19 replies to this topic

[mttvolcano]

I was reading about how Jeffery Deaver portrays the 00 section and it went something like this:

"The 00 classification, the license to kill, didn't mean he was allowed to kill someone defending himself. It meant he was sent out on assignment for the express purpose of assassinating someone."

I am not sure, as I haven't read all the books, but the idea I got from both the books and the movies so far was that licenced to kill meant killing people who were in the way of gather information, not necessarily for the 'express purpose of assassinating someone.'
I would like to hear people's comments on it. I do think it is a very interesting way of 'tweeking' the nature of Bond's missions. I am sure it will be a truly interesting read.

[Harry Fawkes]

The Double O Section trades violence with violence, however unpalatable it may seem to some. It's job is to hunt down terrorists and subversive activists and, for want of a better word, dispose of them.

To do so though one would have to unleash the proverbial dogs of war.

Men like James Bond agent OO7.

Simply put, it is going to offer tough approaches for very tough situations. That is why the Double ‘O’ Division was set up in the first place way back during the cold war and that is why men like Bond were given a licence to kill.

A violent world and violent times dictate violent approaches and violent methods of fighting a very violent enemy.

Punto e basta.

[mttvolcano]

The Double O Section trades violence with violence, however unpalatable it may seem to some. It's job is to hunt down terrorists and subversive activists and, for want of a better word, dispose of them.

To do so though one would have to unleash the proverbial dogs of war.

Men like James Bond agent OO7.

Simply put, it is going to offer tough approaches for very tough situations. That is why the Double ‘O’ Division was set up in the first place way back during the cold war and that is why men like Bond were given a licence to kill.

A violent world and violent times dictate violent approaches and violent methods of fighting a very violent enemy.

Punto e basta.

Ah I see, thanks for clearing that up!

[OmarB]

Deaver's got the 00 section pegs pretty well IMO.

[x007AceOfSpades]

I'm impressed with the info he's given out so far for Carte Blanche, and I'm looking forward to reading it when it comes out.

[Righty007]

The Carte Blanche Wikipedia page I created says this about the 00 Section:

The 00 Section will be portrayed as a shadowy assassination division of the Secret Intelligence Service that disavows its agents if they are compromised during an assignment.

[Harry Fawkes]

The Carte Blanche Wikipedia page I created says this about the 00 Section:

The 00 Section will be portrayed as a shadowy assassination division of the Secret Intelligence Service that disavows its agents if they are compromised during an assignment.

Cheers RightyOO7 for that

[Harry Fawkes]

The Carte Blanche Wikipedia page I created says this about the 00 Section:

The 00 Section will be portrayed as a shadowy assassination division of the Secret Intelligence Service that disavows its agents if they are compromised during an assignment.

Cheers RightyOO7 for that

Mind you, there's nothing new in what Deaver is going to attempt of course. Just go back to the movie The Living Daylights, when Bond is given the task of assassinating General Pushkin by M. 'A shadowy assassination division of the Secret Intelligence Service that disavows its agents if they are compromised during an assignment' if I've ever seen one.

[marktmurphy]

Not super-keen on the idea of him being an assassin only, although I'm not convinced that's what'll actually happen- the idea of having a carte blanche surely suggest that he has his own choices to make; something a standard assassin doesn't really do.

[mttvolcano]

Not super-keen on the idea of him being an assassin only, although I'm not convinced that's what'll actually happen- the idea of having a carte blanche surely suggest that he has his own choices to make; something a standard assassin doesn't really do.

This is the idea I was getting at mostly. I do agree

[Harry Fawkes]

Not super-keen on the idea of him being an assassin only, although I'm not convinced that's what'll actually happen- the idea of having a carte blanche surely suggest that he has his own choices to make; something a standard assassin doesn't really do.

I agree fully. I don't think I would like Bond like that either. He has to have his own choices to make. I also agree that having a carte blanche means just that. Good point made marktmurphy.

[CasinoKiller]

Not super-keen on the idea of him being an assassin only, although I'm not convinced that's what'll actually happen- the idea of having a carte blanche surely suggest that he has his own choices to make; something a standard assassin doesn't really do.

I agree fully. I don't think I would like Bond like that either. He has to have his own choices to make. I also agree that having a carte blanche means just that. Good point made marktmurphy.

Truth be told, Flemming wasn't too sure about what exactly the 00 Section was meant to do to begin with.

In Casino Royale, the 00 number was simply a designation awarded to agents who had killed in cold blood on assignment. Bond earned his number during WW2, by assassinating a Japanese cipher clerk and a Norwegian double agent. While Bond earned the number through assassination, there was no implication that his assignments were usually concerned primarily with assassination.

Then in Moonraker, he first brings up the 'Double O Section' and suggests that it consists of three elite agents who may be, at any time, be sent out into the field to kill. This is the first time it was implied, pretty much stated in fact, that Bond and the other 00's were assassins. However, the idea here was that they were to kill acting on specific orders. From Russia with Love was the first time that the idea of a discretionary 'license to kill' was introduced (though the phrase itself would first appear only in Dr. No). However the novels still weren't too clear on what it entailed. While sometimes it seemed like Bond was permitted to kill in the field anytime he needed to, without explicit instructions, whereas at other times, he received explicit instructions as to who he was to kill and was pretty much an assassin. The movies have usually stuck to the former idea.

I must admit though that while the idea of Bond being an assassin, rather than just a spy, is intriguing, him being EXCLUSIVELY an assassin does kind of limit the range of assignments he can receive.

[Single-O-Seven]

In Goldfinger, Fleming drops a line that runs along the lines of Bond wondering if he will "be given" a license to kill Goldfinger by M. This implies the idea of Bond being officially and exclusively told who he can use his OO-status against. Generally, however, it seems to be at his discretion, without Bond ever having to give an explanation for every life he takes on the job. It may just be that the cold-blooded assassinations are given the greenlight by M, while any acts of self-defense are strictly at Bond's discretion when the moment calls for them.

[smudge76]

I think the idea of 007 been an assasin is a great move. It brings him up to date into todays world. Apart from been a official hitman his only other avenue would be as a Operational Officer ie agent handler. The assasin role is verywide ranging as it lays focus on the range of black ops roles he can carry out so his primary role would be that of a hitman but secondary would be kidnapping,black bag jobs,etc. Great move i think.

[smudge76]

More importantly however it be interesting to see how much of 007 RN routes are kept, as he states clearly on bonds afghan experience, so will he be more towards SBS side of things like in new Daniel Craig bond films or maybe Royal Marine

[perdogg]

In the proper context, yes that is correct. Bond was little more than a piece of govt equipment with an inventory tag of 007.

[Jim]

Interesting points; whilst on the one hand it's admirable that we don't know too much about it therefore retaining the pleasure of finding out for one's self, there doesn't appear to be that much of a push on to hammer home what the book is meant to represent insofar as what comes after it is concerned. I was always under the impression that, assuming success, this would be the first of several, not a stand-alone. Now I'm not so sure. May be wrong on that.

[Captain Tightpants]

1. What does it mean for the series that Deaver is only doing one novel? Will other authors be rotated into the series and asked to continue the adventures of Deaver's interpretation of Bond if CARTE BLANCHE sells well? Or is this going to be a one-off?

I recall reading somewhere that this was the plan. Deaver would reboot the series, reimagine the character and the Bondverse, and then pass the torch onto another writer. The idea was to get high-profile writers into the project, and restablish the expanded Bondverse as a major franchise rather than as a simple continuation with low-grade writers.

2. DEVIL MAY CARE was a one-off for Sebastian Faulks, but he placed his novel squarely within the timeline established by Fleming and continued by Amis and Gardner (it's been so long I can't remember if Benson's Bond was a "reboot" or not). So, since Deaver's Bond was born in 1980, are we going to get a story similar in agenda to 2006's CASINO ROYALE, which shows us a less fully-formed Bond becoming a 00-agent? Is this Bond going to like martinis and gambling?

We don't know specifics of how Bond will be portrayed, but we do know he is simply being brought forward into the twenty-first century. It's possible this will be an origin story, but it's also possible that Bond will be established as a Double-Oh for some time the way he was in the original Casino Royale novel.

3. I'm less interested in continuing with the same authors as I am with continuing with the same incarnation. I'd like to see CARTE BLANCHE do well and new authors take a turn at continuing that character, much the same as the film series has changed directors on every film since GOLDENEYE. But what are the chances of that? I don't really know what the long term plan is for the book series beyond Deaver.

Like I said, the original plan was to lure high-profile writers into the series and get them to do short one- or two-novel arcs. The problem with the original expanded universe was that writers were often under contract to writer long sequences of novels, and given the expectations of the publishers, they'd have little time for their own works. This set-up keeps rotating the line-up, with one writer taking off where the other ended. They can be a part of the Bondverse, but the demands of the commitment are not so great that they cannot pursue their own projects. However, I don't know whether this is still the plan. I think the Fleming estate wanted to re-ignite the Bondverse with Sebastian Faulks, but Faulks insisted on doing only the one novel and the concept died out.

That said, if there is to be a run of writers who come into the franchise, then I'd love to see Stuart MacBride have a go. I think he's got the right idea with some of his novels. Otherwise, they should probably look at authors who win the Ian Fleming 'Steel Dagger' Award, which is given to writers who produce "the best adventure/thriller novel in the vein of James Bond". Deaver himself won it in 2004 for Garden of Beasts.

[Dustin]

I thought the initial idea behind Deaver handing in an outright reboot was most likely to revive Bond under a tighter wound brand with Deaver providing the basis. But actually nothing I've read so far really prevents IFP from changing their minds and there is room for interpretation as to their original plans. Only thing that seems sure is Deaver writes the first in a new series of Bond novels. Theoretically they could be stand-alones or picking up different timelines, who knows? IFP can do with their property whichever way they please and fancy.

[Loomis]

I'm trying to get a sense of *WHY* I should read this book.

Well, here's my (uninformed) take on it:

The major WHY is to do for the literary series what CASINO ROYALE did for the film series, i.e. reboot Bond as a contemporary hero. This is BOND BEGINS for the books.

Will other authors be rotated into the series and asked to continue the adventures of Deaver's interpretation of Bond if CARTE BLANCHE sells well?

That would certainly seem to be the plan.

Or is this going to be a one-off?

Doubtful. If CARTE BLANCHE is a commercial success, why would IFP not commission sequels? I doubt they'd say to themselves "Great, dear old Jeff has given us a huge bestseller - right then, let's get back to the Fleming timeline and do, oh I don't know, Young Blofeld".

So, since Deaver's Bond was born in 1980, are we going to get a story similar in agenda to 2006's CASINO ROYALE, which shows us a less fully-formed Bond becoming a 00-agent?

Yes. I'd be astonished if that were not the case. If Bond is going to behave like a seasoned pro - The Bond We All Know And Love™ - then what on earth is the point of making him 28 years old? Why not just imply that the character is (as usual) somewhere in his late thirties or early forties and leave it at that?

Is this Bond going to like martinis and gambling?

I imagine so. Sadly. I'm expecting a lot of box-ticking Fleming elements that will feel very out of place. I hope (but don't expect) that Deaver will give us an all-new Bond who's very much his own creation.

I'm less interested in continuing with the same authors as I am with continuing with the same incarnation. I'd like to see CARTE BLANCHE do well and new authors take a turn at continuing that character, much the same as the film series has changed directors on every film since GOLDENEYE. But what are the chances of that?

High, unless CARTE BLANCHE flops.