?

I'm particularly interested in the 'James Bond as policeman/homicide detecive' angle here. As to my idea of Never Send Flowers as a polemic against our celebrity mass culture - your thoughts are again appreciated here.

On Never Send Flowers in general - was John Gardner "taking the piss", to use the vernacular here?

These, and all associated questions are of interest to me and I'd like some answers in these saturated days of Skyfall news - not the best time to ask about a 20 year old John Gardner continuation novel on here that few of you have probaly ever actually read.

I don't know about Fleming spinning in his grave but I certainly am - and I'm not even dead. I'm not a fan of Gardner anyway but the Disney thing was a step too far. I remember taking a sharp intake of horrified breath upon reading it, hated it even more than everything else in Gardner. Yuk.

Santa wrote:

I don't know about Fleming spinning in his grave but I certainly am - and I'm not even dead.

I don't understand. What are you doing in Fleming's grave? Isn't that illegal?

I only read Never Send Flowers once and, even as a fan of Gardner's work, I despised it. A very clear example of the publishers forcing Gardner to shoe-horn Bond into a novel written for another character.

The continuation Bond novels, for me, are very hit and miss as far as quality. Even Benson creates a gem every now and then, with ZERO MINUS TEN being far superior to EON's cinematic entry from 1997.

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

Would Ian Fleming be spinning in his grave at the idea of his creation James Bond ("blunt instrument" and secret agent) going to any Disneyland facility in the world, even though he had his Irma Bunt refer to "a Disneyland of Death" in YOLT (1964)?

Yep. Bond would despise the place. Overcrowded, overpriced, and very phony.

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

Does a plot involving HRH Princess Diana and her sons Princes William and Harry in a plot to have them assassinated as a Royal Party visit to the new (1992) Euro Disney facility outside Paris repel readers after the tragic death of Lady Diana in the early hours of 31 August 1997 in a high-speed car crash which also killed her lover 'Dodi' Al-Fayed, and her driver?

Not particularly. But I daresay Gardner should have avoided making real-life royalty the target here.

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

Also, what are literary Bond fans' thoughts on the villain of the piece, ex-world famous film and stage actor David Dragonpol? Dragonpol keeps the Fleming villain theme of St. George against the Dragon going, as does Bond and his Swiss counterpart Flicka von Grusse's 'Dragonfly' nickname. We are told that Dragonpol is a name that goes all the way back to the Doomsday book of the 11th century - 1085, to be exact. Dragonpol apparenently translates as 'DragonHead', and is of Anglo-Irish origin. The name Dragonpol is obviously a fantastic, fantasy name like Pussy Galore or Lavender Peacock. It sounds silly, bizarre and Dragonpol comes across as a bit of a buffoon, dressed as Richard II and spinning a globe of the world (when his sister Maeve Horton is painting him in his most famous roles) when he first meets Bond and Flicka at his Schloss Drache castle home.

Gardner's villains tend be either dull or embarrassing. Dragonpol falls into the latter camp.

Which Gardner(s) would people here recommend?

Loomis wrote:

Which Gardner(s) would people here recommend?

For Special Services, Brokenclaw, The Man From Bartbarossa, Never Send Flowers, Scorpius, Icebreaker and SeaFire would be my picks of JG's oeuvre.

Loomis wrote:

Which Gardner(s) would people here recommend?

None of them are very good, but the early ones are generally better than the later ones. ICEBREAKER is generally held to be a standout. I like that one okay, as well as FOR SPECIAL SERVICES and NOBODY LIVES FOREVER.

Cheers, guys.

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

Would Ian Fleming be spinning in his grave at the idea of his creation James Bond ("blunt instrument" and secret agent) going to any Disneyland facility in the world, even though he had his Irma Bunt refer to "a Disneyland of Death" in YOLT (1964)?

He probably did when he watched certain Bond movies (*cough* Moonraker).

Walecs wrote:

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

Would Ian Fleming be spinning in his grave at the idea of his creation James Bond ("blunt instrument" and secret agent) going to any Disneyland facility in the world, even though he had his Irma Bunt refer to "a Disneyland of Death" in YOLT (1964)?

He probably did when he watched certain Bond movies (*cough* Moonraker).

And TSWLM. Agreed, unfortunately.

Loomis wrote:

Which Gardner(s) would people here recommend?

ICEBREAKER, unequivocally. I *think* that was the first Bond novel I read and, just as with the movies, your initial actor/book tends to leave a lasting impression. Of the Gardner novels, I think ICEBREAKER was his best, but it was also the first time that he employed the use of the double-triple-cross. If you read ICEBREAKER first, your view of it might not be biased by reading some of the latter ones that over-used that gimmick.

ICEBREAKER worked for me because it was set in a location the films had never been to and have yet to go (Scandinavia), it used a reliable but good villain (Nazis), and worked in a fair bit of history to give it more credibility. It was easily ready-made to be adapted into a blockbuster movie, but obviously that never happened.

It's also somewhat of a shame that Gardner would continue to use the double-triple crosses found within ICEBREAKER, because the savvy reader soon began to suspect that characters in subsequent novels were never who they appeared to be, or weren't really dead. He did himself a disservice (or else Glidrose did).