A WIN for Gardner: 'Win, Lose Or Die'

When I first picked up the bright orange US hardback and read aloud the title Win, Lose or Die. I can say I wasn’t exactly compelled to spend my time reading it. But of course, you can judge a book by it’s cover, so I got my head into it and was left with a truly masterpiece of an adventure stuck in my head.

John Gardner writes most of his Bond novels like an Inspector series, more Investigating and detective work, so I was expecting a few double-crosses or even some triple-crosses (as Gardner is famous for) and he didn’t fail to deliver those.

The book is very unique and I tend to like stories that stray away from the normal formula, but not to the extent that the character of James Bond, his attitude and the rules of the basic formula are unrecognisable. Warning: There are some plot spoilers ahead, so if you haven’t read it and don’t want the book spoiled I suggest you don’t read further.

During the Gulf war, Oil Tanker (Son of Takashani) makes its way out of the treacherous sea near Iraq. It’s attack by a group of Terrorist using gliders. But they fail to get a foothold of the ship due to its good defences.

Days later a SATCOM satellite picks up the conversation between two ‘unknown’ terrorists. Discussing plans to take hold off a ship they call ‘Birdsnest Two’ later translated to be the ship HMS Invincible, a Through Deck Cruiser which will participate in Landsea ’89, a giant war-game played by all the major world powers.

The SIS believe the Terrorist Organisation BAST (Brotherhood of Anarchy and Secret Terror)Plan to invade the Invincible. But there is a problem. Three high-priority guests will staying aboard the Invincible to talk about all things war and peace and they stubbornly refuse to cancel the meeting. Bond is placed aboard the Invincible as primary Head of Security.

Sure enough, as Landsea ’89 begins and the voyage begins, BAST makes their move, Bond must find out who is the traitor, how to handle it and keep everything else running smoothly.

A thing Gardner tends to do is add completely unnecessary scenes or ‘twists’ into the book, and you begin to wonder if he just does so to past the time and take up space. Though I can understand Bond’s time in Naples the whole ‘Northanger’ bit was very unnecessary and Gardner gave a weak explanation, leaving you feel slightly confused. Who wouldn’t know a group of Terrorists had taken over a Military base?

Bond’s time aboard the ship is more like Murder On The Orient Express then anything else, which isn’t bad, but tends to get on the boring side. But he does write it all very well, and his in-depth knowledge of the Royal Navy and their procedures for some reason make it all the more interesting, and then leaves you some knowledge of the RN.

When I read through the plot description I was expecting a literary version of the Steven Seagull movie Under Siege. While the book didn’t involve Bond sneaking around the boat picking off terrorists one at a time throughout the whole book, there is a whiff of it in the last half of the book.

The villain’s motive wasn’t very inspired, the members of BAST doing it for the same old ‘Better World through Terrorists acts’ excuse with the leader of the organisation having alternative motives. Another good thing that came from the book was seeing Bond back in the Navy, he himself having memories about his Navy days and having to get back in the saddle so to speak.

But one thing, which I’m sure angered some Bond fans, is Gardner’s constant acts of trying to change everything that Ian Fleming intended Bond to be. While Bond’s attitude never really changed through any of Gardner’s book, he takes away the minor things that make Bond, Bond. In his previous books he wiped out the Double-Oh program, took away Bond’s PPK and now changes his ranks from Commander to Captain. While I can accept small changes and modernisation these things fans have just become attached too. Something next author Raymond Benson knows and respects.

The positive far outweighs the bad, I enjoyed the simple yet affective plot and the great characterisation and development that Gardner is best at. If you want to see Bond under pressure and take the reign of a Sea Harrier this is a book you will feel thankful for reading.

A Failed Experiment?: 'The Man From Barbarossa'

1991 brought the release of John Gardner’s tenth James Bond novel entitled The Man From Barbarossa. It was one that would prove to be the most controversial Bond novels among fans since The Spy Who Loved Me. Both are what are often referred to as an “experimental” book in that they completely break away from the established, standard Bond formula, The Man From Barbarossa, even more so than Fleming’s experimental novel, to try to do something completely new. This article will explore these experimental elements of The Man From Barbarossa and how it makes for such a unique outing, not only for Gardner’s tenure, but the James Bond series as a whole.

Just from the opening of this story, one senses that this will be a new change of tact. It’s not every Bond novel that begins describing the horrors that Russian Jews faced at the Nazi death camps during the Second World War and the acts of an SS officer. This dark and gloomy prelude continues into the present where we witness the mysterious kidnapping of an elderly man in his New Jersey home. The following excerpt sums up the entire novel fairly well:

Nobody could possibly have foreseen that the abduction of an old man in New Jersey would be the prelude to a drama played out on the world’s stage. Or that it was the first step in a plot, so ingenious and skillful that the stability of nations would rock wildly to its adroit tune. One missing old man, and the fate of the free world would be at stake.

-The Man From Barbarossa, Chapter 1

The key word in the above text is “drama”. The Man From Barbarossa is a drama, not a spy thriller or an action adventure story that everyone expects from Bond, but a more realistic story focusing on character and story development and less so on action. The only real bit of action does not come until the climax, in which Bond and his allies prevent the transport of missiles. Much of the story is compromised with (a. Briefing scenes, either with M, or Boris Stepakov of the KGB, discussing the mission and the possible intents of the villains, The Scales of Justice, and what they might hope on accomplishing with their scheme of launching a mock trial for a war criminal, or (b. court scenes after Bond, with a KGB and Mossad agent, posing as a camera crew, are taken out to the Lost Horizon where the trial is taking place. It is here where elements of a legal thriller mix into the plotline.

Speaking of the story, it is important to note that it is also, aside from the John Grisham elements, much more political than most other Bond stories are. Here, the villain, General Yevgeny Yuskovich, is motivated purely by political reasons. He has no wishes to get rich but to overthrow the Russian government, using the mock trial to embarrass them, and to become head of the Soviet Empire, making Russia powerful again, as well as offering assistance to Iraq during the Gulf War to cripple the American forces, oh, and not to mention detonating a nuclear weapon over Washington D.C.. The result of these political and legal thriller elements is a complex storyline, tying in with the end of the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War, and World War II. The story also incorporates realistic espionage, and in some ways can be looked as what someone like Bond would be doing in the real world. M’s description of the Yuskovich and the events that transpired:

The man had a faith. He had served a system in which he had absolute belief. He saw it slipping away and he already had great power.

-The Man From Barbarossa, Chapter 21

So far we have complicated combination of a legal and political thriller, which is less action orientated and thrives on Gardner’s intricately complex plotting. Doesn’t sound quite like a Bond novel, does it? Which is precisely the main problem with it and part why this experiment isn’t usually too well received among Bond fans. If Bond were to be replaced with any other character, focusing mainly on, say, Mossad agent Pete Natkowitz, the story would still work just as good, maybe if not better. This is also attributed to the little focus and development of Bond’s character in the novel.

There are two other elements of the story contributing to its uniqueness, which, as they are also the most interesting, are worth mentioning. The first is that Bond is not taking his orders from M here. This time he is sent to Russia to work under Boris Stepakov and the KGB’s command. This is a most original change of pace and fits in nicely. The reason is that the KGB has asked for the British’s assistance in the matter with the Scales of Justice and M can’t resist the opportunity of having an agent so highly placed at Moscow Center.

The second element is probably Gardner at his fanciest and comes near the end of the book. Bond is supposedly killed during the course of a gunfight, resulting in a different sort of scene with M, and the book suddenly focusing on General Yuskovich and other officers in the Red Army. This is very similar to what Raymond Benson will later do in Doubleshot and is probably the novel’s highlight and classic Bond. In my opinion, its one of Gardner’s best Bond moments.

Many readers often complain that the novel just doesn’t seem like Bond, much in the same as the film Licence To Kill is compared to other Bond movies. Fans generally dislike both, but there remain a few who consider it the best of the Bond movies and of Gardner’s run. Still The Man From Barbarossa contains just as many Bond elements as any other good 007 story: a diabolical villain with a plot to destroy the Western world, beautiful women, the friendly, likeable ally, and a criminal organization, all of which are carried out with the usual amount of class. It’s just that all these elements are used in different ways here. Either way, whether you like it or dislike it, The Man From Barbarossa remains one of John Gardner’s most outspoken Bond novels and, for better or worse, memorable.

'Death Is Forever' by John Gardner

I must start off by saying that I read this book simply because it has what I consider a truly brilliant title. One thing I must commend most of the Gardner books on is their superb titles. Aside from that I enjoyed the majority of the book. It definitely had an Ian Fleming touch to it, particularly with a Bond girl name Easy St. John, which is something I really appreciate in a Bond novel.

Bond’s mission in this novel is to try and sort out what is left of the super-spy network Cabal which once operated in Communist Germany and also discover what happened in the first place that caused the members of the group to disband and most of them eventually be killed off. Of course not everything is as it appears to be and the conspiracy surrounding Cabal leads Bond into a world of treachery. But that’s typical Gardner style.

I may gives bits of the story away in this review, so please if you want to be spoiler-free leave now.

Firstly I have no problem with James Bond killing people. In fact I implore it if it’s necessary. I also have no problem with people being killed in the novel, as long as it’s for a good reason and as long as it’s not too graphic. Can you imagine some of the death scenes from Se7en in a Bond novel fully described? How about the Hooker who gets it? That would be too much for me in graphic description I think. This leads to a point, Gardner has things thing where he just kills lead characters in five seconds flat. There’s no warning nothing. That I can accept, but some scenes towards the end of the novel make me think that Gardner wasn’t sure what to do with his characters so he just killed them. Literally, in one chapter three major characters die all the same death at the exact same time. I really believe Gardner had all these characters and realised they weren’t fully needed so he killed them.

Also the death of a Bond girl, sorry if I just spoiled it for you but I did warn you, really annoyed me. Her death was pointless, quick and lacked the dramatics that the death of a Bond girl should have. Especially if Bond has declared her as one of the few women he has ever loved.

The other thing that annoyed me majorly stemmed from this death. Obviously Bond is distraught yet a chapter or two later (literally a day in the novel) Bond is having coital thoughts about another woman. Gardner really brings him across as harsh and horny.

All that aside I really enjoyed the novel. I love twists and turns, even though the bit at the end I saw coming. I really thought this novel had a few things that just reminded me of classic movies such as The Usual Suspects. One thing I’ll say about John Gardner is that I really love his twist and turns.

This is a really good book to read, but expect to be infuriated by some needless deaths. But don’t let that stop you. This is definitely one of the better Gardner novels.

© Daniel Dykes, 2001