The Fall - Guillermo Del Toro & Chuck Hogan

 After finishing The Strain yesterday I was impressed enough to start reading, The Fall immediately afterwards. It is the second novel in, The Strain trilogy, and I have just found out that the third novel is to be released 25th October this year.

 As I started this novel I instantly hit the snag so many novels that follow on from one another suffer, and that is repetition from the preceding novel. I always find this odd because surely the authors know that most people who have the book are reading it because they have read the first one. Sure I can understand they are also covering for the readers who haven't read the first novel, but the majority of readers are returning ones surely?  The amount of information from the first novel was too great, and the first few chapters were a pain. I found myself getting a bit bitchy about virtually reading parts of the first novel again.

 So I put it down for several hours and came back to it. These are very easy reading, and I had got through 50 pages before throwing it aside. When I came back I polished of the remaining 250 pages in one sitting. Once that annoying so called 'catch up' ( as if I'd forgotten what had happened!! ) was out of the way, the novel cracked along at a reasonable pace, and was a solid follow up to the first novel. Solid but not spectacular, and if anything seriously lacking all of the creepiness of the first.

 The lack of creepiness may be intentional as by now the reader is well aware of what is going on, and the novel moves on to the fall of humanity, and the ensuing apocalypse. This novel also lacked the page turning qualities that I so liked about the first. The surprises are gone and this novel read like any other. But even though I have gripes it provides enough for me to want to pick up the third novel when it is published. There are some flaws in this trilogy which are unfortunate, but overall it has enough strengths to overcome them.

 The strengths come from some very good use of topical subjects, fused around historical backdrops. In my review on The Strain, I referred to Ground Zero and Treblinka. Well in The Fall, we go back to Treblinka but also to other post-war European cities and destinations. The Holocaust background is actually very well done, and I did feel that the authors did their research. Certainly using such an event as a plot line is encroaching on touchy ground, and yet I think they have handled it with aplomb and delicacy, whilst all the time infusing it into the narrative by highlighting its inherent horrors.

The only historical fault I could find was the use of a Roman crypt outside the Treblinka camp. I'm 99.9999% sure that the Romans never made it that deep into what is modern day Poland, so it cannot be a Roman era crypt. Maybe the authors wanted to keep things simple by using the Romans, as they are easily recognisable to the general reader than a more obscure ancient European race. A small matter, but one that stood out against the otherwise excellent research they have clearly put in.

 The topical subjects revolve around nuclear power plants and global warming. Suffice to say Chernobyl is a narrative point, and with it the threat of nuclear winters. I can't say too much as it will give away too much, but the end of the novel is quite plausible, and provides the only chills of the novel. But again the use of modern, and well known facets of our everyday lives as a potential instrument of apocalypse, is well done. The use of nuclear power plants as places of creation for certain vampires, and their destruction, is very clever and original.

 I stated the first novel lacked a certain degree of originality, and I still think so. It is only the vampires that aren't original but otherwise the storyline is quite solid. Fortunately this novel didn't wander off into the realm of implausibility or sheer silliness, and that is its strength. It does have a whiff of the possible, and so much of the break down of society when faced with loss of law and order, has been seen right throughout history. So yes so much could be tomorrow's headlines!

  The authors have shown what greed and to much money can do, and it is again a good infusion of the everyday world into the premise. All this destruction is brought about by one man. He wants to obtain immortality by entering into a virtual 'Devils pact' which backfires. He uses his immense wealth to orchestrate the rise of the vampires, and ends up by not getting his desire. There is an element of truth in the author's observations on humanity and its stengths, avarices, and the trappings of wealth and greed.

 The novel then ends when humanity in the grip of a nuclear winter, and now nothing more than food sources for the vampires. I finished the novel quite literally reaching over to my desk wanting the third novel!! I have raised my criticisms of the trilogy so far, but overall it is very solid with some commendable research. There is a lack of originality about the vampires, but everything else is well done and provides plenty of plot, and desire for the reader to keep reading. The pacing is good even though not quite page turning. I've been entertained and satisfied, and if anything, what more can you ask for from a mass produced novel?!

 Lacking in creepiness but has some very solid plausibility backed by some impressive research. Still worth a look at if you like apocalyptic premises. Like The Strain Amazon has this with 4 out of 5 star from 138  reviews. A fair enough grade as the strong points do for me out way the negatives, which really are only a lack of originality pertaining to the vampires.

The Strain - Guillermo Del Toro & Chuck Hogan

 'The first in a trilogy that soars with spellbounding intrigue. Truly, an unforgettable tale you can't put down once you read the first page.'

Clive Cussler.

 'Blood and apocalypse mix in a terrifying story that feels like it was ripped from today's headlines. Vividly wrought and relentlessly paced, The Strain haunts as much as it terrifies.

James Rollins.

Well I hope you all know who Guillermo Del Toro is because it will save me the time of informing you! Suffice to say he is one of my favorite film makers, and he gave the world the brilliant, Pan's Labyrinth, in 2007. Around the time I heard that Del Toro was contemplating writing a novel, and it was a surprise to me to see his name on the spine of a book in my local library yesterday!!

 And not just on one spine but two!! I had no inclination what so ever he had actually done it!! The Strain then is the first novel in the so called, 'Strain Trilogy', which is co-authored with Chuck Hogan. The initial problem for me with two supposed authors though is, who actually had the most input. I find a suspicion sneaks in when a man like Del Toro, with an internationally recognised name and reputation, supposedly writes a novel as to how much of it is his and did he REALLY write it.

 I can't answer that question and we may never know, but I'm keeping an open mind on it as I hope by putting his name on the cover it wasn't a commercial ploy to sell books. Anyway that niggle out of the way is it actually any good?

 Well in any critiquing situation all I can say is yes...and no. It is well written, and I do think the use of Chuck Hogan is evident here, as the writing is just too competent for a first up novelist as Del Toro is meant to be. It is full of a lot of technical things in regards to rats, medical terms and facts, and other general stuff, and it is all well researched, factual and explained in easy terms to the reader. It is in 'layman's terms', but not to the point of patronisation. I do feel a hint of Del Toro/Hogan giving their audience the benefit of some intellect which impressed me, as it is a good way to get the reader on their side, and come back and buy more books. Simple things like that work and are subtle marketing ploys.

 At 401 pages it is actually a fairly hefty novel in this day and age of the air-port thriller, that takes up 250 pages, and can be breezed through in a few effortless hours. I read this in about 10 hours so it is quite meaty. And it is a genuine page turner!! It is a hideous clique these days to call a novel, 'page turner', and generally they aren't!! But The Strain is and I just couldn't stop!! I mean I started it at 9.00pm last night, and was still going at 4.30am this morning!! I got up to page 280 and finished the rest several hours ago.

 So yes, once you are into the first page it hooks you, and pages do tend to fly on by quite rapidly! As a suspense/horror novel this works, and the skill involved in making this type of novel work is immense. But it can throw up several pitfalls. Namely at times as my desire increased to know what happened next, I found my mind wanting to skip chapters and find out! It is only a mental thing but it became disconcerting in trying to fight the urge back! Also at times when I struck a chapter ( of which they are very short ) which I felt a bit flat, I had to again suppress the desire to skip it! But in all I did read every word in the novel!

 In a literal sense then, The strain, works extremely well for the type of genre it is, and in the way it is written. But unfortunately it isn't exactly original in premise. Recently you may be aware I reviewed Richard Matheson's novel, I am Legend. If you haven't read the novel then I strongly urge you to do so as it is a brilliant, and extremely influential novel. So influential in fact that, The Strain, has lifted an enormous part of it's premise and used it itself. It's not plagiarism but the premise of a vampire that carries a parasite is very much, I am Legend. Also so is the idea that vampires are creatures of myth. One character in ,The Strain, says they are myth ridden because of a certain Irishman, namely Bram Stoker, from his novel, Dracula. In, I am Legend, and, The Strain, the vampires are completely different to the commonly held perceptions of what a vampire is.

 So there is a palpable lack of originality running through the novel. I couldn't escape the, I am Legend, parallels, and yet another cropped up as well. Sure it is expanding the vampire myth but it smacked of the novel, The Day of the Triffids. If you know this classic sci-fi novel you will be aware that the Triffids killed the blind humans with a long stinger. In, The Strain, the vampires also have a long stinging tongue, albeit to draw blood and infest the victim with the virus. I know a Triffid is different from a vampire, but the two stingers are too close for comfort in premise for me to feel Del Toro/Hogan haven't borrowed the idea.

 The novel concerns a plane that lands at JFK airport in New York that mysteriously fails to unload its passengers. Through a series of events involving a bio-hazard unit, they find the plane full of dead people with no visible reasons for death. From there things quickly spiral out of control as the narrative swings around New York, with many scenes at the site of an excavated Ground Zero. It also goes back in time to the extermination camp of Treblinka, where a character had encountered the strain before. ( I won't tell much more as it will only lead to spoilers, and I want you to read the novel without initially knowing too much! ).

 The Strain, then has its plus and minuses, but overall I enjoyed the novel. It is a genuine, genuine page turner with all the inherent strengths and flaws that entails. It is initially quite creepy, but after a while that wore off, and it became a vampire hunt and kill exercise. Unfortunately it has an under-current of unoriginality as it feels too close to two other very famous sci-fi/horror works. But that aside, for the type of novel it is it ticks enough plus boxes to satisfy.

 Even without Del Toro's name on the cover it would still be a good enough novel for me to pick up and read. Amazon has this with 4 four stars out of 5, from 385 reviews. A fair grading as it does more than enough when so many other novels of the sort don't.

 Now I'm off to read the second novel of the trilogy, The Fall!!!!!!

Ship Of Rome - John Stack

 In his debut novel John Stack has brought to life the crux of the First Punic War, namely its naval component. And with it he has written a solid novel on this war that has been somewhat forgotten in light of the bigger, and better known, Second Punic War, of Hannibal and Scipio Africanus fame.

 Whilst Ship of Rome is a solid novel it holds no pretense to historical accuracy. In fact for everything I liked about this novel Stack let himself down with some laziness in this area. To be sure artistic license has been used, and I can accept that. I can even accept at times an author has to shuffle facts etc around for narratives sake. But if a writer of historical fiction wants credibility, then he must do better than Stack has done here.

 Firstly my biggest historical gripe is his skewing of the Carthaginians. According to Stack they are the aggressors here and not the Romans. Through his Carthaginian character Gisco, a huge tyrannical bully of a man, he paints the Carthaginians as war like belligerents, when in fact they weren't. In all reality  Carthage was a trade based city that used its navy to protect its maritime trade routes. It wasn't a militarily expansionist city as Rome was,  preferring to use diplomacy and trade to dominate the them Mediterranean world.

 But Stack paints a different picture and tries to influence the naive reader into seeing the Romans as the aggrieved party. He over looks the trade aspect of Carthage, but not the fact that war sprung up between the two Cities. He is correct in the fact that the war became one of who would come to dominate the Mediterranean, but he mistakenly paints the picture of Carthage being a military power along the lines of Rome. Carthage was simply not this way inclined, as it was trade expansion inclined, not militarily and subjugation inclined, as Rome was.

 So some sloppy skewing of history belittles this novel. But it goes further as Stack riddles it with the curse of the modern novelist, namely that of the formulaic clique. They are all here, and it is sad that he has fallen into this trap, because again I felt as if rather than lift himself above it, he has decided to just join the mediocre crowd. Here is an example. The two main Roman protagonists, Perenis and Septimus, visit Septimus' home in Rome. His sister turns up and she is the most beautiful woman Perenis has ever seen. I mean I saw that coming several pages before it happened! And of course the forbidden love crops up with Septimus trying to crush it! Cliqued run of the mill stuff, and unfortunately it blights the whole novel.

 Also Stack makes the common mistake of using modern terms. For instance the military term' line of sight'. Now I'm pretty sure the Romans and Carthaginians didn't use it. And I also wonder if they used the nautical terms, port and starboard, in antiquity? I'm not sure, but they quite possibly didn't. But worst of all, and one I wish novelists wouldn't use is, 'make it so'. The problem for me is that it instantly conjures up images of, Captain Jean Luc Picard, of Star Trek fame!!

 But for its faults it has some strengths. I like how Stack has used the internecine politics of the Senate as a backdrop. As well as the reluctant  arrogance of the Roman legions in not believing they  needed to change their fighting tactics in boarding Carthaginian galleys. Remember this is a naval warfare novel and Rome was a prominently land based power, with Carthage having the over whelming edge at sea. So Stack does highlight and use some historical facts, and does it well, but the important stuff he is just too sloppy with.

 For me this novel is solid and competently written, and quirt entertaining in the process. But it paints no vividness, and I never had a picture in my minds eye from Stack's narrative. For everything I liked on one page there was a gaping hole on the next. And it is this that I must judge this novel on. The premise is great, but the historical context is sloppily portrayed, and I really was annoyed at how Stack has quite literally let the chance of a very good novel slip him by. His making the Romans out to be the good guys is nothing but pure fabrication, and he should have painted them, along with the Carthaginians in their respective historical lights. Instead he has taken the easy route out and produced something that lacks credibility, and is clique ridden to the hilt.

 A novel that is frustrating in its being far less that what it could, and should, have been. Amazon has this with 3 1/2 stars out of 5 from 7 reviews. I give it 2 1/2 stars for simply being sloppily researched. A solid effort and a light breezy read. But a novel that held so much promise is let down by choosing to be cliqued, and mediocre in delivery, instead of looking to higher ground, and being a really good novel.  At 362 pages long it provides enough to get your teeth into, and for all its faults, is still a reasonable read.

The Spy Who Loved Me - Ian Fleming

The Spy Who Loved me is Ian Fleming's 10th Bond novel, and by far the most unusual. Written in 1962 it can almost be called a non-Bond novel because Bond himself doesn't appear in it until chapter 10, and is gone by the 15th and final chapter. But what makes this novel so unusual is the fact Fleming wrote in the first person point of view, a complete change of style from him.

 The novel is from Vivienne Michel's point of view. She is an early 20 something Canadian woman who narrates to the reader from a remote motel in the American Adirondocks. The novel is only 190 pages long and split into three parts, 'Me', 'Them', and  'Him'. It is a somewhat dark, bleak read, more so than any preceding Fleming novel 'Me' is Michel narrating how she came to be where she is. 'Them' is how two thugs turn up at the Motel with things turning nasty for Michel. And 'Him' is the appearance of Bond and Michel's rescue ( and bedding! ) by Bond.

 At only 190 pages long it is the shortest of the Bond novels, and by far the mot sexually explicit. But the explicitness is under scored by a dis-tasteful streak of sexism and misogyny. Fleming narrates through Michel as she unwillingly loses her virginity in a darkened park, and is then dumped. Later she hooks up with a German who is dumped by his fiance. She has a relationship with him and falls pregnant to him. He quite unceremoniously dumps her, all but blaming her for it! He pays for an abortion in Switzerland which leaves her traumatised and she decides to return to Canada, and tour through the States on a Vespa. 

 It is on this tour that she ends up in the motel and her troubles begin. To state she distrusts men is an understatement! The 'Them' part of the novel is her torment at the thugs hands. One of the thugs is a real psycho, and lets Michel know in no uncertain terms that he is going to rape her before the night is out. The explicitness goes as far as her being called a 'gash', and 'slot'. This is the early 1960's, and this is extremely explicit talk for the times. She endures all sorts of beatings ( punches no less), and abuse, but is saved from being raped by the appearance of Bond. 'Them' is nothing more than Ian Fleming playing out a rape fantasy, and to be honest is extremely dis-tasteful reading. It may be a novel but the reader just knows that Fleming is enjoying what he is writing. I'm afraid it didn't sit well with me.

 'Him' is about Michel being saved by Bond, and the death of the thugs at his hands. It is a typical Bond action scene told through the eyes of Michel. The pair eventually shag ( wouldn't be a Bond novel without the shagging would it??!! ), and Michel tells us it is her first satisfying sexual experience. She feels as if Bond sees her as a person and not just as a body. She says she felt loved for the first time ever, hence the title, The Spy Who Loved Me. What Fleming is doing is trying to temper his previous misogyny with softness after the ugly. He trips up though because as Bond 'takes' her Fleming, through Michel, tells the reader, 'All women love semi-rape. They love to be taken' ( see page 170 ). It is an unbelievable statement to make!! I just about dropped the book in horror! How on earth did he ever get such an absurd statement published?? Again Fleming's fetished up imagination was running away with itself, and the bad taste in my mouth was palpable.

 But even with an unsavoury element, Spy, is actually a very, very good novel. I believe at this stage of the Bond novels Ian Fleming wanted to be taken seriously as a writer, and it comes through in this novel. It is extremely well written, and by far the best piece of writing I've read of his. But when published the novel was poorly received by critics and fans alike. Fleming came to dis-like the novel and tried to block paperback publication in the states. He succeeded until 1967 when it was published after his death. Also when he sold the rights to Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman,  he refused the novel to be used in anyway except for the title.

 It is a shame that this novel has been over looked and somewhat maligned. But it is the way it is written that has garnered the reputation and not the sexism!! For myself I found this an extremely impressive work. I like the angle of taking a woman and looking at Bond through her eyes. To be sure the angle is somewhat skewed by Fleming's fantasies. But that aside the idea is superb, and this is one of the best Bond novels written ( even though he only appears for 4 chapters ). As a stand alone novel, even if you take the Bond angle out, it is a fine work.

 The Spy That Loved Me then is Ian Fleming at his best.....and worst. His writing in this novel is superb, and he showed the world with, Spy, that he could actually write, and wasn't just an author of imaginative espionage thrillers. That is to his credit and I believe this is an incredibly under-rated work from Fleming. On the negative all Fleming's misogynist, and sexist, views come to the fore like a festering poison. His semi-rape comment is disgusting and left me with a lingering bad taste in my mouth. Through Michel and her mis-firing, unhappy sex life, he is playing out his own personal sex fantasies, and they are dis-tasteful to say the least.

 So the two make for a double entente of a novel. So much to commend it, and yet it has an ugliness that cannot be ignored. Bond purists may not like the novel, but I highly recommend it because,  if for nothing else, it shows that Ian Fleming could write, and write very, very well.....I just wish it wasn't about his misogynist fantasies though!

 A fine novel, and must a read on so many levels.

Cover of the edition I read.

 Above is the edition I read. I believe Penguin re-issued the Bond novels with this retro set of covers in 2007. I think they are great and the artistry superb. This one of Spy is the cover I like the most.

Thunderball - Ian Fleming

 "The book is a mystery, a thriller, a chiller, and a pleasure to read."

New York Times.

 Ian Fleming initially wrote Thunderball, his 9th Bond novel, with the intention of having it adapted to film. In essence it is the first novelisation of a Bond screenplay. Written in 1961, it was the first Bond novel that 'Cubb' Broccoli wanted to adapt to film. But due to various legal wranglings, Dr. No, was awarded that distinction. In fact the legal wranglings over, Thunderball, lasted for years, and are the heart of the absurd situation that developed in 1983, with the dual release of official Bond film, Octopussy, and the non-official, Never Say Never Again.

 Well after nine novels I can honestly say I think this is the best one yet!! Dr. No is the only other one that really impressed me, with the others having their individual moments among the datedness. I always thought, From Russia With Love, would be the best. But even though I thoroughly enjoyed it, Thunderball, for me surpasses it. It just doesn't have the datedness of the preceding novels, and if anything still retains a certain freshness. I think it is because of some of names involved technology wise are still known to us, even after 60 years. I mean we all know the weapon names of Polaris, Atlas, Titan, Snark, Matador, and Super Sabre. Also just the use of nuclear weapons as a plot line still has a relevance, and can still be easily imagined by modern readers.

 Another thing as far as datedness went also leapt out at me. And that was the use of language. Before, Thunderball, the strongest word Fleming had used was bitch. But in, Thunderball, he uses crap, bloody, bastard, and the strongest word yet in, arse. Remember this was 1961, so this was heady stuff indeed! Funnily enough, even in the modern Bond films, the language is fairly straight laced and follows the novels. To be sure they are considered family films, and it is quite refreshing when you consider the amount of bad language prevalent in our modern age.
 
 But Thunderball does follow in its predecessor's footsteps with Fleming's sexism exposed once again. Here he has Bond being driven about by Bond girl, Domino. Through Bond, Fleming tells us why woman are such bad drivers, and the obvious fact that they shouldn't be allowed to drive AT ALL! I laughed my head off at the absurdity of it. Fleming wouldn't be able to get away with anything like that today would he??! And surprisingly, Thunderball is more sexually explicit than the last novels. It doesn't get graphic, but the sex scenes are definitely more advanced in detail than before. Surely a sign of the times, as the world was breaking down previously held taboos within literature.

 Thunderball is the novel where Bond's nemesis, Ernst Stavro Blofeld makes his first appearance ( but without the Persian cat! ), along with his criminal organisation SPECTRE ( Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion ). Fleming used the name after becoming enamoured with if from his use of the name Spectresville ( a town near Las Vegas ) in the novel Diamonds are Forever. He also furthered it from his use of the name, Spektor, for the device from  the novel, From Russia With Love.

 Unlike many of the Bond novels, Thunderball, had almost its entirety in the film adaptation. Of course there were additions, most notably Bond's jet pack escape at the start! But otherwise the film follows the novel with very minor changes. Overall I think because of this the film is as solid as the novel. I like the film, but then again there isn't a Connery Bond film I don't like! The film definitely shows Fleming's touch, and desire, of wanting it adapted to a film.

 Yeah I liked Thunderball, and alot. I do think it is overall the best Bond novel of the nine I have read so far. It lacks the datedness of its predecessors, and with it the jerky stop start feel that it brought. I do feel all the Bond novels are worth reading, even though some have dated, and when you get to ,Thunderball, you'll be pleased you did as it is a fine novel. By this stage Ian Fleming had no excuses for writing poorly, and I quietly feel that, with this novel, he had reached his nadir. Some of the last novels had a marked lack of  previous quality, but it is recognised that by then Fleming was an ill man, and not far of his death.

 The most recommended of the Bond novels.

For Your Eyes Only - Ian Fleming

Cover from the first edition.

 This, Ian Fleming's 8th Bond novel, isn't a novel at all. In fact it is a series of short stories Fleming wrote for an aborted television series CBS asked him to write 32 episodes for. But after writing several episodes CBS withdrew, and Fleming gathered together the outlines, novelising them in 1959 under the title, The Rough and the Smooth. The title was changed later to For Your Eyes Only.

  On publication in 1960 the title had the sub-title of, Five Secret Occasions in the Life of James Bond. The US version was, Five Secret Exploits of James Bond. But later the sub-titles were dropped altogether. The five stories comprise of From a View to a Kill, For Your Eyes Only, Quantum of Solace, Risico, and The Hildebrand Rarity.

 For Your Eyes Only was used as the title for the 12th bond film, and used some of the stories characters or plot along with that of Risico. From A View to a Kill lent its name to the 14th Bond film but had no character or plot elements. Plot elements from, The Hildebrand Rarity, were used in the 16th Bond film, License to Kill. And of course Quantum of Solace was used as the title of the 22nd Bond film, and used no plot elements.

 Each short story varies in length and quality, and to be honest, From a View to a Kill, was lame! It is only 30 odd pages long, and involves Bond investigating the death of a NATO dispatch rider in France. Bond tracks down the assassin, kills him, and uncovers his ingenious hide out. Interestingly this short story was going to be the back story to the Moonraker novel. Hugo Drax was to be the assassin who crashes his bike, and then taken to an American hospital, from where Moonraker picks up the story. The title was also used at the end of the, Octopussy, film and yet was shortened to From a View to a Kill instead. The only thing it had in common with the story is the fact that part of its action is in France.

 Quantum of Solace really isn't a Bond story at all. He is at a party in Nassau and he is told a story about a diplomat and his failed marriage. The title is due to the storyteller saying he has a theory about marriages called Quantum of Solace. The film adaptation shared the title and none of the plot, except maybe the thematics alluded to in the theory of Quantum of Solace. I found this an unusual story as it really isn't about Bond at all.

 Riscio sees Bond sent to Italy to investigate a drug smuggling ring. Of the five stories this is far the best with a good violent shoot out at the end. It also incorporates a mild twist in who is the bad guy and who not. This relationship is a key plot line in the movie, and both characters, Colombo and Kristatos are used. The shoot out scene is also an integral part of one the films action sequences.

 The Hildebrandt Rarity sees Bond sent to the Seychelles. It is actually quite a dark and nasty story. Fleming explains the use of stingray tails as a form of keeping a wife in line!! In the story Bond hears a husband using it on his wife. The husband is a rich arrogant prick, and Fleming makes him so believable the reader hates him as much as Bond comes to. The guy is eventually ingeniously murdered by suffocating on the fish of the stories title. Suffice to say there are two suspects, and the story finishes with the identity of the murderer being left up to the reader to decide. The film, For Your Eyes Only, uses very oblique references to this story, and 1989's License to Kill used the stingray tail called, 'the corrector' (!!).

 The whole book is a shade over 200 pages long, and to be honest if you skip it and move on to the impressive, Thunderball, then you aren't going to miss much. The only real thing is the interest value they have on the films. As described various titles and plot elements were used, but really I wasn't particularly impressed with any thing here. Bond purists may disagree, and whilst I read it because it is Bond relevant, in hindsight I may just have skipped it as there are many other books I would rather have read.

An American Dream - Norman Mailer

Cover of the first edition.

 'A devil's encyclopedia  of our secret visions and desires'.

Life.

 After the somewhat simple writing styles of the novels I have read in the last few weeks it was with relish I read, An American Dream, by American writer Norman Mailer. I like Mailer even though I haven't read a great deal of his works, but will state right now I loved his tome on the CIA, Harlot's Ghost immensely. It is a staggering 1300 pages long, and is Mailer at his complex best in bringing to light the criminal acts of the CIA from its 1940's inception to 1965. It was him as an American examining the CIA, its actions, and the stain it left on the American psyche. Sadly Mailer never wrote the sequel to this masterpiece, but even as one novel Harlot's Ghost is a stunner.

 I've also read The Castle in the Forest. It was nowhere near complexly written as many of his preceding works, and again, unfortunately, Mailer never completed his planned trilogy, dying in 2007. The trilogy was a fictionalised account of Adolf Hitler and his life, told through a narrator who is actually a devil. Castle is a fine work, and one that really enthralled me for its unique take, and angle on Hitler. I believe it was the last novel Mailer wrote before he died, and even though well into his eighties he was still able to produce a fine piece of literature.

 Norman Mailer divides opinions markedly. Some hate his writing, while others praise it. No matter how you personally feel about his works he is an important figure of American literature and is impossible to ignore. I prefer him over some of his contemporaries such as Truman Capote, and Gore Vidal for example. Capote for me never rose to the abilities Mailer possessed as a writer, and whilst he was imaginative, his style is somewhat bland. He never came close to Mailer's complexity, and I've always felt his best known work, In Cold Blood, to be somewhat over -rated. I like Gore Vidal's, Julian, but it smacks of Vidal writing his own version of Robert Grave's masterpiece, I, Claudius, and is again somewhat bland.

 An American Dream is considered by many to be a forgotten Mailer masterpiece. It was his fourth novel, and written in 1965. He wrote it in serialised form replicating the methodology of Charles Dickens . Each chapter was written against a monthly deadline for Esquire magazine. It is written in a poetic style, heavy with metaphor, which creates a hypnotizing narrative. It was extremely controversial in its day for its violence, and depiction of women. Main protagonist Stephen Rojack is a war hero, ex-congressman, university lecturer, and television personality with several popular published books. He is living the 'American Dream' of the title. He seemingly has it all, but he still feels like a loser, and comes to despise the banality of his lifestyle.

 He is married to a very rich socialite who is a a complete bitch. One night he strangles her, and tosses her body out of a high rise apartment to make it look like suicide. This is just after he walks in on his wife's German maid playing with herself. He proceeds to sodomize her, and Mailer plays out this sex scene over four long pages! It is a stunning piece of writing because at no stage does he use clinical words or vivid descriptions, but the reader is left in no doubt which orifice he is plundering. This is amazing stuff for 1965 considering the uproar when, Breakfast at Tiffany's, was released in 1961, with Audrey Hepburn playing prostitute Holly Golightly. Against Tiffany's, American Dream was light years ahead graphically, and must have been considered the height of filth in its day!!

 The narrative is very complex, and whilst Mailer gets somewhat abstract at times, it is still a masterful read. Mailer's sentence structure beggars belief, and I just held on to every word, sentence, and paragraph. Even though at times I couldn't understand what Mailer was on about, just the sheer beauty of his writing was enough for me. I've read quite a number of reviews on this novel, and its abstractness is a constant complaint. Because Mailer delves so thickly into use of prose the message of the novel is somewhat lost, and appears only in patches. It is a relatively short novel at 238 pages, but it still took me two nights to read.

 The complexity of the writing meant I had to keep on my toes, and not let my mind wander!! For me, even though I was lost at times, Mailer's writing kept me turning the pages. It was just a pure joy to read, and if anything else, for its flaws, the writing is not one of them. I felt the plot was similar to F. Scott Fitzgerald's, The Great Gatsby, in showing how the very rich have it all, and are bored by it, even though they wouldn't give it up. Mailer takes this further by having Rojack turn to luridness, violence, and depravity just in a effort to feel alive again after many years of having it all. His complaint id he began to feel suffocated by it. The premise is very good being somewhat copied in 2000 film, American Psycho. This novel has been adapted to film starring Stuart Whitman, and Janet Leigh, but I believe it was a poor adaptation, and has slipped into obscurity.

 An American Dream then is not what you would call light reading!! To our modern eyes the subject matter won't appear so controversial as it did in 1965, but if you look at the era it was written in, it must have been shocking stuff indeed! It has two sex scenes that are graphic without vivid descriptions. The sodomy scene must have raised quite a number of eyebrows, and yet Mailer doesn't use clinical words for what is going on. He superbly dances around it, along with the violence, by his complex word usage that leaves an indelible picture in the readers mind.

  This novel is a beautiful embodiment of literature, and why An American Dream is so utterly impossible to ignore. It is regarded as an important work of American literature. But the flaw is that, whilst I love its complexity, the premise is too often abstract, disappearing and reappearing, leaving the reader at times wondering what is going on. As a piece of straight literature it is superb even though it is considered one of Norman Mailer's lesser works.

 A short dazzlingly, breathtaking, albeit flawed, masterpiece. If you want something to really stretch your reading abilities then this is the novel for you! Amazon has this with 3 1/2 stars from 32 reviews. Probably a fair mark, and I guess due to its abstractness more than anything.