Icebreaker (novel) - Reviews

Reviews

The New York Times critic Anatole Broyard believed that John Gardner was underqualified to write Bond. "His book strikes me as deficient in many of the basic requirements. Mr. Gardner is all awkwardness. Every time I try to enter into his latest conspiracy we bump heads. It's one thing to accept an improbable plot and quite another to accept an improbable style. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but not my affection for the English language. I don't see why, when Mr. Gardner can learn all about the various weapons, machines and intelligence procedures he describes, he can't do a bit of basic research in ordinary narrative technique. A man who has no talent for describing women, for example, should let them alone." Broyard cited numerous examples of cliched writing and dismissed the plot as "a muddle".

T. J. Binyon writing in The Times Literary Supplement believed the book was "full of good action; his torture scenes are splendidly painful; his villain is adequately megalomaniac, though perhaps not sufficiently outre; his girls are pretty, sexy, and available, and the courting routines as embarrassingly obvious as anything in the original. But in the end Gardner's Bond doesn't really measure up to Fleming's. There isn't that maniacal snobbery about trivial and useless detail which the original so endearingly manifests. And, further, Gardner simply hasn't grasped Bond's most important trait: he only takes assignments where his creator would like to take a holiday. And who on earth would want to holiday in the 'desolate Arctic wastes of Lapland'? Certainly not the luxurious Bond."

People Magazine's anonymous reviewer said that "the action in Icebreaker is fitful at best" and that the book was "not at all up to Gardner's (first) 007 outing, License Renewed. The Russian villain, however, is an original and sometimes interesting menace."

Whereas The Globe and Mail crime critic Derrick Murdoch believed Icebreaker was Gardner's best Bond novel thus far. "In most technical respects (writing, plotting and minor-character sketching), he is more skilful and more painstaking than Fleming even attempted to be. On the other hand, nobody since the Grimm brothers could equal Fleming's gift for improvising such audaciously grotesque adversaries as Dr. No, Blofeld, Auric Goldfinger and his henchman, Oddjob. To make up for the lack of gnomes or behemoths, Gardner offers a plot of labyrinthine complexity, subtler than any of Fleming's. In short, he has taken more risks in Icebreaker to display his own talents, and it has paid off.".

Mel Watkins writing in The New York Times Book Review praised Gardner for adding "a touch of the plot subtlety of less insistently action-oriented thrillers." He also applauded Gardner's updating of Bond. "Although Mr. Gardner's Bond is less raffishly macho and arrogant than previously depicted," observed Watkins, "the spirit of the 007 series remains intact, and few Fleming admirers are likely to object. There is, in fact, something appealing about a James Bond who can react to women with some sympathy and confusion at a crucial moment."

Long-time Gardner admirer and Listener crime critic Marghanita Laski believed Icebreaker "is one of his best yet in his 007 mode." She especially admired the book's Finnish setting which she said "has been good thriller value since Gavin Lyall introduced it.