248 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

What went wrong? How could a competent thriller writer churn out such disappointments? And is there a danger that history might repeat itself?

I'm not a fan of Gardner's Bond novels or his other novels, really, but his Bond books do seem to be a lot worse. I think after the first few his heart really wasn't in it. He'd already had to deal with the ennuie and accidie that inevitably comes from writing several formula-necessary spy thrillers featuring the same central character with his Boysie Oakes series, which he also took to a few books too many because they were selling. As those had plots and situations that could have been used for Bond, he must have found it very hard to come up with more ideas.

I suspect he didn't much like Bond after the first few, but he wanted or needed the money. I think at some stage he decided he wasn't actually writing about Bond at all, but a new hero of his own called Boldman, and that was a way to at least get through the thing and not deal with the corpse of Fleming which, having tired of turning in its grave, had decided to hunt Gardner down and was now stinking up his study.

I just meant they'll probably get someone who has roughly the same stature as Gardner had prior to getting the job. Ie a successful second-rung thriller-writer, rather than one of the dozen or so best-selling writers in the world.

[David Schofield]

I'm not a fan of Gardner's Bond novels or his other novels, really, but his Bond books do seem to be a lot worse. I think after the first few his heart really wasn't in it.

I suspect he didn't much like Bond after the first few, but he wanted or needed the money. I think at some stage he decided he wasn't actually writing about Bond at all, but a new hero of his own called Boldman, and that was a way to at least get through the thing and not deal with the corpse of Fleming which, having tired of turning in its grave, had decided to hunt Gardner down and was now stinking up his study.

I just meant they'll probably get someone who has roughly the same stature as Gardner had prior to getting the job. Ie a successful second-rung thriller-writer, rather than one of the dozen or so best-selling writers in the world.

While I tend to agree with most of your views on Gardner, Spy (my attitude of him v Benson is that while Gardner was clearly the more talented writer, though that isn't saying much, Benson TRIED far harder with his plotting, research and "Bond"), the difference here, as far as I am aware, is that the Bond 2008 novel is a one-off gig, is it not?

Therefore, surely the appeal to any writer is to get involved with Bond for a one off shot, however slavishly that might mean subjecting their own talents to Flemingian cliches, and therefore avoiding the, as you say, "accidie" and "ennui" that clearly wayed Gardner down after the first few but to which he was tied to presumably for financial reasons.

IMO, a successful writer could clearly do a one off, not be motivated by the fee or royalties, and move on. Are IFP determined to get a new series out of the new writer?

[spynovelfan]

Yes, you're right, David - looks like they want to do a one-off, and that does make it more attractive for a big name. And I can see that someone like William Gibson, Margaret Atwood (Bond fan, apparently), Thomas Pynchon, William Boyd, Martin Amis, Kazuo Ishiguro, Ian McEwan, Doris Lessing, Bret Easton Ellis, Umberto Eco (has written extensively on Fleming, of course) or someone of that sort of caliber might be interested in writing one James Bond novel, in much the same way as Kinglsey Amis was persuaded to.

But I think they've already said, haven't they, that it's a big name in thrillers. I think that's far less likely to be the top rank, the thriller world's equvalent of Atwood, Pynchon, Boyd - people like Forsyth, Follett, Higgins or Clancy - because it's a bit like asking Armani to become the new designer at Burberry. There's no reason for an extremely successful thriller-writer in their own right to want to be the person who wrote a James Bond novel. So I think by big name they mean it won't be another Benson. I think it'll be someone of the stature of Michael Dibdin or Barry Eisler: they're both big names in thrillers, but not in the A-list of superstar thriller writers.

[David Schofield]

But I think they've already said, haven't they, that it's a big name in thrillers. I think that's far less likely to be the top rank, the thriller world's equvalent of Atwood, Pynchon, Boyd - people like Forsyth, Follett, Higgins or Clancy - because it's a bit like asking Armani to become the new designer at Burberry. There's no reason for an extremely successful thriller-writer in their own right to want to be the person who wrote a James Bond novel. So I think by big name they mean it won't be another Benson. I think it'll be someone of the stature of Michael Dibdin or Barry Eisler: they're both big names in thrillers, but not in the A-list of superstar thriller writers.

You're probably right, Spy.

Then again - simply because of the very challenge writing a SUCCESSFUL (both as a best seller and with fans) Bond novel as a one-off - I think it would have a certain appeal to a top-drawer thriller writer.

And - I have no factual basis for this, however - my gut tells me that it will be Freddie Forsyth.

[spynovelfan]

Well, we'll see. I think Forsyth is the Clive Owen in this game - seems ideal, fan favourite, but won't want to do it partly for that reason, partly because he's too big, and he'd be a disappointment anyway. I already know what a Forsyth Bond book would be. It would be very topical, probably set in the Middle East, and it would be a cat and mouse game between Bond and some assassin. Forsyth writes the same novel over and over, and I don't see them as very much like Bond. He himself is quite a bit like Fleming, but his prose is very stodgy and his 'flair' is nonexistent. The only real Bond stuff he has are immaculate research, great locales, and weaponry and intelligence techniques. Sounds quite good, actually, doesn't it? But I find him pretty flat, which is perhaps why I dismiss it so readily.

Thriller-writers will have a very different mentality to this. For a literary writer, a one-off would be a holiday, an experiment, a challenge. For someone like Forsyth, the idea of making it successful might not be big enough: where's the film, the video game, the sequel? They're used to generating massive revenue streams, and taking *all* the glory, in large embossed lettering. Why share it? It'd be tantamount to placing himself beneath Fleming, and I can't see why someone who's spent decades getting to the top of the thriller tree would want to risk falling a few branches.

We shall see, we shall see!

[David Schofield]

Thriller-writers will have a very different mentality to this. For a literary writer, a one-off would be a holiday, an experiment, a challenge. For someone like Forsyth, the idea of making it successful might not be big enough: where's the film, the video game, the sequel? They're used to generating massive revenue streams, and taking *all* the glory, in large embossed lettering. Why share it? It'd be tantamount to placing himself beneath Fleming, and I can't see why someone who's spent decades getting to the top of the thriller tree would want to risk falling a few branches.

Amis did

I haven't read Forsyth for years (not read much other than Bond for years either, except Jenkins , but I digress) and I did find much of his work repetitive. Perhaps even more so than most writers.

I just like the appeal of his identikit-Fleming background that might appeal to IFP more than other writers. That and the chance to escape his routine work. After all, he did write a Phantom of the Opera sequel... And when has Forsyth last had a movie, never mind video games, as a spin -off...

[spynovelfan]

Amis did

Amis wasn't a thriller-writer! As I say, for literary writers, there's that challenge, and that's what Amis responded to. THE ANTI-DEATH LEAGUE doesn't really count as a thriller, though it has elements of it (and similiarities to MOONRAKER).

I just like the appeal of his identikit-Fleming background that might appeal to IFP more than other writers.

Oh, I'm sure IFP would love to have Forysth! It's he who would have doubts, I think.

That and the chance to escape his routine work. After all, he did write a Phantom of the Opera sequel...

Good point. But notice that thriller-writers usually try to escape routine by writing literary stuff. Le Carr

[Killmaster]

i read "the afghan" by forsythe last week ... long on plot and very long on background material for the characters ... short on action.

eisler has been mentioned ... i've just finished "the last assassin" featuring killer john rain ... gritty and realistic ... the hand-to-hand combat skills and situations he employs really make you squirm ... he may be too brutal, but his descriptions of cities and places evokes a feeling of fleming.

my personal choice would be from left field ... greg rucka, author of the "queen and country" comic books and novels ... very realistic when it comes to tradecraft and combat situations ... not overly brutal, but definitely darker and more action-oriented than forsythe.

[Trident]

Ok, now I'm through my first Eisler, RAIN FALL (damn fine and a great start for a series IMHO) and three Lee Child books (KILLING GROUND, DIE TRYING and WITHOUT FAIL). In my opinion both authors would have been a great choice for the continuation. I know, Child was already officially denied because of his Reacher-contract with his publishers. Still, I think IFP could have done worse than approaching him. Likewise, I have a feeling Barry Eisler could have done a more than remarkable job with a Bond novel.

But, alas, I feel there is a real reason, both of them won't be on board of IFP's next big thing and that reason, as spynovelfan has pointed out already, is: both of them have become simply a few sizes too big a name. If IFP really had wanted Child, they could have waited until his contract allowed a one-off novel. After all, does it really matter when the continuation will be published, 2007, 2008 or even 2009 (except to us fans, of course)? No, I think Child is just too successful, and thus too expensive. A household name by now.

The same is true in the case of Barry Eisler. His Rain-series is obviously a big success, translated into several languages and maybe in the near future to be filmed. Another success story that could make the author from a relatively-unknown thriller writer to a major name in the bestseller charts.

A name I came across a few years back and which just recently came to my memory again is Greg Iles. Since 1993 he has written ten novels so far. His storys range from II.WW-agent/commando mission (BLACK CROSS), II.WW-present-day-thriller (SPANDAU PHOENIX), techno-serial-murder/abduction/kidnapping (MORTAL FEAR and 24 HOURS) to such almost Stephen-King-like themes as in DEAD SLEEP, SLEEP NO MORE and scientific/techno thriller (THE FOOTPRINTS OF GOD).

To tell the truth, I've only read BLACK CROSS up to now and wasn't too impressed. While it certainly is a solid thriller, it lacks almost completely the authentic and detailed feeling that THE EAGLE HAS LANDED almost breaths with every sentence. (But then, Jack Higgins own sequel, THE EAGLE HAS FLOWN, entirely lacks those same qualities IMHO.) Don't get me wrong, it was still a good read none the less.

My point is: Iles would fit the description of being an established thriller writer and yet not a top-list-name. He has a certain experience with storys that require an amount of both historic and technical research. And he doesn't have his own successful series of novels about a recurring hero, so he wouldn't face the risk of putting his own series against Bond.

Edited by Trident, 27 October 2006 - 05:58 PM.