Princess Diana in Never Send Flowers - problematic nowadays?

This thread is designed to collate opinion on the use of HRH Princess Diana as an assassination target in John Gardner's serial killer novel Never Send Flowers (1993).

Is this considered problematic since she was killed on 31 August 1997 in a car crash in a Paris tunnel trying to escape the ruthless French paparazzi - the modern-day equivalent of David Dragonpol in many ways.

I'd really love to hear your opinions on this issue. Who do you think wousd be a suitable target in today's world to replace the late tragic figure of Princess Diana?

As always, your opinions are appreciated. Never Send Flowers really fascinates me as a James Bond novel!

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

This thread is designed to collate opinion on the use of HRH Princess Diana as an assassination target in John Gardner's serial killer novel Never Send Flowers (1993).

Is this considered problematic since she was killed on 31 August 1997 in a car crash in a Paris tunnel trying to escape the ruthless French paparazzi - the modern-day equivalent of David Dragonpol in many ways.

I'd really love to hear your opinions on this issue. Who do you think wousd be a suitable target in today's world to replace the late tragic figure of Princess Diana?

As always, your opinions are appreciated. Never Send Flowers really fascinates me as a James Bond novel!

I didn't think it was problematic then, and it's even less problematic now. It's no secret she would be a target, as would any member of the royal household. If I recall incorrectly, Gorbachev, Thatcher and Reagan were used against the backdrop of NOBODY LIVES FOREVER, though I can't recall if they were in danger in the novel or not.

I think Never Send Flowers was problematic for Never Send Flowers, not the inclusion of Diana. I think the idea of Bond being in Disney World took on a life of its own in the media, because I remember finally reading Never Send Flowers and being surprised to find out that Bond was not on vacation in Disney World with Flicka, but on an assignment to stop Diana from being killed. Or maybe I had fused the book with the Saturday Night Live parody, Bullets Aren't Cheap (where a Steve Martin 007 goes to EPCOT, gambles in the casino where the beer and the nuts are complimentary, and the villain is GoldSting), and had formed the wrong pre-impression.

Regardless, I found NSF to be, along with many other Gardner novels, to have good ideas and interesting concepts, but then sort of peters out by the end. Gardner might have benefited from co-writing some of these books with someone else; crazy idea, obviously, but he did bring some interesting and fresh perspective to the series initially. It's just too bad he churned out 14 novels,because the quality dropped off after book five or six. Like a lot of artistic endeavours in life, sometimes people stay too long in one role and end up losing "it". With Bond it happened to be Roger Moore, John Glen, John Gardner....all of whom stayed on a tad too long.

My favorite Bond novel of any author is ICEBREAKER, and I think NOBODY LIVES FOREVER and DEATH IS FOREVER were also fairly strong.

I've been a strong proponent of adapting the continuation novels, but that's not likely to change until ownership of EON changes.

Incidentally, the modern day equivalent of Princess Diana would be Kate Middleton.

The modern equivalent of Princess Diana would be Paris Hilton.

This forum is really very thorough - must better than the late, lamented CBn forums - I'm becoming a big fan of this webspace. I have the feeling that this is the start of a wonderful relationship!

Keep your views coming...

Modern royal-related equivalent would be a plot to control the world's most precious resource: Pippa Middleton's arse.

CJB wrote:

Modern royal-related equivalent would be a plot to control the world's most precious resource: Pippa Middleton's arse.

Ha Ha!

It's not all that problematic, not if Tom Clancy can have her and Prince Charles (along with the princes) as a target then have their targeted later AND have Charles wielding a blinking AK47 or some such. It's far from prbolematic.

Hilly wrote:

It's not all that problematic, not if Tom Clancy can have her and Prince Charles (along with the princes) as a target then have their targeted later AND have Charles wielding a blinking AK47 or some such. It's far from prbolematic.

I think it was you who gave me a similar reply over on CBn!

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

Hilly wrote:

It's not all that problematic, not if Tom Clancy can have her and Prince Charles (along with the princes) as a target then have their targeted later AND have Charles wielding a blinking AK47 or some such. It's far from problematic.

I think it was you who gave me a similar reply over on CBn!

I fear not. I've never been registered over there not even as a guest :)

Hilly wrote:

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

Hilly wrote:

It's not all that problematic, not if Tom Clancy can have her and Prince Charles (along with the princes) as a target then have their targeted later AND have Charles wielding a blinking AK47 or some such. It's far from problematic.

I think it was you who gave me a similar reply over on CBn!

I fear not. I've never been registered over there not even as a guest :)

Oh, well then it was another member that basically said the very same thing as you did there!

Great minds and all that!