Carte Blanche reviews

Some interesting thoughts. I honestly think the whole thing is an exercise in futility, and I'm concerned about Bond being more of a shell from reading Bounine's review and some other reviews. He doesn't have to be given a deep treatment, and it's better that he not be. But he has to be there. With so much money at stake I doubt we could get a really ballsy Bond book now anyway.

I think it could be done. Bond fit in more readily in the 50's, and today he'd be looked at (by others in the book) as some of kind of a bastard if he even came close to the original depiction. But that would be fun to read. Not all men in the world today are sensitive metrosexuals. Hell, look at James Ellroy's output.

Picked up the book today. Good price $20.99 at the big Midtown Chapters-Indigo which is now overflowing with copies.

Will set aside Roger Moore's, My Word is My Bond, for a bit and plunge into this new Bond adventure.

===Update. Already I don't like it but I am willing to give it a chance. I'm only on page 27 of 404 (long book), having finished the first section, Monday-The Red Danube.

What I don't like is Bond's height and weight, 6'0 and 170 lbs.
Didn't even Fleming write him taller in the 1950's? Bond shouldn't be oversized but he should be a reasonably threatening figure. Connery was 6'2 and I could swear Fleming wrote Bond as 6'2.
6'0 is a good height but at that height he's going to be constantly coming up against bodyguards and run of the mill operatives who are taller than he is.
I like to envision Bond as a physically threatening figure. When other agents and operatives come up against him, Bond should not be one of the smaller guys.
If Bond doesn't measure up size wise to the big henchmen, that's nornal, but at 6'0, most of his peers are going to be taller. 6'0 is barely average height for a hockey player these days.

170 lbs just means he lean and fit and carrying no extra fat whatsoever.
I would prefer Bond magically grow to a more imposing 6'2 and a lean fit firm 193 lbs for the next book.
Give the world's most formidable agent some heft.

===I also don't like that Deaver boldy declares Bond to be a former smoker. How lame. How about a casual smoker, or infrequent smoker, who still has a taste for expensive tobacco blends.
I hope Deaver Bond will at least indulge an expensive cigar.

==Deaver is a prolific writer. Carte Blanche is his 30th full length book (28 novels and two thriller essay collections)

Another note: on the dust jacket Ian Fleming Publications declares Deaver to be the "5th author to continue Ian Fleming's legacy by penning a James Bond novel."
I have to assume the preceding 4 are Kingsley Amis (Colonel Sun), John Gardiner (14 original Bond novels), Raymond Benson, (6 original Bond novels and shorts) and Sebastien Faulks (Devil May Care).
Fair enough. Those 4 all wrote full length original Bond novels.
But IFP has not included John Pearson's Authorized Biography, nor Christopher Wood (2 screenplay novelizations), Charlie Higson (Young Bond) and Samantha Weinberg (MP Diaries).
All four of these authors also wrote Bond adventures, but IFP seems to wish to make a distinction between their contributions and the other 4.
I guess Wood's work is categorized as screenplay adaptation only and not original.
Higson and Weinberg - spinoff series authors.
And Pearson's book, though it does provide new Bond adventure, did present a very different twist on the legend, presenting Bond as a "real life" character, fictionalized by Fleming to confuse the enemy.
Fair enough, I can see why they might want to focus Deaver as continuing the straightforward original novel tradition of Amis, Gardner, Benson and Faulks. Thus he is #5.

But I prefer to include all of the writers as Bond continuation authors, so in that context Deaver is #9.

Fleming once listed Bond's size as six foot and 182 pounds, the exact same as yours truly.

:)

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

Fleming once listed Bond's size as six foot and 182 pounds, the exact same as yours truly.

:)

Well I guess nu-bond is eating salads or something because now he's only 170 lbs.
Deaver's made nu-Bond both too short and too light.
6'0 in 2011 isn't what it was in 1953.

I will pretend Bond is a more appropriate 6'2" 190 lbs.

Just say no to little Bond.

Up to page 79. Not a bad story. The villain is real creepy. Deaver does a good job establishing the English espionage alphabet soup and the double O section in the modern context.
Mary Goodnight looks like Kate Winslet?! Don't like that though. I will continue to picture Brit Ekland in her bikini, even while working at her desk.

As 5'2", I can say that 6' isn't short. 6' is actually a pretty good height for most cars or motorbikes. Any taller than that, and you start to have problems. Any shorter than 5'10" and you may limit your choices on certain motorbikes. So 6' is fine by me.

"Well I guess nu-bond is eating salads or something because now he's only 170 lbs.
Deaver's made nu-Bond both too short and too light.
6'0 in 2011 isn't what it was in 1953.

I will pretend Bond is a more appropriate 6'2" 190 lbs.

Just say no to little Bond.

Up to page 79. Not a bad story. The villain is real creepy. Deaver does a good job establishing the English espionage alphabet soup and the double O section in the modern context.
Mary Goodnight looks like Kate Winslet?! Don't like that though. I will continue to picture Brit Ekland in her bikini, even while working at her desk."

I think 6'2 is possibly too tall. 6'0 to 6'1 is just right for Bond I reckon. He doesn't want to attract attention either. I do think he is a bit light though for someone of that height.

I don't like the Kate Winslet comparison either.

Initially I supported the reboot idea but now I am not so sure if I like it as much. If another author or Deaver can flesh out Bond's character more in a contemporary setting then I will be happier and will feel like I am reading about the literary chap I love. The chauvinism and xenophobia doesn't have to be present as there are many more facets to Bond's personality. I've been reading Christopher Wood's Moonraker and he really understands the character as does Pearson. Wood doesn't even like Fleming's Bond either apparently! He prefers Roger Moore's take on the character.

170lb doesn't actually mean anything to me. I need it in stones, else it's just numbers.

170 lb is about 77 kg. That's around 12 stone.

12 stone? Well, 'Imself is 5'10" and just a shade over 12 stone, and he's no stick insect. Lean, is how I'd describe him. Slender. But then he did play a lot of tennis.

Yeah, Fleming always described Bond as lean but possibly a bit too lean.

For one thing, I'm 5'4'' and 120lbs, so 6' 170lbs is big enough from my point of view. Superman is described as 6'2'' so I've no issue with Bond at 6'.

Fleming described Bond as six feet tall (TWSLM Chapter 10) and 12 stone (FRWL Chapter 6), so more or less matching Deaver's description. Sorry to put a damper on the nitpicking, but there it is.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sorry to put a damper on the nitpicking, but there it is.

One can't argue with the facts ;)

"Fleming described Bond as six feet tall (TWSLM Chapter 10) and 12 stone (FRWL Chapter 6), so more or less matching Deaver's description. Sorry to put a damper on the nitpicking, but there it is."

Yeah, I thought that was the case.

Personally, I wouldn't like to be taller than 6 foot.

If I can't swoop in with cited references from the novels, what am I good for?

Though to be honest, I haven't done that in ages. Not since the days of "Ask the Experts" on the forum which shall not be named. But that's a side effect of becoming a hermit in the Trek thread I suppose.

Got Carte Blanche from my local library today. Was suprised they had it already. I don't want to put down money for it because other than Colonel Sun and the Pearson biography I don't own any continuation novels, and I didn't want to start with one I hadn't read (and a modernized reboot at that!)

That was quick! I think I might just wait for the new Bond novel to arrive in the library next time.

Actually, regarding this height issue, if people are generally taller these days like Asian people, then maybe Bond should be around 6'1. I can see Wint's point to an extent.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

For one thing, I'm 5'4'' and 120lbs, so 6' 170lbs is big enough from my point of view. Superman is described as 6'2'' so I've no issue with Bond at 6'.

Fleming described Bond as six feet tall (TWSLM Chapter 10) and 12 stone (FRWL Chapter 6), so more or less matching Deaver's description. Sorry to put a damper on the nitpicking, but there it is.

I don't think its nit picking though (well maybe it is) but 6'0 is not as big as it was almost 50 years ago. That was an imposing height then but not so much now.
Connery for example was 6'2 and even he didn't seem exceptionally tall in 1962.
Rather he appeared to be simply "normal tall" with a good build.
That's why I think 6'2 would be more appropriate in the modern context. 190 is a good fit athletic weight to go with that height.
I am not that bothered about weight though. If one is very fit with no fat, one's weight will be on the lighter side, compared with normal fit people of the same height and bone structure, so if Bond is both tall and lean, with of course a good strong build, then that's a formidable physique but also not freakish or overbuilt.
I come back to Connery again. By DAF he was packing 220 lbs. He'd lost the lean but he was still physically threatening, just not as lean nor likely as quick.
So tall, strong, fit and lean is the best Bond I think, which is how Fleming wrote him IMO, with 6'0 being tall enough for the period.


===Almost half way through the book. I am enjoying it. Its a good read. A real page turner however Deaver does have his own style. He likes his little tricks- red herrings etc so one adjusts. Gardner and Benson were a little more inclined towards straight forward Bond adventure and suspense with minimal twists.
Deaver has deftly worked both Mathis and Leiter into the narrative along with Q section, M, Moneypenny, Tanner and Goodnight, and all in the modern context, so he's managed to get the table set and new universe populated without botching it up IMO, even if Goodnight is supposed to remind of Kate Winslet ;)

The whole concept does take a some getting used to though, because for the first time, book Bond is not rooted in the Fleming timeline.
Sure Gardner and Benson had to use sleight of hand to keep Bond from being a senior citizen in their books, but they still tried to root Bond in the Fleming timeline, even if their efforts really made no sense. One just played along.
But now book Bond, like cinema Craig-Bond is a full blown child of the 80's with a whole different past and life experience frame of reference, even if Deaver has taken pains to draw parallels with the original's roots.
Deaver writes him as early 30's, so I figure he's born very late 70's, so I'm guessing 1979 which makes Deaver/Bond 32, which is my ideal Bond age. :)

We learn new Bond is an avid Formula One fan btw and there was a music reference which clearly dates him as a teen of the 1990's.
This is almost like son of Bond. Son following in father's footsteps.

Only about 80 pages left to read. I really like this book. I like that its over 400 pages too which means I've been able to drag the read out and really savour it.
Deaver gives a shoutout to David Mamet for some reason. Maybe he appreciates his recent "conversion", which greatly enhances Deaver's rep as well IMO.
Carte Blanche provides a good primer on the disposal business.
Man I don't think I'd want to let an old computer hard drive or cellphone out of my sight after reading this book. Not if they end up in one of Sevaran Hydt's very popular facilities.
Is there no way to securely dispose of such data?
It seems the only way might be to pulverize the drives into dust and dispose of them via the regular trash.
Bond uses a really neat old school trick for getting past a high tech locked door.Only works if there's an exit crash bar on the other side.
If one is a connoisseur of Bond food and drink, there's a healthy supply of fresh entres and booze to sample.
Deaver Bond keeps himself steadily plied with good food and numerous drinks.

What's just a little off about reading this book, is that for the first time ever, Bond has no roots in Fleming or any of the old stories. This Bond is brand new. Its the same character mind you, but he has no history with Goldfigner or Spectre or any of the girls we know and love. Its just kind of weird.
Leiter, Mathis, M, Tanner. Moneypenny and Goodnight are all present and so is May but they are all freshly minted for the new 2010's Bond and beyond.
Just takes a little getting used to. Might be an idea for IFP to also consider more Fleming timeline stories post DMC but without the conceit of writing as Ian Fleming. Fleming's timeline could easily be extend into the late 60's and 70's without Bond getting too old. Bond could max out at ballpark late 40's, as long as the stories didn't extend into the 1980's.

Deaver gives props to Mamet? Bloody hell! I may actually have to get this book.

:shock:

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

Deaver gives props to Mamet? Bloody hell! I may actually have to get this book.

:shock:

page 202-203

"After my great undercover work" - Nkosi's arm swept around the room - "I now know I am quite the actor. I will come to London and work in the West End. That's where the famous theatres are - correct?"
"Well yes." Though Bond had not been to one voluntarily in years.
The young man said, "I'm sure I will be quite successful. I'm partial to Shakespeare. David Mamet is quite good too. Without doubt."

Deaver wanted to tip his cap to Mamet for some reason.

Is Nkosi a good guy or a villain?

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

Is Nkosi a good guy or a villain?

Nkosi is a SAPS officer. South African Police Service who helps Bond with an undercover assignment which involved some "acting"
He's a good guy. A bit of a ham, but he's quite brave and like Bond not afraid to bend the rules.

tiffanywint wrote:

Nkosi is a SAPS officer. South African Police Service who helps Bond with an undercover assignment which involved some "acting"

Now that reminds me of Strikeback.... :suspect:

tiffanywint wrote:

What's just a little off about reading this book, is that for the first time ever, Bond has no roots in Fleming or any of the old stories. This Bond is brand new. Its the same character mind you, but he has no history with Goldfigner or Spectre or any of the girls we know and love. Its just kind of weird.
Leiter, Mathis, M, Tanner. Moneypenny and Goodnight are all present and so is May but they are all freshly minted for the new 2010's Bond and beyond.
Just takes a little getting used to. Might be an idea for IFP to also consider more Fleming timeline stories post DMC but without the conceit of writing as Ian Fleming. Fleming's timeline could easily be extend into the late 60's and 70's without Bond getting too old. Bond could max out at ballpark late 40's, as long as the stories didn't extend into the 1980's.

Yes, I find this weird aswell. Initially I was keen on a reboot but now I'm not so sure. Setting the books in the 60's and 70's is something I would have supported.

Personally, Deaver's Bond doesn't seem like quite the same character to me. He is on the bland side. Too nice aswell.

Bounine wrote:

Yes, I find this weird aswell. Initially I was keen on a reboot but now I'm not so sure. Setting the books in the 60's and 70's is something I would have supported.

Personally, Deaver's Bond doesn't seem like quite the same character to me. He is on the bland side. Too nice aswell.

Yep, he's smart and resourceful, quite brave, quite violent, quite chivalrous, drinks like a champ, but he's a little on the two dimensional side. Mind you I'm not terribly bothered by that. This Bond does reflect and offer up plenty of observations. This might be enough for now, to simply re-establish the re-booted character. I do like that the re-boot dives right in, with Bond as a well established double 0, a la Casino Royale, rather than giving us origins stuff.
I thought Deaver did make an effort with the last couple of paragraphs of the book to give us some insight as to this Bond's mental make-up. He's trying but not biting off more than he should chew I think. He's playing things safe.
He may feel inclined to delve deeper into the character in future books, if he writes another, which I hope he does.