Devil May Care

By Sebastian Faulks

In celebration of the centenary of Ian Fleming' birth on 28 May 2008, Ian Fleming Publications (IFP) commissioned Sebastian Faulks to write a new James Bond novel. Unlike the novels written by John Gardner & Raymond Benson, this novel takes place in 1967, after the events in The Man With the Golden Gun (1965) & before the events in Colonel Sun (1968) by Robert Markham (Kingsley Amis). The cover says that Faulks wrote this as Ian Fleming. What I think that means is that Faulks was trying to write this as close to Fleming's style as possible.

While IFP doesn't specifically say so, there are some clues that make me suspect that I am right to say this. In an interview that is on their website as well as on his own he said the following about how he approached the assignment: “After almost five years researching Victorian psychiatry for Human Traces, there was something attractive about a jeu d’esprit, which, if I followed Fleming’s own prescription, I could write in six weeks.

On re-reading, I was surprised by how well the books stood up. I put this down to three things: the sense of jeopardy Fleming creates about his solitary hero; a certain playfulness in the narrative details; and a crisp, journalistic style that hasn’t dated.

I tried to isolate the essential and the most enjoyable aspects of the books. I developed a prose that is about 80 per cent Fleming. I didn’t go the final distance for fear of straying into pastiche, but I strictly observed his rules of chapter and sentence construction. My novel is meant to stand in the line of Fleming’s own books, where the story is everything."

So did he succeed? Did he come up with a novel that fits well into the Cold War era canon of Bond books? Is this a book that Ian Fleming could have written? For the most part, the answer is yes, with some qualifications. Overall, Faulks creates a story that fits the canon well. It has its strong points. But it also has a few weak ones. This book has a strong continuity with the Fleming novels. & he does catch much of the Fleming style. But there are a few aspects of what is called "the Fleming Sweep" that are missing.

Where this shows up the most is in his description of things like the locales & meals. Faulks comes close as I said, but not close enough. It is clearly just not the same. This is 1 area that he should have gone for 90% or more. Or he shouldn't have tried to get quite so close.

The story begins in the outskirts of Paris with the murder of an Algerian drug runner. Naturally this leads to an old friend of Bond since the events in Casino Royale being called in. René Mathis of the French Deuxième Bureau is soon involved because of certain aspects related to the murder.

It isn't until the 2nd chapter that we find out where James Bond is while these events are going on. We find Bond in the spot where we would least expect him. He is in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican where the Pope is giving his Sunday Angelus address. No, Bond has not become Catholic. & no, the Pope is not in danger. Bond is there because he is near the end of a 3 month sabatical. The purpose is to given Bond a chance to decide if he wants to retire from active duty & take a desk job. As Bond explores Rome we are taken back in his thoughts to what led up to the sabatical & the events so far. Bond is resigning himself to the fact that it is time to step down when he gets an urgent message to "Call Universal. Urgent." It is M calling him back to active duty.

Soon Bond finds out that he is being called to investigate a Dr. Julius Gorner. The dust cover flap blurb describes Gorner as "a power-crazed pharmaceutical magnate, whose wealth is exceeded only by his greed. Gorner has lately taken a disquieting interest in opiate derivatives, both legal and illegal, and this urgently bears looking into. " Soon Bond is sent to Paris & is reunited with Mathis. While there he mets up with someone he had previously run into while in Rome. Scarlett Papava is asking him to help her get her sister Poppy freed from the clutches of Dr. Gorner. She was told to find Bond by Felix Leiter when she contacted the Pinkertons.

Soon they are off to Persia (Iran). There Bond meets up with the Tehran head of station, Darius Alizadeh. He is a head of station in the mold of Darko Kerim. Darius serves the double duty of being an invaluable ally as well as the means by which we get to see pre-Islamic revolution Iran.

Before long Bond is battling Gorner & finds himself in a variety of dangers.

The book contains a lot of references to Bond's past. While in Paris he even ends up back in Rue Daunou ("Ask for Sank Roo Doe-Noo."). But Faulks doesn't over do it. Most of the tie-ins to Fleming stories comes about naturally & flow from the situation Bond finds himself in.

The total result is, as I said earlier, that this book does fit in well with the Fleming novels. Not perfectly, but that is to be expected. No other author could perfectly capture Fleming's style. For the most part Faulks does catch the flavor of Fleming's style without making it seem artificial.

I found the book very enjoyable. Faulks was able to keep me interested in finding out what happens next. & he also brings in a few unexpected surprizes. 1 comes in near the end of the book. I won't say any more than I didn't see it coming until I was almost upon it. At that point I began to suspect. It is a very interesting twist that fits in very well with the times.

The new characters are an interesting variety. Dr. Gorner is 1 of the villians from the bodily disfigurement school. & like so many of the villians he has more than 1 chip on his shoulder that motivates him to his actions. Gorner's main assistant, Chagrin, is an interesting study in amorality. As I said, Darius is in the mold of Kerim. I liked him immediately. Scarlett Papava proved to be an interesting enigma throughout the book. You are never quite sure who's side she really is on.

Faulks handles Bond well also. He doesn't try to bring back the Bond from the early books. He takes Bond where he is at, recovering from his recent brainwashing & lose of his wife Tracy. & he goes from there.

I talked about 1 of the big weaknesses earlier. But there is another 1 I'd like to talk about now. In the Fleming books we usually came in on the middle of the action in the 1st chapter, then we go back in time to see how Bond got to this point. & while Faulks followed that formula, I felt he rushed through the flashback way too fast. I would have liked to have been told more about what happenned to Bond on his sabatical.

In their books Gardner & Benson seemed to base their versons of Bond more on the various movie incarnations than Fleming's version. Faulks avoids this flaw for the most part. Not perfectly. & I supposed to some extent this is unavoidable. Even Fleming himself let the movies affect his latter novels. We didn't find out that Bond was of Scots decent until the obit in You Only Live Twice. Fleming did that to honor Sean Connery's portrayal of Bond in the movies. For those few people who are unaware of the fact, Connery is as Scottish as they come.

In the end I have to say that this book is definitely well worth reading. Faulks has said that this is a one-off assignment. That is unfortunate. I think he could do an excellent job of continuing the Bond novels. & esp if he keeps things back in the original time line. The next 1 would probably have to take place after Colonel Sun. Faulks didn't get everything perfect. But, Fleming didn't hit everything perfect in Casino Royale. Nor did he always do so in the subsequent novels. So, I have to say that it would be wrong to have expected Faulks to get everything perfect. But the potential is there. Lets hope that if IFP decides to go ahead with more adult Bond novels that they continue in this vein. & that Faulks will consider writing them.

_____________

SPOILER ALERT: There is 1 flaw in continuity towards the end of the book that is glaring to anyone who is familiar with the books. After Bond defeats Gorner's plan to start a war between the USSR & Great Britain, Faulks has Bond thinking about how this is the 1st time he was inside the Soviet Union. Not true, he was there after the events of You Only Live Twice. That is where he was brainwashed to kill M. Part of this is related in The Man With the Golden Gun. Bond probably didn't see much of the USSR, but he did see some. & he would have remembered that.

_____________

Now for another weakness. & what I consider the biggest.

It concerns the handling of Felix Leiter, Bond's best friend. I saved it until now because I have to include a SPOILER ALERT. Why? Because the following gives aways some of the plot so I can explain how I think he could have done it better.

I have to start by saying 1 of my favorite themes in the books has been that of the friendship between Bond & Leiter. Whenever they get together in the books it is a joy & highlight of the story. I'm not pointing out anything new when I say that there is a friendly rivalry between them esp when it comes to food & drink. They also have a great respect for each other. Finally, they have a very deep & strong brotherly love for each other.

Faulks failed to use these facts to full advantage.

This 1st shows up in chapter 2. Faulks mentions a phone conversation between Bond & Leiter. He captures a little of the joking that goes on between the 2 of them. But I couldn't help wanting to know more of the conversation between them. Esp as Leiter talked about the hotel on the Via Veneto. Leiter would have had a lot more to say than that it was too close to the US embassy.

The 2nd & worst failing comes near the end of the story. Bond finds out from M that Leiter had been called back to active duty by the CIA & had helped out. Fleming would have arranged for some kind of a reunion between the 2 of them. Maybe even have gotten Leiter there earlier before Bond was caught in Gorner's lair.