I'd love to hear your views on John Gardner's Brokenclaw (1990) - was it just too fantastic a departure for Ian Fleming's secret agent James Bond to be involved with Red Indian rituals etc. The Rough Guide to James Bond says this one remains a fan favourite - with some even suggesting that it is the best non-Fleming Bond novel yet to be filmed?
Did the fact that Gardner was suffering from prostate cancer at the time detract from the novel? - he thought it one of his weakest entries along with Role of Honour and Cold/Cold Fall.
It does, however, have a great villain with a great Flemingesque villain (lovingly descibed in detail for once) and a pleasingly bizarre torture sequence.
Raymond Benson once wrote that there was an overabundance of characters not being what they seemed as well as the book being too far-fetched for a Bond narrative - belonging to another genre altogether.
Your considered views on this rather controversial James Bond novel are welcomed by this blogger and Gardner fan/apologist/defender.
Home 
Events 
WIN! 