157 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Big lit news (and a nice scoop ) on our main page today...

"First 'Young Bond' Novel Title and Cover Art Revealed!" 'SilverFin' Coming in March 2005

[Jim]

Yay on the story.

Hmm on calling it a James Bond adventure, although I suppose it does have "Young Bond" on there too.

Still not sold on the concept.

But still, yay on the story.

Whether a cover reminiscent of spermatazoon is entirely appropriate is another issue. Note the clever pun - "issue".... oh, never mind.

SilverFin... well, given that I've roundly abused this enterprise and expressed "haughty disdain", I don't suppose that I'm entitled to an opinion about the title.

/spoiler.gif

Made yer look. It's alright, I s'pose. On reflection, no better or worse than many. Don't mind that title at all, actually. Not that it's been dreamt up to impress me, but y'know what I mean. Wasn't that worth reading?

/gen_line.gif

[Qwerty]

SilverFin? Attack of the super charged nasty dolphins.

Why SilverFin? It just does not sound like a Bondian title, and even though these are Young James Bond books, they could have found something better.

The cover art...is interesting. Very weird logo there. Not too crazy about the backround either, I think my interest is spoiled by the grand Richie Fahey covers. Still, be nice to see a villian and a Bond girl, or as it might be, a bad guy and the hot chick on there next time.

Will buy it, and all publications I can find, and I will look forward to the next one later that year.

But please be good reading.

[Loomis]

Cover looks like a box of washing powder.

[Von Hammerstein]

Okay, not real keen on the "Young James Bond" idea. But what's this SilverFin all about. A demented minnow trying to corner the worlds silver market? Dunno about this one. As for capturing the youth market, both my ten year old son and my twelve year old son think Young Bond in stupid. They perfer their Bond grown-up and cool. (How's a thirteen year old Bond supposed to drive a tricked out Aston-Martin, or even stay out past nine o-clock?)

"We'll have to continue this game tomorrow, SilverFin."
"Why is that Master Bond?"
"It's my bedtime."
"But of course, tomorrow then."

Just doesn't have it.

[Simon]

Why SilverFin? It just does not sound like a Bondian title, and even though these are Young James Bond books, they could have found something better.

What would Goldfinger have sounded like to you, had you not heard it with all its associated history with classic literature and ground breaking film making?????????

Yours is a standard response, I fear.

[Jim]

Yep; deliberately touching those Goldfinger (and, in the odd grammar, GoldenEye) buttons. Quite clever, understand it or appreciate it or not. It's an exceptionally Bondian title, taken that way. And at least it's not DeathKillDiesTomorrowDie and the sort of rubbish we've had emanating on and off from Eon for the past few years.

[Qwerty]

Why SilverFin? It just does not sound like a Bondian title, and even though these are Young James Bond books, they could have found something better.

What would Goldfinger have sounded like to you, had you not heard it with all its associated history with classic literature and ground breaking film making?????????

Yours is a standard response, I fear.

Explain to me, how exactly my response is one that you would call standard.

I admire and have no problems with the title Goldfinger, SilverFin does not evoke the same result.

And in any event, you say: "had you not heard it with all its associated history with classic literature and ground breaking film making..." I was not basing the comment on the story itself, but merely the title. How the title Goldfinger would have sounded to me if I'd heard it first I do not know, as that was not the case.

[Jim]

Explain to me, how exactly my response is one that you would call standard.

I admire and have no problems with the title Goldfinger, SilverFin does not evoke the same result.

I suspect standard in the sense that there is a knee-jerk reaction to hate this endeavour, and I admit guilt as much as anyone on that score.

You haven't explained what it is about the title Goldfinger you do admire - as a title per se, without reference to the content of the book/film, and expose in the word "evoke" the key point - you are allowing "Goldfinger" to evoke memories of (um...) Goldfinger. On its face, Goldfinger doesn't mean anything more or less than SilverFin, does it?

I don't propose to speak/write/bash away at the keyboard for Simon but that is what I understood the comment to mean and it's entitrely justifiable.

[Qwerty]

You haven't explained what it is about the title Goldfinger you do admire - as a title per se, without reference to the content of the book/film, and expose in the word "evoke" the key point - you are allowing "Goldfinger" to evoke memories of (um...) Goldfinger. On its face, Goldfinger doesn't mean anything more or less than SilverFin, does it?

Describing and comparing two titles based only on the titles can come off as somewhat odd. The title Goldfinger just sounds like it has that Bondian flavor to it. SilverFin does not. It sounds as if the two words were just put together.

[Simon]

Explain to me, how exactly my response is one that you would call standard.

And in any event, you say: "had you not heard it with all its associated history with classic literature and ground breaking film making..." I was not basing the comment on the story itself, but merely the title. How the title Goldfinger would have sounded to me if I'd heard it first I do not know, as that was not the case.

Ok.

You seem to be making my argument for me in your response, so to expand upon your answer...

I have yet to hear a Bond fan hear any title and say "great" upon its initial advertising. It is only once the marketing, the poster design and the fact it has been around for a bit and become a part of the canon, is it finally accepted.

Reference the story element of Goldfinger, neither was I talking about it!!! I am just saying that this title is associated with this history and if it didn't exist in the book or film world, you would say exactly the same thing now had it been put forward to you in 2004 as the next book or film. Think about it, Goldfinger is a uniquely ridiculous title, but no one will be able to think of it as such.

I realise it is not the case for your having heard Goldfinger just now , I am stating that "if it were the case..........."

[Athena007]

SilverFin... hum... makes me think of SilverFish (those bugs that hide out in the dark and are very bad for books). Maybe young Bond had to fight the genetically mutated SilverFish and the big boss is named SilverFin (the cover only helps this theory).

[Simon]

The title Goldfinger just sounds like it has that Bondian flavor to it. SilverFin does not. It sounds as if the two words were just put together.

Unlike of course, the words Gold and Finger.

Oops.

[Qwerty]

I have yet to hear a Bond fan hear any title and say "great" upon its initial advertising. It is only once the marketing, the poster design and the fact it has been around for a bit and become a part of the canon, is it finally accepted.

Reference the story element of Goldfinger, neither was I talking about it!!! I am just saying that this title is associated with this history and if it didn't exist in the book or film world, you would say exactly the same thing now had it been put forward to you in 2004 as the next book or film. Think about it, Goldfinger is a uniquely ridiculous title, but no one will be able to think of it as such.

I realise it is not the case for your having heard Goldfinger just now , I am stating that "if it were the case..........."

You never heard a James Bond title, solely on it's own, and liked the title as is?

With my very first comment that you based this all on, all I was saying that on it's very own, not taking into account the publicity or the cover art, SilverFin does not sound like a great title.

[Jim]

You haven't explained what it is about the title Goldfinger you do admire - as a title per se, without reference to the content of the book/film, and expose in the word "evoke" the key point - you are allowing "Goldfinger" to evoke memories of (um...) Goldfinger. On its face, Goldfinger doesn't mean anything more or less than SilverFin, does it?

Describing and comparing two titles based only on the titles can come off as somewhat odd. The title Goldfinger just sounds like it has that Bondian flavor to it. SilverFin does not. It sounds as if the two words were just put together.

I disagree. For a halfway fair comparison, surely one should try to make it a level playing field (oh, cliche cliche) and as we don't know anything about SilverFin save a few scratchy details, it's just a title, then if there's anyway to be empirical about this, treat Goldfinger as just a title.

Goldfinger.

It is also just two words that are hammered together. "Gold" and "Finger" is not a natural combination (I do appreciate that it was a name pinched from a real person). Neither for that matter are "Some" and "What". I'm not sure what you mean by "that Bondian feel" - you are looking at this with prejudiced eyes. Stand aside from what you know. The title Goldfinger is twaddle or great as much as this is twaddle or great.

[Qwerty]

The title Goldfinger just sounds like it has that Bondian flavor to it. SilverFin does not. It sounds as if the two words were just put together.

Unlike of course, the words Gold and Finger.

Oops.

No. Obviously those are two different words, and I was under that realization when I posted that, but when you compare these two titles just as titles, IMO, SilverFin does not work or flow.

[Loomis]

So how does "Goldfinger" work or flow better than "Silverfin", exactly?

[Simon]

The title Goldfinger just sounds like it has that Bondian flavor to it. SilverFin does not. It sounds as if the two words were just put together.

Unlike of course, the words Gold and Finger.

Oops.

.......which, spectacularly enough, was the reason for the choice of Goldfinger as the comparison.

Following this you see, I could also have chosen Thunder-ball or Moon-raker or Golden-eye. See?

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i will read them but i will have real trepidation about the whole thing thats for sure

[Jim]

IMO, SilverFin does not work or flow.

What do you mean by "work"? "Flow", for that matter.

[Qwerty]

So how does "Goldfinger" work or flow better than "Silverfin", exactly?

It just does. How can one further explain when you base discussion solely on the title, on the words? Goldfinger sounds better.

[Simon]

...........and I was under that realization when I posted that,..............

You weren't under the needle then?

[Loomis]

It just does, eh? Cheers, Qwerty.

[Simon]

It just does, eh? Cheers, Qwerty.

Well, I guess we can call that Solved then.

With 38,000 posts comes greater insight and understanding.

[Jim]

So how does "Goldfinger" work or flow better than "Silverfin", exactly?

It just does.

Christ.

Goldfinger sounds better

.

What does that mean? How better? It's your qualification, so justify it.

[zencat]

I've liked quite a few movie/book titles on first hearing. I liked Die Another Day right off the bat. Took me a while to warm up to The Man With The Red Tattoo. I remember when I first heard Icebreaker I loved it (and still do)! Same with For Special Services. Tomorrow Never Dies took a long time to even remember -- I kept calling Tomorrow Never Comes. But I loved GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough instantly (but that's not a surprise).

SilverFin... It's okay. I get it. It's like Goldfinger, GoldenEye, Brokenclaw... but with a gentler edge. You think of Silver Fish, which conjures the image of a child, and this is a book about a 13-year-old Bond, so...

The cover art is okay. I see they have the official "Young Bond" logo up there. Guess I need to start calling these "Young Bond" instead of "Young James Bond" books.

But it's exciting to get the title and the cover art! Now if only Eon would take the hint...

[Qwerty]

It just does, eh? Cheers, Qwerty.

Based completely and only on the two titles, which do you is a more James Bond like title, Loomis?

[Loomis]

Both are equally Bondian, IMO.

[Simon]

I've liked quite a few movie/book titles on first hearing.

But while not trying to take away the main thrust of where we are in this thread right now in trying to get Qwerty to explain anything of what he means, you are a different kettle of silverfish.

There isn't much you don't like if officially presented to you in the Bond world.

[Qwerty]

It just does, eh? Cheers, Qwerty.

Well, I guess we can call that Solved then.

With 38,000 posts comes greater insight and understanding.

Two titles. Goldfinger and SilverFin. I do not think SilverFin sounds like a James Bond title, it's just okay. I like certain titles when I first hear them, SilverFin just is not one.

I did not start this discussion with insults, yet you bring up the silly post number?