-- A Very Personal "Viewpoint" --

MacLean had more success at the movies probably because, in a world which could still remember World War 2, there was still a great demand for heroic stories of how the allies trounced the Nazi oppressors. Bigger and more ambitious military adventures were the norm, but this couldn't go on for ever, eventually people would want to forget and move on, they would need something new, perhaps nearer their own world, however far fetched. For a while though the film studios continued to make a great living rehashing old war stories in their freely gung-ho fashion. Bagley's very first novel does touch on WWII because the gold of the title has to come from somewhere, but this is only really an aside - although a very well researched one - to the main thrust which is how to find said gold and pinch it before anyone notices.

When it comes to disasters the author was an early master. Wyatt's Hurricane took on a truly massive scenario as its backbone, and around it wove a story of civil war into which the young hero of the story steps in an attempt to warn people of the imminent danger. In true disaster style no one wants to take any notice at all to start with. Landslide is another story of disaster, though not on quite the same level, but pretty awesome even so. For me this is where the Desmond Bagley signature makes it's first stylistically important imprint. Not only do we have a first-person story, we also have a highly technical phenomenon, a loner hero who's not quite what he seems, a set of allies being bullied by, well small-town bullies, a little romance for good measure, some expensive whisky and a Landrover! A formula that was to be repeated with great success in later years and one that defines the Bagley style. The previous three stories had similar elements but for me what he was about was basically defined here. (Incidentally Landslide was written in just thirty days after all the work of research had been completed. It was actually named on the train taking the finished manuscript to the publisher! That such a well-crafted story should have had such a precipitous arrival, and be an instant success, goes to show that in the real world perhaps it is the raw energy that must have gone into the writing that shows through on the page.)

Where Bagley and MacLean win out over a lot of more modern authors is in their lack of a jaundiced, cynical viewpoint, so much the fashion these days. True, individual characters may have displayed the trait at times, and the themes (such as drug smuggling or terrorism) sound heavy, but the stories are about mixing characters and resolving problems in surroundings that whisk us away from the hum-drum. It's easy to mock anything you care to mention, but an informed opinion supported by what facts are available, is preferable any-day and will always stand the test of time. Like the old saying points out: "Quality never goes out of style." In these stories the good-guys generally win the day and the bad-guys get their comeuppance (Bagley's The Enemy, it might be argued, was an exception to my sweeping statement!). This at least gave some comfort in a world where in reality this rarely happens.

Desmond Bagley did what, it could be argued, every writer ought to do - he saw the world, worked in it, studied it, made his own unique way in it - and then took up full-time writing. His first novel was published just as he was approaching middle-age, and the life experience shows. The Golden Keel starts with a pace and a level of detail that continued unabated until the very end, with Juggernaut. It was as if there had been no learning curve at all, and this is the test of a true genius. Like the golfer who makes a birdie seem effortless and a matter of course, or the musician who coaxes a depth of feeling and expression out of an otherwise inanimate object. As far as the public was concerned he hit the ground running, as they say, though the work that went on behind the scenes to make everything seem so effortless, was considerable. Wryly, the author was later to comment that if he'd known in the beginning what took him years of writing to learn, his early stories might have turned out even better! A tantalising prospect indeed as all stand on their own merit as terrific adventures.

The first-person perspective was a common technique used by Desmond Bagley; it made the stories more intimate, drawing the reader in. Like MacLean's Ice Station Zebra where the narrator is not all that he seems, and Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd where Poirot is viewed from an unusual perspective, the secret is not giving the game away at the beginning. Read Landslide and observe as the narrator struggles to come to terms with the loss of memory he has suffered - worse still the conclusions he draws; read The Tightrope Men and look out upon an unfamiliar world through the eyes of a man who doesn't know who or what he has become. Make no mistake, this is an art, and one few writers master successfully. However the third-person viewpoint is not totally ignored and is still used to great effect in stories such as The Snow Tiger and High Citadel where the characters are numerous, and where the copious detail and split plot lines require a more complex overview than a single viewpoint could give.

Bagley was always keen to show us the ins and outs of technology, of natural phenomena, of geography; but the detail was never dry and dusty, as it used to be in our older museums. It was dynamic, exciting and enlightening. The research that went into the novels was exhaustive - I have only been able to find one single possible mistake (and I keep re-reading just in case it is me who has misunderstood!). In the 1981 book "Best Sellers: Popular Fiction of the 70's" it was revealed the amount of preparatory work that went into The Snow Tiger, and an example given of the author taking out a long subscription to a Vancouver newspaper to get a feel for the place, but it was also unfairly hinted that the books were written to a formula using a small computer to shuffle text around. This surely is too simplistic a view, perhaps made at a time when such technological leaps forward were not yet fully understood or trusted by the trade. Large-scenario stories don't usually rely on over-convoluted and intricate plots because the result would be to overwhelm the reader, to distract from the main subject matter, the focus of interest. (Nowadays, and judging by the 600+ page thicknesses of contemporary novels, authors are doing just that, unfortunately!) At the other extreme a limited, small scale story relies more on an intricate plot and subtle character moves to create the necessary tension required to keep the reader's attention. That is where a story's particular entertainment value lies. Bagley's novels always had a big theme, whether or not many people were involved. As in Wyatt's Hurricane, which had people in abundance and an awesome subject, the concept or phenomenon can be so complicated in itself that over-detail in other areas would just create a wooliness of perception. In the late 70's perhaps a few word-processors were available, but anyone who has used one for any length of time would realise how relatively simple they must have been back then - little better than a good electronic typewriter. All writers use a common framework for their stories, they can't help that no matter what tool they use to put their ideas down on paper, it is their 'style', the thing that draws us back to them over and over again.

In the short story 'A Matter Of Months' published in 1976, Bagley has written a completely different kind of story, what you might call a 'Whodunit?' It bears no resemblance to his full-length novels and is an exercise in showing that, if he had wanted to, the author could have written in this style and still been able to keep his audience enthralled. The only decisive clue you the reader have as to whether or not the protagonist did do it is in the title. On first reading I have to say I found the story baffling ; but I was not deterred. I cleared my mind of preconceptions and tried again, re-reading to refresh my memory of all the carefully plotted and positioned facts. They are there, believe me! An important hint is on the very first page and I'd missed it. I wasn't used to reading a whodunit from this author you see. The more I read the more I realised how well written it had actually been. I had been guilty of expecting a style I had become used to, and not crediting the author with a wider dexterity.

Sadly there are no more Bagley stories to be had. The published tally runs to sixteen novels and two short stories - along with three films to underline the international popularity of the books. This is a splendid output for any author. Publishers rarely publish more than one novel a year from even the most well-established of their writers. That the publishers knew exactly what the public wanted is shown by the fact that the last two novels were published posthumously - Juggernaut and Night Of Error were finished by the author's wife (and who else could know better what he had intended?). Some might try to write this off as just a cashing-in exercise, but that would be to miss the point entirely. A loyal readership around the world had been built up by hard work and dedication over a long period of time. That the publishers were supplying a great demand rather than trying to create one afresh is shown by the number of reprints some of the paperback editions have gone to - the latest Running Blind I have is the 27th impression. You only reprint when booksellers tell you they have a demand that needs to be filled. Night of Error had actually been the second novel written but had never made it to publication until it was realised what a mistake it would be to withhold it. The final story, Juggernaut, was an adventure in a part of the world very dear to the author during his life, and formed a fitting end to the series.

There were other plots and 'works in progress' at the time of the author's death, but these were deemed too incomplete to be able to be finished in a way he might have wanted - and this was a key consideration on the publication of the last two novels. That's the thing about authors; no matter what the person appears to be like on casual acquaintance (perhaps) or when writing fact rather than fiction; it is on the pages of a book that you get all the insights into how their mind works. A speech impediment would make it hard for a lot of people to hold their attention span on the person stuttering in front of them, let alone wait patiently to get a feel for how and what they were thinking. A sad indictment of our society perhaps and it is a great loss to the rest of us who speak unimpared that our patience is so limited. (Take the soaring intellect of Stephen Hawking, trapped in a broken body, as an extreme example) Only someone close on a daily level would get to know all that person was thinking. Joan Bagley, herself no mean writer, was the perfect choice of person to complete what could reasonably be completed of the work left over. The last two novels were a fine end to the series.