Why would he shoot Boris?! Why?!
A disappointmenting read which says quite a bit considering my feelings towards Gardener's (Bond) books. I had slightly higher expectations than his regular novels as I had enjoyed his novelisation of Licence to Kill; but this seemed like it was just phoned in. The writing seemed that of one who was jaded.
I'm reading Gardener's novels in order so I was curious as to whether or not Gardner would work this into the timeline of his novels, he didn't, which is fair enough; there are probably contractual reasons as to why, and it hadn't been done in LTK.
My biggest issue with Goldeneye perhaps, is what is has been a major issue in all his novels thus far; writing women. To say they are one-dimensional is probably kind, they barely even have a dimension. Natalya perhaps did more solo work than women in previous books and proved herself capable of surviving 2 minures away from Bond's loins, but this would have been written by the original screenwriters..... Gardner dismantles all that by dressing her up as a school girl to smuggle her out of Russia in plain sight all while she bemoans the fabric of her newly gifted underwear. This was totally unnecessary and added no humour to the story. Wade was described (by Bond's thoughts) as being lecherous for looking at her. Yet irony abounds when Bond himself knew all about school girls underwear material, how unflattering it it is and showed no bones bar possibly one about being aroused by her knee socks.
Bond is many things (in books and movies) but he is not into school girls and nor should that be implied.
__
I mentioned earlier that I felt this was phoned in, and I say that because at times it's like he hadn't read the screenplay. The chapter after Bond and Natalya were "smuggled out" of Russia, Wade asked Bond who Natalya was (as inlin with the movie)... yet Wade himself organised and dressed her up as a school girl the day previous.
It's at best lazy writing though I'm leaning more to incompetent.
___
I'm almost finsih, I promise you, because, I don't want to waste much more time in this.
There is a well known scene in Goldeneye where 006 holds a gun to Bonds head to persuade Natalya to give Boris the access codes to the rockets. Natalya responds with "Shoot him, he means nothing to me" in the final act. This is humours and well delivered as it's mirroring Bonds words on the train, and we know she is calling 006's bluff. (The train scene is played out as such in this novel. )
Gardner though changes this and has 006 point the gun at Boris. This is dumb for several reasoms.
Natalya has no fondness or positive emotional connection to Boris. They are not portrayed as friends as in the movie, so she wouldn't care. Bond is who she has the emotional ties with.
The humour of her retort works in the movie as it mirrors what Bond said; but here we are treated to a smug nod of approval from Bond who then acknowledges (out loud) "standard operation procedure" ie, call his bluff. because yes, you will outright say to the aggressor, that their bluff is being called.
lastly, Alec shooting Boris would also have made Natalya's plan foolproof. If Boris was killed, no one else could redirect the rocket. This is a win for Natalaya. Alec Trevelyan, formerly 006, is not an idiot, he shoud know that. Why would he shoot the one guy who could fix his problem?
To quote Benoit Blanc; it's just dumb.
Dumb, lazy, jaded writing.