61 replies to this topic

[The Shark]

Jeffery Deaver, in connection with IFP, will be soliciting input from the fan-base via the internet.

Oh dear.

Quite.

And doesn't it sort of on the writing process to even suggest the fans can be involved? I don't remember Ian Fleming asking the readers of Readers Digest to suggest any elements?

Well, the Major Boothroyd firearm connection is well known by fans, and I'm sure there were quite a few undocumented cases as well.

[Tybre]

Call me naive, but maybe the author who writes the book should know what the natural title is?

Most of the time, the title an author puts on their manuscript is not the title you see in the end. Publishers change it all the time; usually because manuscript titles suck, but sometimes because something someone cooked up in the boardroom will make it more marketable. In the end every step of the publishing process is about marketability, from their side of the fence at least. So really, whatever Deaver wants for it may not matter. Odds are IFP would pick a new title anyway.

Maybe the author who writes the book will also know what car and gun BOND uses needs to be - based on his story and the tone he is aiming for, no? Maybe, just maybe, the author of the book should have enough confidence in the commission he has been asked to create to not need to throw it "out there" for some lazy notion of audience involvement. There is far too much "let us know what you think, feel etc" in the media at the moment. Let's not see Bond books go down that path too.

But I know I am over-reacting. It's the principle of the notion that grates with me.

More than likely are overreacting. Fact of the matter is we don't even know what it is they're asking of us at this point. We're just assuming it's voting on stuff. And even if it is...eh, so what? I'm not overly wild about the concept, but it's not like it's the end of the world. So long as the book is still good, who cares if Deaver decided to input a Bentley himself or if the fans told him to do it?

[Trident]

Jeffery Deaver, in connection with IFP, will be soliciting input from the fan-base via the internet.

Oh dear.

Quite.

And doesn't it sort of on the writing process to even suggest the fans can be involved? I don't remember Ian Fleming asking the readers of Readers Digest to suggest any elements?

Well, the Major Boothroyd firearm connection is well known by fans, and I'm sure there were quite a few undocumented cases as well.

There was one case when a fan championed the idea of a, by now standard Bond-lore item, which Fleming initially rejected but later adopted in the very way the fan brought up. Another fan apparently tried to convince Fleming of buying Bond a Mercedes and Fleming seemed to be all in favour of it, but never used this one. All that of course in the days when dinosaurs reigned the earth and the contact to their hero's creator was confined to fans who actually wrote letters. Nonetheless it's not really so much different and I'd like to repeat myself here, Fleming would have made good use of the internet, I daresay. Think of it what you will, but to me this whole thing isn't really so much out of character.

[godwulf]

Perhaps it's something entirely different? A character name auctioned?

Exactly what I was just thinking about. I don't know whether Deaver ever gets involved in those sorts of things. I heard Lee Child, the other day, mention that he frequently does. Having a character in a Bond novel named after you - boy, that has got to be the ultimate fanboy status symbol! Personally, I'd like to see something like that set up more as a kind of raffle, rather than an auction; from what I hear, the winning bids, when a major author is involved, can easily run into five figures.

[Zorin Industries]

Perhaps it's something entirely different? A character name auctioned?

Exactly what I was just thinking about. I don't know whether Deaver ever gets involved in those sorts of things. I heard Lee Child, the other day, mention that he frequently does. Having a character in a Bond novel named after you - boy, that has got to be the ultimate fanboy status symbol! Personally, I'd like to see something like that set up more as a kind of raffle, rather than an auction; from what I hear, the winning bids, when a major author is involved, can easily run into five figures.

What a ghastly idea. I like to think that the author - being an apparently creative force - can come up with enough character names and titles. Until the books hit the shelves this is not about the fans, but one author's creative work as he sees fit.

Call me naive, but maybe the author who writes the book should know what the natural title is?

Most of the time, the title an author puts on their manuscript is not the title you see in the end. Publishers change it all the time; usually because manuscript titles suck, but sometimes because something someone cooked up in the boardroom will make it more marketable. In the end every step of the publishing process is about marketability, from their side of the fence at least. So really, whatever Deaver wants for it may not matter. Odds are IFP would pick a new title anyway.

Maybe if Deaver - as an example - came up with a decent, strong title that no-one could dispute then the committee notion need not happen. How many Fleming titles did his publishers change?

[zencat]

Well, considering we don't yet know what this is all about, I'm not going to waste too much time speculating and then freaking out over every speculation. It's some kind of internet marketing thing that's going to involve fans. I'll wait and see.

[zencat]

Maybe if Deaver - as an example - came up with a decent, strong title that no-one could dispute then the committee notion need not happen.

Here's a title idea for JD: Bloodstone. Activison isn't using it.

[Trident]

Perhaps it's something entirely different? A character name auctioned?

Exactly what I was just thinking about. I don't know whether Deaver ever gets involved in those sorts of things. I heard Lee Child, the other day, mention that he frequently does. Having a character in a Bond novel named after you - boy, that has got to be the ultimate fanboy status symbol! Personally, I'd like to see something like that set up more as a kind of raffle, rather than an auction; from what I hear, the winning bids, when a major author is involved, can easily run into five figures.

What a ghastly idea. I like to think that the author - being an apparently creative force - can come up with enough character names and titles. Until the books hit the shelves this is not about the fans, but one author's creative work as he sees fit.

Zorin, you're starting to sound positively like da Vinci probably would if one of his clients had suggested he use his likeness for one of his historical commissioned works. Oh, wait... he had to do that sometimes, didn't he?

Call me naive, but maybe the author who writes the book should know what the natural title is?

Most of the time, the title an author puts on their manuscript is not the title you see in the end. Publishers change it all the time; usually because manuscript titles suck, but sometimes because something someone cooked up in the boardroom will make it more marketable. In the end every step of the publishing process is about marketability, from their side of the fence at least. So really, whatever Deaver wants for it may not matter. Odds are IFP would pick a new title anyway.

Maybe if Deaver - as an example - came up with a decent, strong title that no-one could dispute then the committee notion need not happen. How many Fleming titles did his publishers change?

Since you asked for it... hm, I'm afraid the US editions of Fleming did see a few title changes. Apparently the publishers thought a couple of the first few too hot to handle. Not that Fleming ever worried about it very much.

Zorin, creatively speaking I'm completely with you. But as you so often have witnessed yourself, the business side of the matter is not necessarily always in line with the creative side.

We're talking here the relaunch of a major literary estate and a possible potential for bestseller rankings. Such an affair has to go with a decent amount of PR and it's entirely without consequence if that PR is deemed ingenius or ghastly by us. They will do whatever has to be done and whatever works in the context, period.

What we're seeing here is not at all different from the m.o. EON employs since the dawn of time. And I'm not talking here about letting fans join in on the creative process but about giving their property a proper concept for a longer period, instead of just tumbling from page to page, book to book. I cannot see anything wrong with that. It's what was bound to happen; it should have happened twenty years ago already.

All details aside, I'd like to inquire: are you in favour of the general idea of Project X? Reboot with different writers?

[Zorin Industries]

Zorin, you're starting to sound positively like da Vinci

Good!

[tdalton]

It's good to see that Deaver is taking this project very seriously. Also, the way that the original post describes his reaction towards Devil May Care may be what has me most excited about Project X. It would seem, based on those comments, that he's fully committed to making a far superior novel to the extremely disappointing Devil May Care.

[zencat]

Maybe if Deaver - as an example - came up with a decent, strong title that no-one could dispute then the committee notion need not happen. How many Fleming titles did his publishers change?

Since you asked for it... hm, I'm afraid the US editions of Fleming did see a few title changes. Apparently the publishers thought the first few too hot to handle. Not that Fleming ever worried about it very much.

A lot of Fleming's original titles didn't make it; The Undertakers Wind, Monday's Are Hell, The Richest Man In The World, The Belles of Hell... True, he probably wasn't subjected to the intense marketing committee decision making that we get today, but it was 60 years ago, different world, and Fleming was not hired to by an estate to continue a literary franchise.

BTW, I've always wondered if Devil May Care was Faulks' original and only title. Did he pull off the hat trick?

[0077]

It's good to see that Deaver is taking this project very seriously. Also, the way that the original post describes his reaction towards Devil May Care may be what has me most excited about Project X. It would seem, based on those comments, that he's fully committed to making a far superior novel to the extremely disappointing Devil May Care.

Indeed.

[DAN LIGHTER]

I hope fans get to vote on a watch for Jim's sake. Him does love them watches. Maybe Deaver will have Bond losing an arm in the field. Jim better hope it's his watch arm.

God forbid fans are part of the finished book. It sounds a little too tacky.

[Zorin Industries]

Perhaps it's something entirely different? A character name auctioned?

Exactly what I was just thinking about. I don't know whether Deaver ever gets involved in those sorts of things. I heard Lee Child, the other day, mention that he frequently does. Having a character in a Bond novel named after you - boy, that has got to be the ultimate fanboy status symbol! Personally, I'd like to see something like that set up more as a kind of raffle, rather than an auction; from what I hear, the winning bids, when a major author is involved, can easily run into five figures.

What a ghastly idea. I like to think that the author - being an apparently creative force - can come up with enough character names and titles. Until the books hit the shelves this is not about the fans, but one author's creative work as he sees fit.

Zorin, you're starting to sound positively like da Vinci probably would if one of his clients had suggested he use his likeness for one of his historical commissioned works. Oh, wait... he had to do that sometimes, didn't he?

Call me naive, but maybe the author who writes the book should know what the natural title is?

Most of the time, the title an author puts on their manuscript is not the title you see in the end. Publishers change it all the time; usually because manuscript titles suck, but sometimes because something someone cooked up in the boardroom will make it more marketable. In the end every step of the publishing process is about marketability, from their side of the fence at least. So really, whatever Deaver wants for it may not matter. Odds are IFP would pick a new title anyway.

Maybe if Deaver - as an example - came up with a decent, strong title that no-one could dispute then the committee notion need not happen. How many Fleming titles did his publishers change?

Since you asked for it... hm, I'm afraid the US editions of Fleming did see a few title changes. Apparently the publishers thought a couple of the first few too hot to handle. Not that Fleming ever worried about it very much.

Zorin, creatively speaking I'm completely with you. But as you so often have witnessed yourself, the business side of the matter is not necessarily always in line with the creative side.

We're talking here the relaunch of a major literary estate and a possible potential for bestseller rankings. Such an affair has to go with a decent amount of PR and it's entirely without consequence if that PR is deemed ingenius or ghastly by us. They will do whatever has to be done and whatever works in the context, period.

What we're seeing here is not at all different from the m.o. EON employs since the dawn of time. And I'm not talking here about letting fans join in on the creative process but about giving their property a proper concept for a longer period, instead of just tumbling from page to page, book to book. I cannot see anything wrong with that. It's what was bound to happen; it should have happened twenty years ago already.

All details aside, I'd like to inquire: are you in favour of the general idea of Project X? Reboot with different writers?

I actually have no real opinions on PROJECT X other than it is surely a good thing that the world is getting another Bond book (regardless of its final quality - though that is vital, especially at the end of the "metaphorical day"). It is good that Bond in bookform still has the power to shift copies (or we hope it does).

The shift to a modern day setting makes complete sense as the books were always - were they not - of their time. The difference is the books were also of the writer (Fleming) and his time and the skill Deaver needs is not so much - in my opinion anyway - of crafting a fine tome but of crafting something that conveys opinion, the measure of James Bond 007 in a 2011 context, the political zeitgeist of the last five years in the narrative, ever-shifting allegiances and context of today and a certain moneyed and acoutrement-led cynicism. Is Deaver the one to do that? Time will tell.

I am not sure if the Fleming estate have any big "project" in mind for the books. They would clearly like one, I'm sure. But - as DEVIL MAY CARE proved - they need each and every book to be a great success - creatively and financially. You cannot guarantee that over a wider projected period.

[godwulf]

What a ghastly idea. I like to think that the author - being an apparently creative force - can come up with enough character names and titles.

Authors use the names of old (as well as current) friends all the time, as well as those of acquaintances, coworkers, names out of the phone book...even the names of other authors whose books happen to be lying around, I'd imagine. The real world is not an intrusion on the creative process - it's part of it. At least this way, some charity benefits.

A lot of Fleming's original titles didn't make it; The Undertakers Wind, Monday's Are Hell, The Richest Man In The World, The Belles of Hell...

'The Undertaker's Wind' - that had to be one of the book set in Jamaica, right?

[terminus]

I'd guess the naming of a character after someone would be annoying if it felt like it intruded on the story, but if it was a throwaway name then I think people would neither be bothered nor know.

[clublos]

I hope fans get to vote on a watch for Jim's sake. Him does love them watches. Maybe Deaver will have Bond losing an arm in the field. Jim better hope it's his watch arm.

Post of the year, my friend.

[Trident]

The shift to a modern day setting makes complete sense as the books were always - were they not - of their time. The difference is the books were also of the writer (Fleming) and his time and the skill Deaver needs is not so much - in my opinion anyway - of crafting a fine tome but of crafting something that conveys opinion, the measure of James Bond 007 in a 2011 context, the political zeitgeist of the last five years in the narrative, ever-shifting allegiances and context of today and a certain moneyed and acoutrement-led cynicism. Is Deaver the one to do that? Time will tell.

This is a very interesting notion! I pondered the possible/likely/necessary needs of a Bond reboot for some time now, but I think I never really grasped this particular side of it. But now that you mention it it actually seems quite obvious. The Bond model 2011 would have to show a considerable amount of cynism, the current reality would have to be mirrored in X-Bond; not necessarily in a 'realistic' manner, but in a way that shows how much has changed since the day and age of Fleming. Very good argument indeed! I wonder if X-Bond shouldn't turn out more jaded and marked by his profession than his original?

[godwulf]

I wonder if X-Bond shouldn't turn out more jaded and marked by his profession than his original?

But not to the point where he begins to be an "anti-hero", surely. I, for one, despise those characters who are supposed to be a story's hero, but are ultimately just as corrupt and hateful as the villains they oppose. I don't care if it isn't "realistic" - I want a flawed and human Bond, but a good man and a true hero, nonetheless.

[Trident]

I wonder if X-Bond shouldn't turn out more jaded and marked by his profession than his original?

But not to the point where he begins to be an "anti-hero", surely. I, for one, despise those characters who are supposed to be a story's hero, but are ultimately just as corrupt and hateful as the villains they oppose. I don't care if it isn't "realistic" - I want a flawed and human Bond, but a good man and a true hero, nonetheless.

No, not in that sense that X-Bond is already in YOLT mode. But I suppose it's entirely justified to expect an agent that is cynic and detached beyond his years, even at the relatively young age of 28 to 30. That youth seems to be a concern, but if we take a closer look around here, especially CBn's younger members, I see actually no lack of cynism and sarcasm. Just reasonable to expect a similar general attitude with X-Bond.

[zencat]

'The Undertaker's Wind' - that had to be one of the book set in Jamaica, right?

That was the working title for Live And Let Die.

[godwulf]

Don't know whether or not this question really belongs on this thread, but...as the main 'Project X' thread has become rather massive, I thought I'd give it a break and post here, anyway.

This is, I think, a question aimed mainly (if not exclusively) at the British members, though of course anyone is welcome to contribute who feels qualified to do so.

In an ideal world, do you expect the new Bond's background - his family, education, early travel experiences - to pretty much mirror those of Fleming's Bond? Would you be very surprised or disappointed if they did not?

I suppose one of the things that I'm really wanting to know is, has life in that part of the world in which Bond grew up changed in the sixty or so years between the birth and upbringing of Fleming's Bond and Deaver's, to the extent that the backstory of the orphaned munition expert's son, who ends up traveling the world and hobknobbing with international spies while still in his teens, gone from somewhat fanciful to patently unbelievable...perhaps even ridiculous?

In terms of enjoying and accepting the new 007, would a considerably more mundane "origin story" be a deal breaker for you?

Edited by godwulf, 15 June 2010 - 07:12 PM.

[Santa]

In an ideal world, do you expect the new Bond's background - his family, education, early travel experiences - to pretty much mirror those of Fleming's Bond? Would you be very surprised or disappointed if they did not?

I personally would be rather, no, very disappointed if Bond's background were to be changed, but I imagine there are a few Labour voters out there who feel the opposite . Britain has indeed changed enormously since then and while such an upbringing would be unusual now it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

[Jim]

In terms of enjoying and accepting the new 007, would a considerably more mundane "origin story" be a deal breaker for you?

Yes.

[Trident]

Don't know whether or not this question really belongs on this thread, but...as the main 'Project X' thread has become rather massive, I thought I'd give it a break and post here, anyway.

This is, I think, a question aimed mainly (if not exclusively) at the British members, though of course anyone is welcome to contribute who feels qualified to do so.

In an ideal world, do you envision the new Bond's background - his family, education, early travel experiences - to pretty much mirror those of Fleming's Bond? Would you be very surprised or disappointed if they did not?

I suppose one of the things that I'm really wanting to know is, has life in that part of the world in which Bond grew up changed in the sixty or so years between the birth and upbringing of Fleming's Bond and Deaver's, to the extent that the backstory of the orphaned munition expert's son, who ends up traveling the world and hobknobbing with international spies while still in his teens, gone from somewhat fanciful to patently unbelievable...perhaps even ridiculous?

In terms of enjoying and accepting the new 007, would a considerably more mundane "origin story" be a deal breaker for you?

Good question. While not British myself, I don't exactly think it's a matter of nationality here, so I give my two pennies.

As a character Fleming's original always was somewhat patched together, but you didn't question him as the thing moved along. Only in hindsight one would notice the discrepancies.

A modern version I think would have to be depicted as a somewhat more hardened character, less 'naive' for lack of a better word. For example take 'James Bond in New York' where Bond ponders visiting a place where 'blue' films are shown and wonders what effect this will have on his sex life. Read today, this comes across almost incredibly inexperienced and 'green'. Even a young man today would have a much more aloof view on such things.

A similar example was the mention of the Mexican drug outfit Bond ends at the beginning of Goldfinger. The real destructive potential of such an operation isn't even mentioned. Once more, X-Bond would have to show a fairly detailed idea of what the stuff causes, not just on the consumers side; Mexico today practically experiences a drug war and the death toll is terrifying.

But the basic origin story of Bond would not have to change so much. An orphan raised by his aunt and sent to a public school, a fondness for dangerous extreme sports, climbing especially. After school he joins the armed forces to prove to... (himself?/his dead parents?/his few friends?) that he can pull the thing. Most probably out of bravado at first. And found there in the field that the experience for one thing changed him, but that it also revealed his particular attraction to driving himself onwards even under extreme conditions.

I don't think this is particularly mundane in itself. But I also don't think it's absolutely beyond belief. Look at those freeclimbers, basejumpers, river rafters, extreme surfers and so on. A bit of them is Bond; and some of Bond is in their constant search for their own limits.

From that point of view Bond is quite a modern character and far from completely unbelievable.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Don't know whether or not this question really belongs on this thread, but...as the main 'Project X' thread has become rather massive, I thought I'd give it a break and post here, anyway.

This is, I think, a question aimed mainly (if not exclusively) at the British members, though of course anyone is welcome to contribute who feels qualified to do so.

In an ideal world, do you expect the new Bond's background - his family, education, early travel experiences - to pretty much mirror those of Fleming's Bond? Would you be very surprised or disappointed if they did not?

I suppose one of the things that I'm really wanting to know is, has life in that part of the world in which Bond grew up changed in the sixty or so years between the birth and upbringing of Fleming's Bond and Deaver's, to the extent that the backstory of the orphaned munition expert's son, who ends up traveling the world and hobknobbing with international spies while still in his teens, gone from somewhat fanciful to patently unbelievable...perhaps even ridiculous?

In terms of enjoying and accepting the new 007, would a considerably more mundane "origin story" be a deal breaker for you?

Good question. I would be dissapointed if Bonds background story was all changed, after all if people dont have their culture to identifiy them what do they have? The man we know as Bond is no more. By all means give him a new time piece etc but lets keep his background the same. Has it changed here since the 60s? Well yes. But his schools still open for business and Windsor hasnt changed all that much, although it has now got a Mcdonalds and a Starbucks but where hasnt? (Lacock hasnt got any but it wont be long, mark my words) Although having said all the above I did not start breathing until the late 70s so what do I know about Britain in the 60s? Flares and Fanny Cradock.

[marktmurphy]

What a ghastly idea. I like to think that the author - being an apparently creative force - can come up with enough character names and titles. Until the books hit the shelves this is not about the fans, but one author's creative work as he sees fit.

You have noticed us talking about a guy called Boothroyd writing to Fleming, no?

[David Schofield]

In an ideal world, do you expect the new Bond's background - his family, education, early travel experiences - to pretty much mirror those of Fleming's Bond? Would you be very surprised or disappointed if they did not?

I personally would be rather, no, very disappointed if Bond's background were to be changed, but I imagine there are a few Labour voters out there who feel the opposite . Britain has indeed changed enormously since then and while such an upbringing would be unusual now it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Quite.

I wonder if any of our American friends out there are familiar with David Cameron?

(Obviously, it helps if you know who Mr Cameron is in the first place)

[Double-Oh Agent]

Don't know whether or not this question really belongs on this thread, but...as the main 'Project X' thread has become rather massive, I thought I'd give it a break and post here, anyway.

This is, I think, a question aimed mainly (if not exclusively) at the British members, though of course anyone is welcome to contribute who feels qualified to do so.

In an ideal world, do you expect the new Bond's background - his family, education, early travel experiences - to pretty much mirror those of Fleming's Bond? Would you be very surprised or disappointed if they did not?

I suppose one of the things that I'm really wanting to know is, has life in that part of the world in which Bond grew up changed in the sixty or so years between the birth and upbringing of Fleming's Bond and Deaver's, to the extent that the backstory of the orphaned munition expert's son, who ends up traveling the world and hobknobbing with international spies while still in his teens, gone from somewhat fanciful to patently unbelievable...perhaps even ridiculous?

In terms of enjoying and accepting the new 007, would a considerably more mundane "origin story" be a deal breaker for you?

Good question. I would be dissapointed if Bonds background story was all changed, after all if people dont have their culture to identifiy them what do they have? The man we know as Bond is no more. By all means give him a new time piece etc but lets keep his background the same....

I completely agree. Bond's background is what makes him Bond. To change any of that changes his character and runs a great risk of screwing things up. The only stuff that should be changed is the modernizing of Bond, his background, and his world inside and outside MI6, but the particular details of his background (i.e. his being orphaned, his parents killed in climbing accident, his being raised by his Aunt Charmian, and his attending Eton and getting kicked out for an indiscretion with a maid) should remain the same.

[CasinoKiller]

I think the basics of Bond's family, his background, his upbringing and education should remain the same.

But I really think Deaver needs to clarify his military/intelligence career. That's something Flemming was never able to manage. We were never really told precisely when, how and why a naval officer became a spy. In other words, we know that Bond entered the rough and violent life of the military at age 17, but we don't know how he made his first forays into the realm of espionage and how he came to become a spy ripe for recruitment to MI6.

I'd also like Deaver to include the requirements for becoming a 00 (two cold-blooded kills)