Just finished Sherwood’s Double or Nothing.
Overall I really enjoyed it. As I’m very sensitive to spoilers, I’ll share my spoiler-free thoughts below. For those who have read the remaining two books of the trilogy, please be mindful that I have not read them yet and would like to go in without knowing any plot points.
It is clear that Sherwood put her heart and soul into this novel. The time and energy and care it must have taken to produce a work like this feels unprecedented to me in the history of literary Bond. This was apparent in so many ways, such as:
-
World building – Sherwood created a Bond universe that feels thought-out and coherent. The structures of MI6, the Double-0 section, the villainous group, and the interconnectedness of the characters adds a degree of authenticity and scale to the proceedings. I know many fans were hesitant about the idea of expanding the universe (myself included), but Sherwood manages to do it in a way that feels natural rather than a pathetic attempt at mimicking Marvel or Star Wars.
-
Bond lore – Despite both the modern setting and the broader world she created around Bond, Sherwood places the novel firmly within the established Bond lore. Prior missions are referenced, familiar characters make appearances (including a couple minor Fleming-Bond ladies), and the whole thing feels like a natural evolution of literary Bond (albeit updated to the present day) rather than a departure from it. As a longtime literary Bond fan, I appreciated how Sherwood managed to stay (relatively) loyal to the series and its rich background.
-
Plot – intricate, detailed, well thought-out. The various threads of the story tie together nicely, and is particularly effective given the novel has essentially three protagonists.
-
Characterizations – Each character has their own unique background and role in the story. We understand who they are, what they want, and what makes them tick. Even relatively minor characters feel real and layered – for some reason I feel like I know them and understand them more than I typically would in this genre. And the intertwining relationships between these characters give the story heft and resonance.
All of this makes Double or Nothing feel like a higher caliber work than so much of what we’ve seen until now with literary Bond. I can’t imagine Gardner having expended anywhere near this amount of time and effort on any of his entries. Even Fleming, whose prose is more engaging than Sherwood’s, would breeze through a novel in about six weeks while on vacation. So Sherwood should certainly be commended for putting so much into this.
Now to the elephant in the room: the constant references to Bond by so many characters in both their internal monologues and their dialogue with others. I had read on this forum and elsewhere that after a while these nods tended to feel gratuitous and grate readers. So I entered the novel a bit nervous. Indeed, there were moments in the book where I questioned whether such references truly added anything. But overall I found that they worked much smoother than I had feared. Remember: Bond might be absent from the story, but his character is quite relevant both to the general plot but especially to the other characters. In the hands of a lesser writer, these references would have come across as gimmicky, but somehow Sherwood makes it work most of the time.
Were there things I disliked about the novel? Absolutely. There were moments when I found Sherwood’s writing style a bit cumbersome. Relatedly, I sometimes needed to go back a bit to make sure I understood what had just happened, particularly during action scenes. Benson and especially Horowitz’s prose felt a bit smoother and more engaging. Indeed, when combining Sherwood’s writing style with the intricate nature of her plotting, Double or Nothing isn’t exactly light reading; I could see myself sooner pick up a Benson or Horowitz when looking to have some fun, rather than investing the level of commitment necessary to fully appreciate Double or Nothing. But perhaps this is a double-edged sword: see my four points above regarding why this book felt so rewarding.
Additionally, towards the end of the book there was a revelation about a legacy character which I’m still trying to wrap my head around. I wonder if such a character decision may have taken things a tad too far – and I say this as someone who was perfectly fine with the ending of NTTD!
One other gripe I have (and this may be more of a gripe with IFP than with Sherwood herself) is the bizarre decision to do a story like this without the foundation of a modern Bond timeline / continuity. The story takes place as Bond is older, after multiple shakeups in MI6 and the death of a legacy character before the book even begins. It almost feels like Double or Nothing jumps to the end of Bond’s career in a continuity distinct from Flemings. So shouldn’t we have seen some of these adventures before taking things down this path? (Granted, had IFP stuck to Deaver’s reboot post-Carte Blanche this would not have been an issue.)
Overall, I found Double or Nothing to be a worthy entry in the Bond canon, and I eagerly look forward to reading the next two in the trilogy (I hope to start A Spy Like Me later this week). If Sherwood puts even half the effort she put into this novel into the next two, I’ll be pleased.
What did you think of Double or Nothing?