108 replies to this topic

[0077]

I'm really wishing that IFP would find a solid author who would do more than just one novel for literary Bond. I know that Jeffrey Deaver wishes to do just one novel then return to his original ideas...to which I don't find any fault at all. But this new series needs to have stability when it comes to writers. I do like the mixed bag of different writers but enough is enough.

Either that or resurrect the Robert Markham pseudonym for all future use to keep us all truly guessing.

[Jim]

I'm really wishing that IFP would find a solid author who would do more than just one novel for literary Bond. I know that Jeffrey Deaver wishes to do just one novel then return to his original ideas...to which I don't find any fault at all. But this new series needs to have stability when it comes to writers. I do like the mixed bag of different writers but enough is enough.

Either that or resurrect the Robert Markham pseudonym for all future use to keep us all truly guessing.

Interesting - I wouldn't be averse to The Markham Resurrection (...bit Ludlum, that phrase).

I understood - I may have this wrong - the idea was for Mr Deaver to set up ideas and characters and "the vision" which - assuming success - can then be picked up and developed by those who follow; so there will be stability of a sort. Not that Fleming was inherently internally consistent anyway.

[Dustin]

I understood - I may have this wrong - the idea was for Mr Deaver to set up ideas and characters and "the vision" which - assuming success - can then be picked up and developed by those who follow; so there will be stability of a sort. Not that Fleming was inherently internally consistent anyway.

I got the same impression, it certainly looked that way at first. However, I'm not so sure any more. Seems they have dropped any intention to establish a modern brand such as "Tom Clancy's whatevergetsyourredneckbloodup" or "Robert Ludlum's OpConsBourNew". Perhaps they just don't want to put much emphasis on the reboot factor, as that has surely got the most flack from fans. Could also be that the next-in-line is not happy with the layout. With Gardner and Benson IFP gave them supposedly every freedom to use or ignore whatever their predecessors have imagined before them. If true that would limit the writers of the new series. Perhaps that's been changed yet again?

[Jim]

Interesting theory. This one really has got "we're going to have to wait and see" written all over it, hasn't it?

I started sceptical, now I'm anticipating.

Not too sure the reboot has been that heavily criticised; at least in comparison to the film rekick. It may well have been but perhaps those objecting have been a mite calmer than those banging on about the new films, and the latter category are not going to read the book (or not able).

[David Schofield]

What has always amused me from the fairly outrageous rumours that we have had circulated, is that IF Deaver made his Bond so radically retconned/rebooted as suggested, how easy would it be then for IFP to get writers of calibre to continue the Project X series?

It would appear that IFP hopes the series has legs and that Deaver will be followed by writers of similar quality.

I can't see too many queuing up to take over a new, different James Bond. Jeffrey Deaver's James Bond, surely? The appeal - remember this IFP - is Ian Fleming, and you shorten the list of subsequent writers if they are asked to take on something not recognisably Flemingian.

Unless they booted it back. Which doesn't seem the purpose of launching a new series.

Or, of course, unless IFP expect to follow Deaver with no-name continuation pulpists just happy for the work...

[Jump James]

Then after Deaver, Lee Child? I hope not. Please IFP don’t go down the generic modern day thriller route, Fleming was so much more than that. Get a writer whose roots are in writing spy fiction at the very least.

It would be interesting how are perceptions would be based purely on the book with the mysterious Robert Markham coming back. Might be a good idea; forget the name who wrote it, lets judge the actual novel. Then a few years later we find out. Yes, it could be interesting and stop preconceived ideas.

[David Schofield]

It would be interesting how are perceptions would be based purely on the book with the mysterious Robert Markham coming back. Might be a good idea; forget the name who wrote it, lets judge the actual novel. Then a few years later we find out. Yes, it could be interesting and stop preconceived ideas.

Sadly, unlikely to be achievable in this Internet age? And of course it would stop IFP blowing off on Deaver's reputation which is apparently a huge selling point for them, particularly in the US market.

However, a brilliant novel by a total unknown under the Markham banner would be welcomed by all of us. Hell, a brilliant novel by ANYONE would be welcome.

[Jump James]

It would be interesting how are perceptions would be based purely on the book with the mysterious Robert Markham coming back. Might be a good idea; forget the name who wrote it, lets judge the actual novel. Then a few years later we find out. Yes, it could be interesting and stop preconceived ideas.

Sadly, unlikely to be achievable in this Internet age? And of course it would stop IFP blowing off on Deaver's reputation which is apparently a huge selling point for them, particularly in the US market.

However, a brilliant novel by a total unknown under the Markham banner would be welcomed by all of us. Hell, a brilliant novel by ANYONE would be welcome.

I'm sure they could keep it hush hush, but you have a very good point about the name of the author selling the book, in this case Deaver. Looks like they are going for big names from now on. Faulks, Deaver.....who's next?

[OmarB]

I'm glad someone brought up the Markham bit because I've been saying that since DMC. We all knew the deal with Faulks, just like we know the deal with Deaver so if it's going to be a revolving door they should use the out they created all those years ago and bring back Markham.

As for who could follow Deaver. I like Gayle Lynds and Charles Cumming.

[Jump James]

I'm glad someone brought up the Markham bit because I've been saying that since DMC. We all knew the deal with Faulks, just like we know the deal with Deaver so if it's going to be a revolving door they should use the out they created all those years ago and bring back Markham.

As for who could follow Deaver. I like Gayle Lynds and Charles Cumming.

A woman pen a Bond novel?

[Dustin]

Is there still a 'Project x series'? Not that you'd notice; not any more. After the hype about Deaver coming aboard IFP's ship and setting an entirely new course for them that reboot-thingy has dropped massively in the reports about Carte Blanche. Yes, Bond is supposed to be an Afghan war veteran, but what does this really mean. Even in Gardner's last books there was zero chance it was the same character that volunteered in 1940. Travis McGee, a fellow traveller through of the imaginary landscape of thrillers, has seen a similar rejuvenation, his indicated service with the armed forces shifting ever so slightly from Korea to Vietnam.

About that supposed Flemingian nature of the new book - of any new book, truth be told - I am not sure if this is really an issue. A substantial part of the fanbase isn't even aware of Fleming's books, has never read them or finds them downright boring. You can write a period piece about Bond, tick all the boxes and still land with an underwhelming result. You can write a modern piece and be much closer to the source, even if it's not the slavish 10.000th retelling of the same clichés.

What I mean is, this project should be about the essential idea of Bond, not about digging out his rotten corpse, patching up the joints and playing the thing like a marionette. If the verdict then is: 'That's not Fleming!', well, that's spot on then. Fleming is dead and won't, as far as anybody can tell, not come back just so we can read another 300 pages of his oeuvre. But that's not the point, for the question is: Is it Bond? And that should not be entirely impossible. Not yet.

But I originally wanted to make a different point about what may or may not have happened to the entire 'Project x'. I trust most people here will agree that this initial announcement looked a lot like the popular "branding" I think it's called. I seem to have read, on balance at least, more critical opinions on the idea of the reboot than Jim may have. I'm not sure to which extent, if at all, such non-representative opinions are a matter of consideration for IFP or the respective publishing houses. After all, let's face it, the organised fans, such as the people around here, are not really the target for such a book. Millions of travellers, Deaver fans, thriller fans, casual readers and so on are. And Deaver, rest assured, wasn't picked because he's selling well in America. A large number of people do, and some are even quite good, yet the rest of the world often hasn't heard about them, for various reasons. Deaver was picked because he's selling fine in most countries. He's a world bestseller and that practically guarantees that his book finds publishers from here to Timbuktu. Publishers who might not have picked up an effort by another writer.

But if such a thing as the x project ever really existed as such, the implications for the further entries would have apparently been more restrictive than for the original continuations (or pre-reboot reboots). Always provided what we've heard so far about free rein for Gardner and Benson really was true; I certainly couldn't ever tell either way. But judging from some of Gardner's more ambitious entries I have little doubt that he could do surely a lot.

The x idea now would perhaps call for a number of further restrictions, making Bond here the modern equivalent of The Executioner/Nick Carter. I'm not sure how well this would sit with authors who follow Deaver. Not necessarily in terms of quality or whatever we may call "Flemingian" (not a quantity/quality defined in any lexicon). What I wonder is, just how far will writers wan't to base their idea on Deaver's scouting and exploration?

If of course there had been some - up to now unheard of - brainstorming and basic evaluation for the new series prior to Deaver setting the groundwork in stone... that would be a different thing then. But if not I could well understand if others would want their own version of the reboot.

Edited by Dustin, 29 March 2011 - 02:27 PM.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I just finnished a compelling book called the Geneva Deception which was Quite Good, written by James Twining I quite liked and though twining would make a great successor to Deaver.

[Loomis]

I can't see too many queuing up to take over a new, different James Bond. Jeffrey Deaver's James Bond, surely? The appeal - remember this IFP - is Ian Fleming, and you shorten the list of subsequent writers if they are asked to take on something not recognisably Flemingian.

But surely part of the reason Deaver accepted the offer from IFP was for the honour of rebooting the franchise and remodelling Bond and the Bondverse, setting "the rules" for subsequent writers. Otherwise, Deaver is just the new Raymond Benson, no?

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

What has always amused me from the fairly outrageous rumours that we have had circulated, is that IF Deaver made his Bond so radically retconned/rebooted as suggested, how easy would it be then for IFP to get writers of calibre to continue the Project X series?

It would appear that IFP hopes the series has legs and that Deaver will be followed by writers of similar quality.

I can't see too many queuing up to take over a new, different James Bond. Jeffrey Deaver's James Bond, surely? The appeal - remember this IFP - is Ian Fleming, and you shorten the list of subsequent writers if they are asked to take on something not recognisably Flemingian.

Unless they booted it back. Which doesn't seem the purpose of launching a new series.

Or, of course, unless IFP expect to follow Deaver with no-name continuation pulpists just happy for the work...

I agree. I don't see any big names following on Deaver's footsteps. Honestly, I don't like IFP's lack of long-term planning. When DMC was announced, I sort of expected other writers to continue Bond into the seventies. IFP's change of heart tells me that if CB is not a massive success, we'll be seeing yet another different approach in two/three year's time. Literary franchises aren't the same as film franchises. You have to give them time to catch on.
I hope Mr Deaver isn't a complete fascist. I fear this "Bond living in a post 9/11 world" announcement. Americans don't realise the world's been experiencing terrorism for quite a while now so the announcement makes me sceptical as to whether we're going to get a Bond that even feels British. Fleming and Gardner were not precisely left wing, but their mentality was much broader than Mr Benson's, so hopefully Deaver's anglophilia is not just a PR comment.

[David Schofield]

I can't see too many queuing up to take over a new, different James Bond. Jeffrey Deaver's James Bond, surely? The appeal - remember this IFP - is Ian Fleming, and you shorten the list of subsequent writers if they are asked to take on something not recognisably Flemingian.

But surely part of the reason Deaver accepted the offer from IFP was for the honour of rebooting the franchise and remodelling Bond and the Bondverse, setting "the rules" for subsequent writers. Otherwise, Deaver is just the new Raymond Benson, no?

But where is the appeal for a new writer following Deaver's reboot, Deaver's model, Deaver's plan?

Deaver gets the main gig - the creative bit of rebooting Bond - and the rest just have to follow it, Deaver's rules as you say? Hardly sets the creative juices of the authors who come next going, does it?

And no, I'd say Deaver is not the new Raymond Benson. Just the populist American Seb Faulks.

[Jump James]

I can't see too many queuing up to take over a new, different James Bond. Jeffrey Deaver's James Bond, surely? The appeal - remember this IFP - is Ian Fleming, and you shorten the list of subsequent writers if they are asked to take on something not recognisably Flemingian.

But surely part of the reason Deaver accepted the offer from IFP was for the honour of rebooting the franchise and remodelling Bond and the Bondverse, setting "the rules" for subsequent writers. Otherwise, Deaver is just the new Raymond Benson, no?

But where is the appeal for a new writer following Deaver's reboot, Deaver's model, Deaver's plan?

Deaver gets the main gig - the creative bit of rebooting Bond - and the rest just have to follow it, Deaver's rules as you say? Hardly sets the creative juices of the authors who come next going, does it?

And no, I'd say Deaver is not the new Raymond Benson. Just the populist American Seb Faulks.

Agreed. Every writer has faced a new project when writing Bond.

Amis was the first to see if it could actually work after Fleming.
Gardner had to bring Bond into the 80s
Benson’s Bond into the 90s
Faulks back to the 60s
And Deaver is bringing Bond into the 10s
And the next one has it all done for them by Deaver? Not much of a challenge for any writer to get there teeth into.

[Jim]

I have faith in IFP. Young Bond was great; Devil May Care sold huge numbers. Not going to suggest that they can't put a foot wrong (the Chitty Chitty bang Bang rebangbang sounds odd) but on the whole I am enjoying this inventive streak they have developed. It's all certainly imaginative.

[Jump James]

I have faith in IFP. Young Bond was great; Devil May Care sold huge numbers. Not going to suggest that they can't put a foot wrong (the Chitty Chitty bang Bang rebangbang sounds odd) but on the whole I am enjoying this inventive streak they have developed. It's all certainly imaginative.

Well if Chitty gets children reading then that's always a big plus. And yes IFP seem to know how to sell a Bond Novel.

Deaver won a CWA so who is next after him? Simon Conway also won a CWA......

[Jim]

I have faith in IFP. Young Bond was great; Devil May Care sold huge numbers. Not going to suggest that they can't put a foot wrong (the Chitty Chitty bang Bang rebangbang sounds odd) but on the whole I am enjoying this inventive streak they have developed. It's all certainly imaginative.

Well if Chitty gets children reading then that's always a big plus.

Is the most sensible thing I've read on here in years. You're absolutely right.

Deaver won a CWA so who is next after him? Simon Conway also won a CWA......

A field of pleasing speculation, certainly.

I would be very surprised if a second book wasn't produced for 2012.

[Dustin]

But where is the appeal for a new writer following Deaver's reboot, Deaver's model, Deaver's plan?

Deaver gets the main gig - the creative bit of rebooting Bond - and the rest just have to follow it, Deaver's rules as you say? Hardly sets the creative juices of the authors who come next going, does it?

And no, I'd say Deaver is not the new Raymond Benson. Just the populist American Seb Faulks.

I'm not sure it's that big a deal. Plenty of writers would like to have a go at Bond, regardless if done as period or modern. I think it could be a problem if the reboot was to be too strict in its consequences. Giving the writer too little room for his own work and insisting on by-the-numbers blandness would probably leave interested names frustrated. Perhaps that's why the emphasis isn't on DEAVER REBOOTS! HMG KEEPS SILENT! UPROAR IN THE STREETS! QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT! any more.

But it's not sure something like this was going to happen in the first place. There is only very little detail in the originals and we know of just a few scraps Deaver is going to change. From what I've heard so far it's not exactly a big deal IMO. It's at times insinuated that Deaver would aim for changing Bond into what's often referred to as chav, but I can't see why this should happen. I don't remember any hundreds of pages where Bond reminisced on his days of playing wall game or spending weekends shooting grouse. There is perhaps a slight tendency to overemphasise Bond's background in the light of Deaver being American. I don't recall such concerns with Faulks.

[Jump James]

But where is the appeal for a new writer following Deaver's reboot, Deaver's model, Deaver's plan?

Deaver gets the main gig - the creative bit of rebooting Bond - and the rest just have to follow it, Deaver's rules as you say? Hardly sets the creative juices of the authors who come next going, does it?

And no, I'd say Deaver is not the new Raymond Benson. Just the populist American Seb Faulks.

I'm not sure it's that big a deal. Plenty of writers would like to have a go at Bond, regardless if done as period or modern. I think it could be a problem if the reboot was to be too strict in its consequences. Giving the writer too little room for his own work and insisting on by-the-numbers blandness would probably leave interested names frustrated. Perhaps that's why the emphasis isn't on DEAVER REBOOTS! HMG KEEPS SILENT! UPROAR IN THE STREETS! QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT! any more.

But it's not sure something like this was going to happen in the first place. There is only very little detail in the originals and we know of just a few scraps Deaver is going to change. From what I've heard so far it's not exactly a big deal IMO. It's at times insinuated that Deaver would aim for changing Bond into what's often referred to as chav, but I can't see why this should happen. I don't remember any hundreds of pages where Bond reminisced on his days of playing wall game or spending weekends shooting grouse. There is perhaps a slight tendency to overemphasise Bond's background in the light of Deaver being American. I don't recall such concerns with Faulks.

It's perhaps not so much the fact Deaver is American that Bonds background gets overemphasised, it's more the fact Deaver is bringing Bond into our times and changing aspects of his background. Faulks was tasked with keeping Bond in the 60s which is perhaps why it wasn't discussed so much as he didn't have such a great task as Deaver.

[Jump James]

I have faith in IFP. Young Bond was great; Devil May Care sold huge numbers. Not going to suggest that they can't put a foot wrong (the Chitty Chitty bang Bang rebangbang sounds odd) but on the whole I am enjoying this inventive streak they have developed. It's all certainly imaginative.

Well if Chitty gets children reading then that's always a big plus.

Is the most sensible thing I've read on here in years. You're absolutely right.

Deaver won a CWA so who is next after him? Simon Conway also won a CWA......

A field of pleasing speculation, certainly.

I would be very surprised if a second book wasn't produced for 2012.

In recent memory the only mistake by IFP was the marketing campaign for the Miss Moneypenny Diaries, and that’s only in hindsight. The concept would have sounded correct and brilliant at the board room discussions, based on the concept of the books. Business is about taking risks after all, so could it really be considered a mistake?
 
Good point about Young Bond Jim. I was very against the idea back in the day, how dare IFP do this etc. Naturally you can’t judge a book until you have read it, and I was forced to eat my words, hat and everything else. YB was a marvelous success in every respect.
 
So we will see with Jeffery Deaver, the proof will be in his pudding. And after that I think we will still have plenty to look forward too. And if some of us do/don’t like it, we have the choice to read or not to read, as Shakespeare once (didn’t) wrote. So as a consumer of their product, I can’t complain.   
 

[David Schofield]

Frankly, I do not see the X Bond Project - writers of quality following Deaver's blue print - actually working. And I wonder whether IFP do now, or ever really did...

What I can see as a version of Project X is various writers following Deaver and taking on THEIR interpretation of James Bond, putting him in their chosen time period, etc. A Bond for the late '60 by - say - Len Deighton, followed by a Bond for the late 2010s by a modern writer, a 50-something Bond for the early 70s by whoever, followed by a Freddie Forsyth Bond novel set in the 50s... No implicit continuity required, just letting creative writers show their interpreted take on Fleming's original.

I gave these writers only as examples. But I wonder if Project X won't/hasn't already mutated into this.

And I wonder if - in years to come, or perhaps already - Faulks '67 take on Bond might not be seen to be part of X, or at least prototype of Project X?

[Dustin]

Perhaps we ought to judge recent announcements from IFP a bit more carefully. As Professor Jones used to say, 'X never marks the spot.' Has it ever been confirmed that further entries in whatever IFP will publish after Carte Blanche will have to follow up on the book? I think I've read somewhere that further books are planned and are planned as modern day adventures. Beyond that... I can't really remember. Ok, it's a reboot, it's a new series of indefinite length, Deaver writes the first. Of course the implication would be that others follow. But it's not really so easy, is it? For example, is Deaver the only one working on the concept? Is he perhaps just part of a team? Or, most interesting thought, has the concept (if there is/ever was a concept to start with) been worked out by somebody else? A team even?

Fact is, we don't know all that much about the thing apart from the title. We drew our own conclusions, sure. But they are hardly of interest for IFP. And surely nobody can keep us from drawing entirely wrong conclusions. As with the Young Bond books I seem to detect a number of strong opinions about Carte Blanche. But actual data allows for neither the premature condemnation nor the premature praise. We really know awfully little; and the meagre facts we do know allow for whatever one prefers with regard to continuations.

Edited by Dustin, 30 March 2011 - 02:03 PM.

[Loomis]

I can't see too many queuing up to take over a new, different James Bond. Jeffrey Deaver's James Bond, surely? The appeal - remember this IFP - is Ian Fleming, and you shorten the list of subsequent writers if they are asked to take on something not recognisably Flemingian.

But surely part of the reason Deaver accepted the offer from IFP was for the honour of rebooting the franchise and remodelling Bond and the Bondverse, setting "the rules" for subsequent writers. Otherwise, Deaver is just the new Raymond Benson, no?

But where is the appeal for a new writer following Deaver's reboot, Deaver's model, Deaver's plan?

Deaver gets the main gig - the creative bit of rebooting Bond - and the rest just have to follow it, Deaver's rules as you say? Hardly sets the creative juices of the authors who come next going, does it?

Depends. All of these writers - Deaver, Faulks, Higson, etc. - have taken on a franchise as hired guns, and Bond was never going to provide them with the sort of absolute creative freedom that they have with their own, original work. If they want carte blanche (ho ho), then they must stick to their own stuff, and I'm sure all of them knew that going in.

I don't necessarily see the next writer being only too pleased to cram in all the usual, tiresome, box-ticking "Fleming" elements (the incident with the boys' maid, the comma of black hair, etc.), yet automatically bristling at also being asked to recognise Deaver's timeline and continuity, any more than I can picture John Logan refusing to incorporate anything that may originally have been created by Paul Haggis (e.g. Mr White or Quantum) into his BOND 23 script. I believe the Benson novels reference Amis and Gardner as well as Fleming.

[David Schofield]

I can't see too many queuing up to take over a new, different James Bond. Jeffrey Deaver's James Bond, surely? The appeal - remember this IFP - is Ian Fleming, and you shorten the list of subsequent writers if they are asked to take on something not recognisably Flemingian.

But surely part of the reason Deaver accepted the offer from IFP was for the honour of rebooting the franchise and remodelling Bond and the Bondverse, setting "the rules" for subsequent writers. Otherwise, Deaver is just the new Raymond Benson, no?

But where is the appeal for a new writer following Deaver's reboot, Deaver's model, Deaver's plan?

Deaver gets the main gig - the creative bit of rebooting Bond - and the rest just have to follow it, Deaver's rules as you say? Hardly sets the creative juices of the authors who come next going, does it?

Depends. All of these writers - Deaver, Faulks, Higson, etc. - have taken on a franchise as hired guns, and Bond was never going to provide them with the sort of absolute creative freedom that they have with their own, original work. If they want carte blanche (ho ho), then they must stick to their own stuff, and I'm sure all of them knew that going in.

I don't necessarily see the next writer being only too pleased to cram in all the usual, tiresome, box-ticking "Fleming" elements (the incident with the boys' maid, the comma of black hair, etc.), yet automatically bristling at also being asked to recognise Deaver's timeline and continuity, any more than I can picture John Logan refusing to incorporate anything that may originally have been created by Paul Haggis (e.g. Mr White or Quantum) into his BOND 23 script. I believe the Benson novels reference Amis and Gardner as well as Fleming.

Of course one could be argumentative and point out that Deaver, Faulks and Higson (and Gardner and Benson* for that matter) were writing sequels to Fleming (okay prequels in the case of Higson) NOT sequels to a charcter created/amended/adapted/corruped by a pulpist like Jeffrey Deaver. And I maintain Ian Fleming's writing and standing wil ALWAYS remain greater than that of Deaver.

I think that's where the allure for anyone of substance taking on Deaver's creation looses its appeal.

* both Gardner and Benson can be seen as sequels to Fleming and not thier respective continuation predeccessors; Gardner ignored CS completely (excepting the US 'original' Cold Fall), Benson claimed to be bringing back the original boozing, smoking non-PC Bond of Fleming and not picking up Gardner. And Faulks totally ignores the existence of CS, too.

Fleming is the appeal. Not Jeff Deaver. (And I'm sure JD would conceed the same; don't see Seb Faulks ever being induced to write a Lincoln Rhyme continuation ever... )

[Loomis]

Gardner ignored CS completely (excepting the US 'original' Cold Fall)

Really? I've never read COLD FALL. You mean COLONEL SUN is referenced in the US version but not the UK version?

Benson claimed to be bringing back the original boozing, smoking non-PC Bond of Fleming and not picking up Gardner.

If memory serves, a couple of Gardner heroines are mentioned in ZERO MINUS TEN. There may or may not be other Gardner references in Benson (I've only read four of his books).

[David Schofield]

Gardner ignored CS completely (excepting the US 'original' Cold Fall)

Really? I've never read COLD FALL. You mean COLONEL SUN is referenced in the US version but not the UK version?

Benson claimed to be bringing back the original boozing, smoking non-PC Bond of Fleming and not picking up Gardner.

If memory serves, a couple of Gardner heroines are mentioned in ZERO MINUS TEN. There may or may not be other Gardner references in Benson (I've only read four of his books).

Yeah, the US version of COLD - COLD FALL - contains a number of differences to the UK First Edition. Not so much in terms of plot but different sections of dialogue. CS is referened when Bond visits M at Quarterdeck; the Davisons are noted as having replaced the Hammonds who died in the Colonel Sun affair; in the Uk edition, this is not mentioned.

And yup, Benson chucks in a number of Gardner refs in his early novels, but in publicity at the time he made it clear he was BRING BACK Fleming's Bond and not continuing Gardner's more sanitised 80s'90s version.

[Dustin]

And yup, Benson chucks in a number of Gardner refs in his early novels, but in publicity at the time he made it clear he was BRING BACK Fleming's Bond and not continuing Gardner's more sanitised 80s'90s version.

Sanitised? My impression was you are rather fond of Gardner's efforts?

Apart from that I get the impression you regard this whole business of Bond as a kind of *issing contest where writing and standing are concerned. I don't get this at all. The only author claiming to be "writing as Ian Fleming" has probably had enough reason to regret this particular piece of PR campaign since. Nobody else did before or after (and personally I doubt any man/woman in his/her right mind would do so again).

Do you see this Carte Blanche affair as some kind of attack on Fleming and his creation? What's troubling you about it?

[OmarB]

I'm glad someone brought up the Markham bit because I've been saying that since DMC. We all knew the deal with Faulks, just like we know the deal with Deaver so if it's going to be a revolving door they should use the out they created all those years ago and bring back Markham.
As for who could follow Deaver. I like Gayle Lynds and Charles Cumming.

A woman pen a Bond novel?

And why not? Gayle is pretty damn good. Also, if we are talking authors to come in and continue a storyline, I think we are talking the type of author who is good on their own, but also good working on other people's characters (or even another author's plot). She's written on Ludlum's Covert One series, both from stories plotted out by Ludlum before he died and completely originals. I see this becoming something like that, like the "Robert Ludlum's" or the "Tom Clancy's" where there's an established character/style and they bring in people who can write to that (kinda like Ray Benson in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell).

Truth be told, some of those guys are actually pretty damn good writers in their own right. Ludlum's Covert One series, Clancy's numerous series, etc have produced some good stories and some of those authors wrote really great stories (admittedly outlined, researched and plotted by the name author). If they want to go complete "series" with it they could have snapped up one of these guys.

But ideally I would love for Deaver to have done 5. That's enough to write a pretty good arc, 2 self contained stories, one giant trilogy in the middle. That would have established the style, pace, feel for X-Bond totally concrete for whoever comes next.