The Man From Barbarossa - An experiment too far for Bond?

I would like to hear BAB members’ opinions on The Man From Barbarossa – John Gardner’s most experimental, realistic and densely plotted novel – it is also (in the UK at least, the US Putnam version being heavily edited and vastly shorter) his longest novel. In many ways The Man From Barbarossa is John Gardner’s The Spy Who Loved Me or Doubleshot – the one novel where he was allowed a free reign by Glidrose to write James Bond in his own image, free of the shackles of formula writing to enjoy the green pastures of literary freedom – his version/conception of James Bond as a modern day secret intelligence officer/operative in 1991, set against a real-world back-drop which presiently predicted the start of the Iraq War in 1991, the coup d’etat in Moscow in the Soviet Union on 19-21 August 1991 by an all-to real (and recently deceased) General Yevgeny Yuskovich hardline-Comminist type character. (Deputy to Gorbachev, Gennady Yanayev)

See You Tube video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4KRTPh1PAek#!

Gardner also stated on very many occasions that it was also his favourite novel as he really broke the mould here with making his plot so contemporaneous (late 1990-early1991) that it could have been lifted straight out of the newspapers and other media of the time. Its plot concerns show trials, Nazi war criminals, The Scales of Justice terrorist organisation cover, Soviet general hardliners, Stalinist nostalgia apologisers like General Yevgeny Yuskovich – rather like the drug baron Franz Sanchez in Licence to Kill (film and Gardner novelisation) – lifted straight from the contemporary headlines – a modern target for James Bond’s deadly aim. What are our thoughts on this James Bond novel here at BAB – does Gardner present a picture of a modern secret intelligence officer (rather than the romantic spy or secret agent monikers) working in a coalition of the willing – MI6, Mossad, KGB, DGCE etc. to any great effect?

Does John Gardner do James Bond justice in this novel?

To those US fans who have only read the US Putnam version you should read the complete UK version – it really is the only true copy of the novel in existence. The Putnam version is a travesty – much shorter with many passages edited out altogether.

This novel is the subject matter of a future article on The Bondologist Blog – so I’d like as many replies as possible, in order to collate representative James Bond fan opinion on these issues. I’m very interested in the controversial aspects of the James Bond literary continuation at the moment.

I think TMFB (which I'm currently reading) is the one novel where the fictional spy James Bond really comes face-to-face with the real world and the reality of secret intelligence operations near the end of the 45 year Cold War.

Another thought - I suppose that John Gardner's The Man From Barbarossa somewhat predates what Jeffrey Deaver tried to do in Carte Blanche with James Bond cast as a modern-day secret intelligence officer born in 1982 who was a veteran of the Afghanistan war. In The Man From Barbarossa Gardner states at one stage that double-agents from the 1960s were before Bond's time (and therefore before his memory - meaning Gardner's conception of Bond seemed to be one that was born much later than Fleming's creation, although he is greying at the temples in Licence Renewed) in the secret service, MI6. This is rather ironic, considering the 1960s were the time of Bond's greatest adventures as reported by his late creator Ian Fleming!

Any interest now on this topic?

I have the Hodder and Stoughton edition and once I am done with The Seven Steps of Satan, I will start it.

perdogg wrote:

I have the Hodder and Stoughton edition and once I am done with The Seven Steps of Satan, I will start it.

Thank you for your interest, perdogg.

I always enjoyed the novel. But then again I've always been a sucker for series books that deviate from the norm. I know a lot of people talk it down, but I've never had a problem with it.

Then again it has been quite a few years since I've read it, so my memory might be a bit hazy. I'm on vacation from work this week, might be time to give it a second read.

Moore wrote:

I always enjoyed the novel. But then again I've always been a sucker for series books that deviate from the norm. I know a lot of people talk it down, but I've never had a problem with it.

Then again it has been quite a few years since I've read it, so my memory might be a bit hazy. I'm on vacation from work this week, might be time to give it a second read.

Thanks very much for your contribution. I like TMFB too, though it is a hard read at times. I like the experimental Bond novels.

I don't know exactly what the intent was with Barbarossa, but it is certainly a challenge to get through. I found it a messy, disjointed and ultimately terrible narrative that felt more like a spy novel trying to be a twisting and turning spy novel than invoking reality. It would be the worst Garnder novel for me, save for Cold Fall. I felt Death is Forever was far more successful in evoking reality and the Cold War.

So wait, the US versions are hastily edited? I have the 1st edition hardback and the paperback, and it seemed like a very long novel, not to mention one that took me ages to finish. Perhaps the editing really harmed the plot, because I thought this was a terrible novel.

hegottheboot wrote:

So wait, the US versions are hastily edited? I have the 1st edition hardback and the paperback, and it seemed like a very long novel, not to mention one that took me ages to finish. Perhaps the editing really harmed the plot, because I thought this was a terrible novel.

Yes, the UK version is much more complete. A lot was edited out in the US version as they we're as keen on it.