7 replies to this topic

[Trident]

The revived interest in John Gardner's Bond tenure has lead us to a number of new threads discussing several sides of his books. Due to some pressing business I still haven't found the time to add my two pennies on some of the most interesting discussions.

But one thing recently occured to me that I feel may add a new spin on the assessment of Gardner's Bond. Is it perhaps justified to view Gardner's efforts as a reboot? As a re-imagining of Bond, the SIS, M and the other Fleming-elements rather than a continuation?

What would support such a theory? Maybe the by far stronger ties to the Royal Navy and elite forces that Gardner's Bond features? As opposed to Fleming's 'chocolate sailor' that has only very little of a military/naval air? The tradecraft that is practically negligible in Fleming's books, but Gardner made an aim of to keep his own work in line with? The difference in the general politics of the SIS and especially M's attitude towards Bond? The shifted focus from adventure to... what? Politics? Espionage? Bureaucracy? All of that?

And if we regard Gardner's books as their own series, an alternate version of 007, what does this mean for our view on the time between '81 and '96? Are we able to judge Gardner's series for its own merits, its qualities and specific strengths, as I feel they deserve? Does this open a door to further re-imaginings, other versions of Bond?

[Safari Suit]

I perhaps shouldn't post something like this on what I think is a very good idea for a thread, but I personally find it hard to see the Gardners as any kind of reboot; although the books represented a significant tonal shift from Fleming, he was far too continuity conscious for them to not seem like a continuation. Tying in his LTK novelisation into the events of Fleming's LALD is the real killer.

[zencat]

I would not call the Gardner books (or specifically LR) a "reboot." It's clearly a continuation of the same character with his same history. He didn't reinvent or retell any backstory, which I feel is the definition of reboot. All he did was transport Bond un-aged 10 years forward. Like the films, you just have to ignore the continuity of real time. Bond is the same, but the world around him has changed. A continuation.

But I think you can also look at the Gardner books as their own world, just as you can the Benson books or the Moore films or any era that was defined by a single author or actor. That's the beauty of Bond.

[Righty007]

zencat pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter but I'll share my two cents:

I don't think Licence Renewed or the other Gardner novels can be considered a "reboot" by the popular definition of the term since John Gardner made no attempt to hide or disregard any of the Fleming continuity. In Licence Renewed, the Double O Section is abolished, prompting M to say, "There are moments when this country needs a troubleshooter—a blunt instrument—and by heaven it's going to have one."

This illustrates that the Gardner era is a continuation, not a reboot, which probably would have seen Bond near the beginning of his career as 007.

[Trident]

The idea/term/concept of 'reboot' surely wasn't prominent in '81 and the initial intent certainly was to continue. But I feel there are certain indicators that the books, perhaps unwittingly, drifted into reboot during the years.

For example I find Bond's character has changed decidedly from TMWTGG to LR (I just leave out CS for reasons of convenience here, but feel CS's Bond is more in line with Fleming's than with LR's). Fleming describes his character looking at the world with the curiosity and interest of the journalist (and the eyes of the boy underneath, at the same time marveling and world-wary, cynical and compassionate, distanced and yet gentle, forgiving even).

Gardner describes a more professional character, firmly rooted in his career. Fleming's pondered resignation but never did. Gardner's resigned, but just for reasons of cover. I can see Fleming's living outside the SIS, perhaps working as a security consultant, travel journalist or some such. I don't see that with Gardner's.

There are other indicators, and I don't just mean the tea of 'Seafire' here (although that would also come in; this Bond hasn't developed a dislike of tea). Take ROH's Bentley. In his old favourite, British Racing Green. Fleming's never had shown any indication to have a fondness for that colour. Take Bond's complete and utter lack of alarm for the disturbing fact that M and the SIS suddenly work on a need-to-know basis. Fleming's never needed to know much (the briefings with M are a joke) but that information he got right at the start. Take Bond's closeness to prominent figures of politics. Fleming's never had that inclination, and if he had I daresay he would have made some most interesting observations. None of that to be found with Gardner's.

What I mean is, Gardner's novels show elements of continuation and reboot at first and gradually the reboot seems to take over IMO. And I wonder what Gardner would have answered if he had been initially asked if he would rather continue or re-invent the character? I doubt somehow the question ever arose during the actual time, or even in the years after '96. But I wonder if the concept of reboot wouldn't have worked (better???) if it had been tackled head on?

[David Schofield]

Yes, Trident, using the specifics you've mentioned, Gardner could be viewed quite easily as a re-boot: new man, different "ways", different world. But we've tried cram him into Fleming's dynamic fruitlessly - because Gardner was sold to us without the irony of reboot.

But as pointed out, this very modern concept wasn't considered in 1981. But Gardner IS a reboot in the same way as Moore and Dalton's Bond were re-boots - clearly different men than their immediate predecessor - as was Benson's Bond - different man, different world again - and Higson's (how's that for a re-boot, Zen, giving Bond a whole new back-story and making him SuperBoy ).

And all thank's to Barbara Brocolli lusting after Daniel Craig.

[Trident]

That's what I mean. If that whole reboot hype had been in the air in 1981, or if Gardner had written the first continuation after CS not in '81 but in 2005, wouldn't we have got a re-invention? And would that perhaps have freed Gardner from restrictions he wasn't initially aware of when he took over? Has Gardner had, perhaps subconsciously, more of a reboot in mind when he 'continued' with the SAAB, tradecraft, SAS refresher courses?

I often felt Gardner has not used all of his gears fully when updating Bond. (Why abolish the 00-section when M insisted in calling Bond 007?) If the restrictions that came with keeping up continuity hadn't been I feel the result could have worked far better, at least in Gardner's case.

[Trident]

But as pointed out, this very modern concept wasn't considered in 1981. But Gardner IS a reboot in the same way as Moore and Dalton's Bond were re-boots - clearly different men than their immediate predecessor - as was Benson's Bond - different man, different world again - and Higson's (how's that for a re-boot, Zen, giving Bond a whole new back-story and making him SuperBoy ).

And all thank's to Barbara Brocolli lusting after Daniel Craig.

I really wonder whom else we have to thank for the 'reboot' with Craig. 'Batman Begins' and Bourne are the usual suspects, when the resurrection of EON's Bond is discussed. But I suspect this particular success really has a whole bunch of fathers.

After all, Craig's films were never acknowledged as reboot as such, merely as Bond begins. It may be that the film series has to thank the literary series once more for a vital impulse here. 'Casino Royal', while the first of Fleming's books, is not a 'Bond begins' tale. Perhaps the decision was also influenced by the IFP decision to tell Bond's origins?

If so, IFP's step would surely at least partially be due to the success of Horowitz' Alex Rider series, which borrow heavily from Fleming's originals; as well as, of course, the Harry Potter books which, if nothing else, have proven what unexploited potential there was sleeping in the field of children/young adults books.

So one might argue Craig's Bond owes not only EON and its series, nearly fifty years of contemporary British entertainment cinema, Doug Liman and the fresh breath Bourne brought to the thriller genre, but also an outlandish reflection on Bond's roots by the publishing industry and, last not least, a giant fantasy entwicklungsroman.

Perhaps the scar on Bond's cheek ought to be on his forehead?