|
Post by Dr Strange on Feb 26, 2021 14:03:07 GMT
Not to forget Gavin Lyall, late Geoffrey Household (although not perhaps his best period)... I read Household's The Sending (1980) sometime in the early 80s when I borrowed it from the library, and have often thought about trying to get hold of it again. I think it's unusual for him, in that it strays a fair way into the supernatural (or does it?). It had a sort of "respectable British paganism" thing going on in it that surprised me coming from Household - though I think the only other thing I'd read by him was (and still is) Rogue Male.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Feb 26, 2021 14:12:15 GMT
Duncan Kyle may not be as superb as you remember him. Well each to their own, of course. Although I thought his historical novel THE WAR QUEEN (written under his real name) was excellent, and I read STALKING POINT only recently and really enjoyed it, although it was let down by a poor ending I'll grant you. But I wouldn't let that deter me from revisiting other books of his. However I didn't see literary quality as being the point at issue here. If it was Maclean himself could scarcely claim a place as one of the big three as his own powers were in sharp decline by the late 70s. But he remained a big name and a much borrowed presence in the public library system which was hugely important in establishing a writer's status in those days. But Canning was every bit as popular, a consistently excellent storyteller and by being more prolific probably more deserving of a place amongst the big three than Bagley. I do not think MacLean holds up very well either. (Try reading ICE STATION ZEBRA again; it is practically unreadable.) But Desmond Bagley does.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Feb 26, 2021 15:04:46 GMT
Well each to their own, of course. Although I thought his historical novel THE WAR QUEEN (written under his real name) was excellent, and I read STALKING POINT only recently and really enjoyed it, although it was let down by a poor ending I'll grant you. But I wouldn't let that deter me from revisiting other books of his. However I didn't see literary quality as being the point at issue here. If it was Maclean himself could scarcely claim a place as one of the big three as his own powers were in sharp decline by the late 70s. But he remained a big name and a much borrowed presence in the public library system which was hugely important in establishing a writer's status in those days. But Canning was every bit as popular, a consistently excellent storyteller and by being more prolific probably more deserving of a place amongst the big three than Bagley. I do not think MacLean holds up very well either. (Try reading ICE STATION ZEBRA again; it is practically unreadable.) But Desmond Bagley does. THE GOLDEN KEEL and RUNNING BLIND are both on my to be read list, the latter chiefly on account of it being adapted for tv by Jack Gerson who was inspired by its premise to write The Assassination Run. Will be sure to post my thoughts when I do. I still believe its unfair to single out any three writers for especial significance when British thriller writing of the period was so rich and deep in talent. Alan Williams, for instance, wrote books as good as anyone's but who reads him today?
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Feb 26, 2021 16:40:02 GMT
Well of course it's not fair but when did that ever come into it? To me MacLean Innes and Bagley are the big three. I based this impression on the companion book club hierarchy of thriller writers which I think reflected the sales and tastes of the time. Bagley wrote less and was more consistent. Innes had a longer career and a wider scope.
If it was about personal taste I'd throw in a vote for Francis Clifford who gets overlooked. I like Lyall but Victor Canning is a better writer though I just like Lyall more. That's where it gets cloudy and although it means lesser selling writers get overlooked, the fact is that the sales of the big three and their profile (helped by how their publishers got behind them) mean that they are the first names readers of a certain age or those looking at the pressing the times would go to.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Feb 26, 2021 16:41:59 GMT
Hate doing this on phone as lost sentence there explaining that the CBC and its newsletters were a window to the times when I was growing up reading them in the 70s
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Feb 26, 2021 17:21:27 GMT
I do not think MacLean holds up very well either. (Try reading ICE STATION ZEBRA again; it is practically unreadable.) But Desmond Bagley does. I never read one of MacLean's novels. While I have seen Where Eagles Dare nearly a dozen times or more - mostly I tune in in the last third, when Eastwood starts shooting; it is so ridiculous but still fun - I never read it, while I have bought a copy. I was surprised how big this novel is. Also I think I never read Bagley. While I sampled a lot of those writers back then, I don't have one.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Feb 26, 2021 18:24:53 GMT
Well of course it's not fair but when did that ever come into it? To me MacLean Innes and Bagley are the big three. I based this impression on the companion book club hierarchy of thriller writers which I think reflected the sales and tastes of the time. Bagley wrote less and was more consistent. Innes had a longer career and a wider scope. If it was about personal taste I'd throw in a vote for Francis Clifford who gets overlooked. I like Lyall but Victor Canning is a better writer though I just like Lyall more. That's where it gets cloudy and although it means lesser selling writers get overlooked, the fact is that the sales of the big three and their profile (helped by how their publishers got behind them) mean that they are the first names readers of a certain age or those looking at the pressing the times would go to. It's fun debating this stuff Andy, and I daresay we could continue to do so until the cows come home and still cheerfully agree to disagree. It's no coincidence I think that Maclean, Bagley and Innes were all published in paperback by Fontana in the 70s at least. Perhaps their publicity department was simply more efficent than that of their competitors. Perhaps having the Bonds made Pan complacent which wouldn't have aided Canning's cause [though he was just as perseverant a presence in the book clubs as the others]. But, as you say, so much of our perception of such is informed by personal experience. As the book clubs were to you so it was my dad's weekly visit to the local library that provide me with my barometer of the reading climate of the times. Even though his preference was for Napoleonic era naval fiction he was pretty well read in the thriller sphere. Certainly read all the big three and especially liked Bagley. The only problem with his stuff was that there was never enough of it. Which is probably why he gravitated to Jack Higgins where there always seemed to be a surplus of titles to read and so it has remained ever since.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Feb 26, 2021 18:55:30 GMT
Ah now if it was library experience I'd say Douglas Reeman was more popular than any of them in my local in the 70s. I have to say I would always go for Len Deighton or Clifford or Lyall over the big three, but their absolute presence is what makes me still think of them as such even though they wouldn't be my first choice.
Of course I also think the fact they were hardbacked and paperbacked by the same publisher helped immensely. Those who had the time lag involved in setting up separate paperback deals inevitably suffered against an integrated publishing schedule.
It's rarely about quality alone after all.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Mar 1, 2021 7:51:31 GMT
I know I'm only having the conversation with myself now, but it occurred to me that there as something I forgot to add regarding the Fontana paperbacks that Crom mentioned, and which probably had a lot to do with why Maclean/Bagley/Innes were at the top of that tree for so long. When I was about 8-12 and used to spend my pocket money on paperbacks, I would haunt Woolies wherever I was, and any department store that sold books, and the two things that are consistent memories are that all the Pan paperbacks that were regulars were tv and film tie-ins, and theere were always Fontanas of the aforementioned three writers, as well as Helen MacInnes, who also got on shelves consistently. Older and knowing more about the business now, I would speculate that this was about the Collins sales people wanting to keep pushing certain writers and also having the sales force to get those books restocked even if they were not current releases. You have a limited shop window and people will buy the same stuff - this may be why people like Lyall and Garve did not have the longevity and profile they warranted in paperback, as they would have been sacrificed to Pan's quicker turn-over tv and film tie-in business model. It doesn't apply as much in the internet age, but back in the day it was the limited shelf space and the forcefulness of the sales tram that could really make a career. Not that it affected Fleming, of course - who was paperbacked by Pan and who in the early seventies I remember seeing only when they repackaged the line (including a very nice box set)and in second hand 60's editions that my uncle had (he used to trade paperbacks through his work as the post office). It's sobering to look back and realise how much your taste can be shaped by factors that you dont realise and are beyond your control.
I realise that I have been thinking about this a bit too much...
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Mar 1, 2021 9:22:15 GMT
It's sobering to look back and realise how much your taste can be shaped by factors that you dont realise and are beyond your control. I realise that I have been thinking about this a bit too much... Not at all. Marketing and muscles to get enough space on the shelf were an important part of the trade. Long ago an editor told me about covers and presentation: if the prospective buyer can be coerced to pick up a copy, take it into his hands, chances for a sale improve. He may have been right. Today this paradigma has changed, the customer has to actively search for the product. It is no longer offered. Remember all those catalogues given mostly for free in book shops, often twice a year, in the spring and autumn? And the booksellers got even more expensive versions with more information and bigger pictures from the sales team. At least this was how it worked in Germany. And I think this market psychology is still valid, only the distribution has changed so much that it is no longer doable or affordable. And the art of the cover has of course been killed. I never read a book of the big three, Maclean/Bagley/Innes, but I can distinctly remember how the covers of their novels were represented even in those cheaply made catalogues made for the foreign import market. After all these years I can remember Bagley's Fontana covers with those dynamic action art of white boats. Pages of lists, but those writers were featured with a cover picture. Fontana must have had big pockets at the time.
|
|
|
Post by kooshmeister on Mar 15, 2021 13:21:01 GMT
Recently got The Guns of Navarone and Force 10 from Navarone downloaded from Audible. I have the physical books, of course, but I wanted them in audiobook form so I could listen to them while lying down in bed at night. Listening to books helps me relax.
As regards their movie adaptations, I'm torn. I like Guns' novel and movie about equally for different reasons, but when it comes to Force 10 I think the book is far superior. Nothing against the movie, which has great performances from Robert Shaw, Harrison Ford, Edward Fox and Carl Weathers, but the story is just a lot less interesting, and I hate that they killed off two important characters from the book, in addition to pointlessly renaming him. In the novel, we have Partisan babe Maria and the token honorable German officer Captain Neufeld, who have been renamed Maritza (MacLean seemed to really like naming women Mary or Maria or some variation thereof, so Martiza is on point if nothing else) and Major Schroeder respectively and pointlessly killed off. They also pointlessly renamed other characters: Partisan leader General Vukalovic is now Colonel Petrovitch and Chetnik bad guy Droshny is now Drazak.
Admittedly, Guns wasn't immune to this, either; Squadron Leader Bill Torrance, Turzig, Skoda, Captain Briggs, Matthews, Rutledge, and of course Andy Stevens were allo renamed Howard Barnsby, Muesel, Sessler, Baker, Grogan, Weaver and Roy Franklin respectively. They basically renamed the entire supporting cast for no reason I can discern. Changing Miller's first name from Dusty to John I get, since he was American in the novel (more on this momentarily) and in the novel is played by the very English David Niven. I must say I prefer Niven's Miller to the book's, mostly because, as an American, Dusty Miller never entirely feels authentic to me. Especially in the audiobook version, where despite the fact Miller is supposed to be from Calironia, Jonathan Oliver makes him sound Texan (!).
Anyway, long story short, the movies are great (although Force 10 could've been better), but I don't get all the name changes.
|
|