Bond Goes Goth – You Only Live Twice (novel)

Ian Fleming wrote three James Bond novels that included the evil Ernst Blofeld: “Thunderball”, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “You Only Live Twice”. These three novels are interesting because they present James Bond with a complete story arc, one that ends in the final book “You Only Live Twice”.

Most people are familiar with the film version of this book. James Bond goes to Japan, finds Blofeld in a hallowed out volcano and launching a space ship that eats up space capsules. Much of the look of that film ended up spoofed in “Austin Powers”, it’s iconic James Bond at his most swinging 60’s.

The book couldn’t be further from the film. Part of this has to do with the placement of the book versus the placement of the films. In the film version, “You Only Live Twice” is the first time James Bond comes face to face with Blofeld. But in the novels, Bond faced him in Switzerland during “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”. That book ends in tragedy, and that tragedy carries over into the next novel. James Bond is off of his game, he’s making mistakes and endangering his missions. M is at a loss, but he comes up with a solution. He’ll put Bond in a no win scenario, and it will force Bond to come to his senses or die.

At first the no win scenario seems benign, decidedly anti-007. He has to go to Japan and convince the Japanese secret service to share their intelligence stream coming from Russia (the book was written in 1964). Britain is feeling left out because the US has access to all this great information. This is a diplomacy issue, something that Bond does not excel at, and it involves a culture he knows nothing about. This is his last shot so he can’t fail, but it seems impossible, especially when he gets to know the decidedly cool “Tiger” Tanaka – head of the secret service.

In the end Tanaka is willing to consider an exchange, but he wants Bond to perform an assassination for it. Turns out there is a mysterious doctor who has purchased an old feudal castle and turned it into a suicide haven. Its garden is filled with poisonous plants, venomous insects and snakes, bubbling pools of sulfuric mud and your typical pool of piranha instead of Koi. While it is meeting a need, the Japanese have the highest suicide rate in the world, Tanaka sees it as a cancer that must be purged. Bond is set up to take down the doctor and his castle of death. You get one guess to figure out who the crazed doctor turns out to be.

This book is many things, but it is not a James Bond adventure that most readers will be used to. Ian Fleming’s novels are not as fast paced and action packed as the films anyway, but this book comes across more like a travelogue with a dour and grim atmosphere.

Death permeates the entire book, from Bond lamenting over the death of Tereza, up to Blofeld’s perfect castle for suicide. The book even contains an obituary for James Bond, as well as a rebirth of sorts in the last chapter. The mission is hopeless, and Bond begins to feel that he will not survive it. This makes for a bleak novel that plays it very cold and very straight – just like a katana sword.

For all of that, it’s still James Bond. He still drinks hard, smokes like a train, beds nearly any girl who is willing and is deadly cool when it comes down to the wire. It just feels like a lot of the lightness and flippant nature of the character is gone. In its place is a man broken and is facing death.

If you look at the Blofeld series as a story arc, it is obvious that James Bond grows up in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”. He gets married at the end! But here is the first time where Bond faces death at every turn and even goes into an underworld of sorts to face a supreme devil in the form of Bloefeld. It’s an ending that seems fitting not only for Bond but for the series as a whole. The next book in the series, “The Man with the Golden Gun” was never completely finished and the result is a lesser novel of the series. For me “You Only Live Twice” is a fitting end to an interesting literary character – especially since it is an atypical adventure for the British agent.

Have you read “You Only Live Twice”? What did you think of it? Do you think an author can and should take a chance with a well-known character and create something so different from audience expectations? Can you think of an example that worked?

The Beginning? – Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (novel)

Ever wonder how to set up a multiple book series? Why not study one of the most popular and famous series in print – Harry Potter. Now I know a lot of writers who look down on J.K. Rowling and her series, but I find them to be great reads and constantly entertaining and compelling. I think she did a good job not only telling her story, but laying it out. Reading the series through a second time I’ve been focusing on the way she constructs her tale. It goes without saying that I’m going to go into spoiler territory here. I’m also assuming you are familiar with most of the names and terminology here.

The fourth book in a seven book series, “Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire” (I’ll continue calling it “Goblet” for short), is the point where Rowling changes everything about the series. What started out as a playful series of adventures and fun takes its first real step into darkness. The most obvious are the death of student near the end of the book. In addition you have the return of the greatest force of evil in the series, now back to full power and prepared to wage war on the forces of goodness. But let’s take a look at some of the details that Rowling uses beyond these obvious points.

The first few chapters deal with Harry and the Weasley family enjoying the Quidditch World Cup. On the surface these scenes serve the basic function of providing Quidditch action in a book that won’t have any during the school year. But it also expands the scope of Rowling’s world in an entertaining way. We see that there are magical societies outside of the ones we are familiar with in England. This wider view not only fleshes out the world, but also makes the stakes of the later books higher. We understand that Voldemort’s desire for control of the magical world extends beyond the British Isles and into a larger world.

The other key element in this sequence is the appearance of The Death Eaters, Lord Voldemort’s followers. Up to this point, they’ve been kept as a vague idea, something that happened long ago. But we see them in action here, and Harry as well as the reader gets a sense of the fear they can generate. And when the Dark Mark appears and causes a frenzy of fear – things become even clearer.

At school Harry first hears about the wizards who battle the Dark Arts, called Aurors. These are embodied by Mad Eye Moody, a scarred, paranoid and dangerous wizard who teaches at the school. Moody in this book is a key element. Not only does he represent the tolls of battle against the dark arts, but he also shows the kind of will and personality needed in a time of war – something none of the children have ever considered. And beneath that is the secret that Moody hides – he’s not the real Moody at all, but an imposter. He’s a dark wizard working for Voldemort and doing his best to deliver Harry Potter to his master. This undermining of a dangerous Auror shows us very clearly how dangerous things are about to become.

It is the climax of this book that changes the tone of the series. The moment Cedric is killed in the cemetery nothing is ever the same for Harry Potter. He can’t turn aside from facing down Voldemort. He can’t ignore the consequences of his actions. In many ways, when Wormtail stabs Harry with the knife, he kills the child, and the adult Harry Potter is born.

The last chapter of the book is called “The Beginning” and it is fitting in many ways. This book marks the beginning of the war story that takes the rest of the series to complete. This marks the beginning of adult Harry and the final stages of his hero’s journey. From this book forward there is little time to be a child any more. The world has become too dangerous, and that danger is focused on Harry Potter.

What do you think of Rowling’s approach to this vital section of her Harry Potter story? Any other elements you can think of that reflect the major change in storytelling in this series? What did you think of this book in comparison to the others?

Pants on Fire – Thank you For Smoking

The success of a book like “Thank you for Smoking” rests on the shoulders of creating a solid antihero. And if anything Nick Naylor is an antihero. He lies for a living. His job is to go onto television and radio and spin attacks against the tobacco industry into positives. He uses shaky statistics, charisma and a quick wit to keep twisting the attacks back onto the attackers, and he’s very good at it.

Christopher Buckley has created a very interesting character, one that is despicable and yet at the same time likable. Nick knows what he’s doing is morally wrong, but he’s so darn good at it, that the challenge seems to feed him. He rises to each attack, many seemingly hopeless and manages to get out of the predicament each time.

As a reader you keep turning the pages to see what new challenge Nick will face next and how he’ll get around it. He’s on Oprah with a young man who’s got cancer, and who was inspired to smoke by Joe Camel. How do you turn that into a positive – Nick does it. The senator from Vermont wants to put the skull and crossbones on cigarette packs. Nick turns it into an issue with Vermont cheddar cheese. He’s sent to Hollywood to get cigarettes into more movies and shown in a positive light. The whole situations provides a hilarious look at product placement in films.

The book as a whole is very cynical and black hearted, but it’s consistently amusing and had a few laugh out loud moments. It’s the character of Nick that keeps it interesting and fun. And even when I felt that the whole thing was getting stretched just a bit too thin, Buckly starts to wrap up his tale.

All in all it’s a good study on how to make an entertaining and interesting antihero.

Have you read, “Thank you for Smoking”? What did you think? Who is your favorite antihero character?

Weaving the Plot - David Copperfield

Last year I took a crack at Charles Dickens and read “Great Expectations”. I found the experience to be entertaining and educational. So this year I decided to give him another try (again during winter, which just seems like a Dickensian time). I heard that “David Copperfield” was not only the book that Dickens’ considered his favorite, but many readers consider it to be one of his most accessible novels. At the bookstore I was in for a bit of a shock – “David Copperfield” was a huge book. Weighing in at slightly less than one ton, I was intimidated. Could I endure that much Dickens, or would it end in tears? But hey, I read all of “The Histories” by Herodotus and it was about that long.

Once again it took me a couple of chapters to get into the style and language of the time. Dickens is pretty notorious for getting paid by the word, and yes there are sections of this story that prove that. But Dickens does something else that helps increase his word count without being overly verbose – he structures his story in a way that lends itself to multiple points of view. He did this to an extent in “Great Expectations”, but in “David Copperfield” it felt more obvious.

David is telling us his story, and so he provides us with two points of view. One point of view is of younger David as he makes his way through life and the other is the older David commenting on that life. This isn’t Dickens merely restating the same scenes, he actually offers commentary as older David, hinting at things we have yet to read and offering a bit more depth that the younger David can’t know. This duality actually works very well to not only increase the word count, but also add to the story on various levels.

The other thing that Dickens does is introduce a whole cast of interesting and colorful supporting characters. Some of them help David, some of them actively try to hinder him. All of them pop up continuously through the narrative. This is typical of Dickens and some fault him for it. I find it to be a charming part of the world he creates. Yes, he is commenting on current events, but I think it’s a bit easier for us reading years later to see it as a different world, a fiction where people would come into contact throughout life.

The danger of this technique is that readers will lose track of who is who. Dickens avoids this by give each character a unique personality. Sure Mr. Murdstone and Uriah Heep are both villains (with great names!), but they are uniquely wicked in their own ways. Murdstone is a rigid man who’s hypocritical adherence to religion and rules literally destroys those around him. Heep on the other hand is a slimy man, who puts on a face of humility while abusing the weaknesses of others and going out of his way to make everyone as unhappy as he is. The characters are so vividly drawn and observed by both David’s that the reader actually wants to know just what is going to happen next.

And that is pretty much what happened. I was engrossed in the story and enjoyed reading the weighty tome to its conclusion. David Copperfield himself is a rather bland fellow, reminding me a great deal of Pip from “Great Expectations”, but he’s basically a good soul who finds himself in all kinds of situations. But the reader is entertained by the supporting characters and the situations that Dickens comes up with. I have to admit that I chocked up quite a bit during the last few chapters – to me that’s a solid testament to the skill of the writer. For a book that long, I think Dickens did an excellent job.

What do you think of “David Copperfield” or Dickens in general? Do you think his approach to characters is a valid one, or do you consider it a cheat? What is the longest book that you’ve tackled, and why did it work (or not)?

The Other Side of the Coin – The Naked Sun

Last year I read Isaac Asimov’s “Caves of Steel”, an interesting combination of mystery and sci-fi. It was Asimov’s first novel length Robot themed work and to tell you the truth, I enjoyed it a great deal. Anyone who is not familiar with Asimov should give it a try. It’s very accessible and entertaining to boot.

Now I’ve read Asimov before. I’ve blogged about “The Gods Themselves” and read the Foundation trilogy in high school. So I was pretty familiar with his style and the way he weaves interesting science based themes into his work. “The Gods Themselves” did it in a way that was fairly obvious, but the story was engaging enough to keep the themes from disrupting the flow.

I can say that the two Robot Novels I’ve read, “Caves of Steel” and “The Naked Sun” are much more based in telling the story and having the themes play more of a background role. After all most mystery stories have to be plot based by their nature – otherwise the mystery ends up taking back seat to the thematic action. That’s what makes these two books easy to recommend to people who aren’t huge fans of science fiction. The mysteries are both compelling enough to make the story entertaining, and if they make you think outside of the story – well that’s just a great bonus.

“The Naked Sun” is really a solid companion novel to “Caves of Steel”. Sure you could read “Naked Sun” and enjoy it without reading “Caves of Steel” first, but they actually work together so well, that I really wish I had read the two books back to back. The Naked sun follows the protagonist of the first book, Elijah Bailey to the world of Solaris, where a murder has taken place. He is brought in to find the killer, and bring them to justice – simple enough right?

Well, Bailey has a few problems right from the start. Being from Earth, he’s not used to huge open spaces and wandering about on the surface of the world. In “Caves of Steel” we learn that humanity is living underground in densely populated mega-cities. Bailey is used to crowds of people and recycled air. The fact that Solaris is all open fields and huge mansions presents not only a huge culture shift for him, but actually makes it difficult for him to concentrate on the task at hand.

In addition the world is sparsely populated, but has an enormous robot to human ratio – something like 10,000 robots to every one person. On Earth robots are disliked and considered to be a necessary evil. On Solaris, they are a fact of life, built to serve and do whatever the Solarians ask.

While the mystery is still the focal point of the plot, it is the huge cultural differences that not only drive the story, but also provide for the themes of the book. The contrast between earth and Solaris is very obvious, but as Bailey attempts to untangle the mystery, he finds more and more that the differences between the two cultures shows strengths and weaknesses in each that he never considered before. And this leads into the final chapter of the book where Bailey realizes a truth about human kind and the fate of those on earth.

All in the all the book is a solid read, every bit as intriguing as “Caves of Steel”, if a little on the slower paced side. There isn’t much in the way of action in the novel, most of the interaction happens via view screen (Solarians refuse to see each other face to face and find such close contact abhorrent and obscene). But the mystery itself as well as the finding out bits of the culture as you search for clues with Bailey keeps you turning pages. The only downside for me was that the very interesting character of Robot Daneel Olivaw has a smaller role to play. While in “Caves of Steel” he was a main character and key to the investigation. In the “Naked Sun” he is removed from the story for a good third of the book. He plays a key role, but I missed his interaction with Bailey.

What “The Naked Sun” is an excellent example of is the fact that Asimov took his characters and situations from “Caves of Steel” and wrote a sequel that not only expanded and developed those ideas, but also made sure that “The Naked Sun” took the world concept into a new direction. This is actually a really impressive sequel – one that doesn’t rehash the previous book, but moves things in a new direction and provides a very interesting ending.

In his introduction to the book Asimov says that he felt that “The Naked Sun” was the perfect ending to his Robot series. I agree with him. He did end up writing a third book 25 years later called “Robots of Dawn”. I’m curious to read it, but I wonder if it was really necessary. “The Naked Sun” was a perfect ending for these characters and that world.

Have you read “The Naked Sun”? What did you think of it? Have you ever read a book or seen a movie that was a excellent sequel – one that took the established characters and situations and took them in a new direction (instead of just rehashing the story)?

A Tragic Legacy – The Children of Hurin

Tolkien is considered the father of “High Fantasy” or fantasy stories based on the model of epic quests to save the world (as opposed to “Low Fantasy” or a series of adventures where the main character is more out for themselves). He created a vast detailed world that obviously resonates today not only to readers and writers, but the public at large now that “The Lord of the Rings” movies have come and gone.

So when more of his work comes to light, there plenty of fantasy fans who start salivating. This was the case for “Children of Hurin”, a work that was created from several different accounts written by J.R.R. Tolkien and compiled by his son. Reading the introduction you get a feel for the reason why the story was compiled in the first place – Tolkien felt that it was a key part of the world he created. It didn’t have the vast mythological view of “The Simarlillian” (a work I have yet to be able to get through, despite my love of mythology). And it wouldn’t be like the adventurous duo of “The Hobbit” or “Lord of the Rings”. Instead this fell somewhere in the middle, a solid hero legend.

For the most part you can’t tell that the work was a fusion of different sources. Tolkien does a good job of creating a linear flow to the work and smoothes over the rough patches with minimal interference. My only issue was the first chapter in which the amount of Tolkien-esque names was hurtling at me fast and furious and the whole chapter came across like an info dump. But after that chapter, the story got rolling and was very interesting. It was a solid mix of wanderings, chases, escapes, battles, love and doom.

Doom plays a huge role in the story and in the end makes the book feel very melancholy. Even “Lord of the Rings” has a feeling of sadness to it (what with the elves leaving and everyone running off to the Grey Havens at the end), but the final words of the book and the movie were with Sam, and he seemed to give you comfort that everything was all right.

“Children of Hurin” doesn’t go for the warm fuzzies. It’s main theme is about fighting fate and how fate or Doom if you prefer is too strong to completely break from. But the Doom in this case is powered by the malicious soul of Morgoth (the god-like being who was Sauron’s master). Once Morgoth sets his will against you there is nothing you can do to stop it. The protagonist, Turin, isn’t completely aware of this doom, but as we follow him we see its affects again and again. Still Turin does his best to live a life that he can be proud of and one that does a lot of good (even if it also causes a lot of harm). The story is an epic tragedy in a way, but one governed by the will of Morgoth – now the will of Turin.

How does this tie to “Lord of the Rings” especially since it happen centuries before the more famous story? It actually tells you more about the One Ring. Morgoth doesn’t even need a ring to impose his will. He merely thinks of cursing you and you are cursed. This focused malevolence is made very clear in the book and gives us an idea of how his servant Sauron could create the Ring. The focusing of the will of Sauron into the Ring is much like what Morgoth did in this story.

That said, I think Tolkien fans will find a lot to like in the book. It’s not one I may revisit often, but when I’m in a melancholy mood, or just looking for a Tolkien fix shorter than Lord of the Rings, this will be an easy one to pick up.

What did you think of “Children of Hurin”? What do you think of J.R.R. Tolkien? What do you make of the idea of fate or Doom? Do you ever address that idea in your stories?

Matters of Perspective – Watchmen (novel)

“Watchmen” has been touted as one of the most important graphic novels in the history of the media. Reading a little about it you discover that is changed the way comic books were viewed, perhaps even leading to the phrase graphic novel. It has been called a deconstruction of the superhero storyline. It has been called a work of art. It has been called one of the greatest novels of all time.

So when you see all that hyperbole you can’t help but feel a bit antagonistic. I mean, it can’t be that good right?

What struck me the most while reading “Watchmen” was the fact its impact must have been monumental back in 1986 when it was published. Now, it’s like “Star Wars – A New Hope” or “Blue Suede Shoes” by Elvis. We can see how innovative it was during its time, but now it seems familiar or cliché (even if it invented the cliché in the first place). Now maybe I’m doing “Watchmen” a bit of a disservice. That is not my intention; I just want to put some perspective on my reaction to it.

When I was done, I felt a little annoyed that all that work went into what was essentially an anti-climax. I understand it was the point. The story is supposed to take all our conventions about super hero stories and shatter them. It did that. But a real great piece of art not only conveys its message but does so in a way that is affecting. Annoyance isn’t really affecting – it’s, well annoying. Did the artists mean to annoy me? You could argue one way or the other. I think they were trying to make me think – and they did a very good job of it.

Now, I’m willing to say that my exposure to the medium of super hero comics is fairly light. In my youth I read some “X-men” (Uncanny and regular). I read some “Transformers” back when those were the rage. I even had a couple compilations of “The Incredible Hulk”, “The Fantastic Four” and “The Amazing Spiderman” when I was really young. I don’t remember them too well, but my parents have stories of me yelling “Flame on!” when I was in my single digits. I have a sense of what super hero comics were before “Watchmen”.

The focus of most of these stories were good versus evil – with lines clearly drawn. It was about action and adventure. Sometimes the superheroes had personal problems, but it was rarely the kind of thing that turned into a feature storyline. The art supported the action and was very functional. Most mysteries were solved in the same issue they were presented. Again, these are broad generalizations based on my experience, I’m sure there were exceptions.

“Watchmen” does not have clearly drawn lines of good and evil. The story is not about action or adventure, but is theme based. “Watchmen” is the first superhero comic book I’ve read that is so rich in themes and ideas, and not only presents them, but also shifts perspectives to provide other views of the themes. All the super heroes have some kind of personal problems and these problems as well as their history take up the bulk of the story. These become part of the themes and feed into multiple ideas. The art not only illustrates the action, but it has deeper layers, sometimes providing ironic imagery, or illustrating the feelings behind the dialogue, or illustrating what is being said in a unexpected way. “Watchmen” forces you to examine nearly each panel and look back at previous panels after you proceed deeper into the book. Some of the questions presented in the book are never answered, and the ones that are only seem to lead to new questions. The world of the “Watchmen” is profoundly changed in the series, but I was left wondering what would happen after the events depicted.

It’s easy to see all the ways “Watchmen” have influenced the super hero genre in nearly all points. It’s a dark and cynical book. And that darkness and cynicism really affected the genre. So much so that most super hero films must be cynical, dark and moody. Just compare Richard Donner’s “Superman” with Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns”. They both portray the same set of characters and are connected even via narrative – and yet the feel between the two couldn’t be more different. “Superman Returns” reflects what audiences expect from comic book super heroes after “Watchmen” changed the game.

“Watchmen” plays with perspective. And as a modern reader, our perspective must be adjusted. Some of us only know the world after “Watchmen” and may not see anything extremely innovative in it now. But it takes more than just reading the surface of the book. It begs to be thought about and examined from all perspectives. It makes it unique and interesting and powerful.

I’m going to tackle the movie in a separate blog, so save your movie specific comments for the next installment.

Have you read “Watchmen”? What did you think of it? Was your perspective of comic book super heroes changed by it, or did your perspective of the genre affect what you thought of it?