167 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

While I do like pretty much everything he had to say in the interview, I remember having similar feelings about what had been said at one point or another by both Faulks and Deaver as well. I'm not going to even allow myself to become cautiously optimistic this time around, as I would prefer not to be extremely disappointed in the literary Bond for a third consecutive time, but hopefully Boyd can make good on these promises for the novel and at least deliver something that could be considered average, which would be a massive step forward for the literary franchise.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well put and my opinion exactly!

[Dustin]

I must confess these latest comments are so exactly along the lines of my hopes for Boyd's book that I suspect I may be dreaming. I always hoped for a continuation that would go in this direction, avoid the constant flirtation with the big screen and explore the outer edges of 007's existence. For this is what the age of 45 constitutes, the statutory limit for 00-agents; surely not a coincidence here.

That said we all are well-advised to keep our expectations firmly in check. It's still a long way until Boyd's Bond is released and we can see for ourselves what it is like.

[Jack Spang]

I like what I hear. A more realistic Bond novel could be more along the lines of the Fleming short stories. I love the fact that he'll leave out the gadgets and explore Bond as a human being. I just hope he stays faithful to the character which Deaver certainly didn't do.

It's time the Bond books really get back to their literary roots and cease being influenced by the films.

"I'm not going to even allow myself to become cautiously optimistic this time around, as I would prefer not to be extremely disappointed in the literary Bond for a third consecutive time..."

Same here. This certainly goes for the films too.

Edited by Jack Spang, 13 June 2012 - 08:27 AM.

[hcmv007]

Not going to get this one. I have the belief that Bond novels should take place 3 seconds from now, not be stuck in the Cold War. Pass

[Dustin]

Do you also not read the old ones then? I mean I understand the general idea, it just didn't occur to me one would not read a book merely because of the setting. If the book is engaging the setting normally becomes pretty secondary for me - the necessity for a specific historical setting like WWII aside.

[Jack Spang]

For me too.

[Dustin]

I like what I hear. A more realistic Bond novel could be more along the lines of the Fleming short stories. I love the fact that he'll leave out the gadgets and explore Bond as a human being. I just hope he stays faithful to the character which Deaver certainly didn't do.

It's time the Bond books really get back to their literary roots and cease being influenced by the films.

I suppose a lot of Bond fans today would be downright disappointed with the Fleming books - if they bothered to read them, that is. People not only automatically associate the ingredients of the film with Bond, they insist these were the definig, essential elements without which it just isn't Bond. I daresay without the name and the '007' codenumber people who read them for the first time would not think of Bond today.

This is of course a lamentable state of affairs, but I don't think it has to be an unchangeable one. So here's hoping.

[Tiger T]

I do have several concerns with the Bond Boyd is planing to depict:
- Bond being 45 years old is like an agent close to retirement, almost filling in forms for pension ... A Bond near the end actually ... Some must say that with all the cigarettes and vodka martinis he has had, he would have been already dead. Nevertheless ...
- Hopefully the Bond character won't be too psychological or become a bit insecure, asking to himself too much questions. Like a Bond living his midle life crisis, let's say. Because what is very appealing (to me) is his "keeping it real" side ... Bond is the anti-George Smiley.

Edited by Tiger T, 13 June 2012 - 06:49 PM.

[Jack Spang]

I like what I hear. A more realistic Bond novel could be more along the lines of the Fleming short stories. I love the fact that he'll leave out the gadgets and explore Bond as a human being. I just hope he stays faithful to the character which Deaver certainly didn't do.

It's time the Bond books really get back to their literary roots and cease being influenced by the films.

I suppose a lot of Bond fans today would be downright disappointed with the Fleming books - if they bothered to read them, that is. People not only automatically associate the ingredients of the film with Bond, they insist these were the definig, essential elements without which it just isn't Bond. I daresay without the name and the '007' codenumber people who read them for the first time would not think of Bond today.

This is of course a lamentable state of affairs, but I don't think it has to be an unchangeable one. So here's hoping.

There's always a market out there. When I first started reading the Fleming books (FRWL was my first) when I was 18 back in the mid 90's, I was expecting them to be comparable to the films. While reading them I was in an absolute state of elation. I just couldn't believe how much better they were, not only in terms of Bond himself as a character but also every other facet. I felt like a little boy experiencing Christmas on a daily basis.

Edited by Jack Spang, 14 June 2012 - 09:24 AM.

[zencat]

Not going to get this one. I have the belief that Bond novels should take place 3 seconds from now, not be stuck in the Cold War. Pass

Really? Seems amazing to me that someone who is a Bond fan would not read the latest Bond book for a reason like this. Would you not see a Bond film if it were set in the 60s?

So this means you did read Carte Blanche?

[Dustin]

I like what I hear. A more realistic Bond novel could be more along the lines of the Fleming short stories. I love the fact that he'll leave out the gadgets and explore Bond as a human being. I just hope he stays faithful to the character which Deaver certainly didn't do.

It's time the Bond books really get back to their literary roots and cease being influenced by the films.

I suppose a lot of Bond fans today would be downright disappointed with the Fleming books - if they bothered to read them, that is. People not only automatically associate the ingredients of the film with Bond, they insist these were the definig, essential elements without which it just isn't Bond. I daresay without the name and the '007' codenumber people who read them for the first time would not think of Bond today.

This is of course a lamentable state of affairs, but I don't think it has to be an unchangeable one. So here's hoping.

There's always a market out there. When I first started reading the Fleming books (FRWL was my first) when I was 18 back in the mid 90's, I was expecting them to be comparable to the films. While reading them I was in an absolute state of elation. I just couldn't believe how much better they were, not only in terms of Bond himself as a character but also every other facet. I felt like a little boy experiencing Christmas on a daily basis.

It's a fair assumption that every year Fleming gains a few readers and fans. And we may also suppose he doesn't - contrary to the films - lose fans by disappointing books. But overall the films have become so radically different from the books that it's hardly a given any more a fan of the books would also be a fan of the films and vice versa. It is indeed debatable even if the books would find a publisher today, a fate his work would probably share with many great names. From Chandler to Hammett to Deighton, MacDonald, MacLean and here Fleming - many of the great classics would probably struggle to find publishers without relenting to demands for more gore and blood, less style and brains.

This is truly a dreadful, appalling thought, but it's also the state of affairs on the market and it's hard to argue with that. I take comfort from the fact we were lucky enough to get these - and other - authors at all. And I see a silver lining on the horizon as long as writers such as Boyd attempt to withstand the temptation to reduce Bond to a gun-barell, a dinner jacket and a vodka martini. This does of course not constitute any proof of the result's quality as a whole. But it's an enormously encouraging and bold statement that I have not seen before in this form in the continuation business.

[hcmv007]

I love reading Bond novels-I read & enjoyed Carte Blanche (loved it BTW) I read Devil May Care (disappointment). I have also read Fleming & I also some of Gardner's (liked the first 2 or 3 only) & liked Benson's run. I have no doubt Mr. Boyd is a good writer but I have a problem trapping Bond in the Cold War. Fleming did it already-so are ya'll telling me to go forward we need to go backward? IMO-hell no. This has been done. I liked Carte Blanche, & I hoped it would spawn a new series of Bond novels. I guess that wont happen now. Look, Fleming wrote some good Cold War era stuff for 007-I just think its a waste to go back in time. Keep Bond current, looking to the past is a cop out. Just my 2 cents

[Jack Spang]

I don't see it as a cop out. I love period pieces. Why must it be kept modern? Having said this, I have no problem with reading about Bond in a modern setting as long as his personality remains largely intact which I believe it can. There are many other facets to Bond's character other than the chauvinism and xenophobia. Anyway, I found Deaver's book relatively enjoyable but he radically changed Bond's personality to the point that I almost felt like crying.

Edited by Jack Spang, 15 June 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[Matt_13]

See, I rather liked the way Deaver updated the Bond character. I thought the adjustments were fair and appropriate, and that his book had enough personalities in it to allow the character of Bond to be distinguishable from the rest of the support cast, while simultaneously adding a human element and three dimensionality to the character interactions that evoked a sense of legitimacy, despite maintaining that hyper-realistic tone of the originals. He amended what was obsolete or stale and brought the universe into the 21st century without feeling like he was aping the film series. What he achieved was no small feat. I'm surprised many have soured on the work since it's launch, but that's usually the case anyway. I'll give it another go eventually. As for Boyd, as I may have said earlier (but can't be bothered to double check), Devil May Care has me a little on edge about returning to the 1960's. However, it seems as though Boyd's Bond will be a little younger than Faulks' character, and, optimistically, act a little younger, too. I can only hope that he will be able to reflect on Bond's age and role in the world without wandering into the realm of pastiche, which is fairly easy to do as we've seen. We'll see. Faulks really phoned it in, and clearly did not take a lot of time to research much of anything to craft a compelling narrative (this is where Deaver also succeeded: thorough research). All I hope is that Boyd does the legwork, and manages to camouflage the box ticking that will be taking place with some panache.

[zencat]

I love reading Bond novels-I read & enjoyed Carte Blanche (loved it BTW) I read Devil May Care (disappointment). I have also read Fleming & I also some of Gardner's (liked the first 2 or 3 only) & liked Benson's run. I have no doubt Mr. Boyd is a good writer but I have a problem trapping Bond in the Cold War. Fleming did it already-so are ya'll telling me to go forward we need to go backward? IMO-hell no. This has been done. I liked Carte Blanche, & I hoped it would spawn a new series of Bond novels. I guess that wont happen now. Look, Fleming wrote some good Cold War era stuff for 007-I just think its a waste to go back in time. Keep Bond current, looking to the past is a cop out. Just my 2 cents

Fair enough. Well said.

[SecretAgentFan]

See, I rather liked the way Deaver updated the Bond character. I thought the adjustments were fair and appropriate, and that his book had enough personalities in it to allow the character of Bond to be distinguishable from the rest of the support cast, while simultaneously adding a human element and three dimensionality to the character interactions that evoked a sense of legitimacy, despite maintaining that hyper-realistic tone of the originals. He amended what was obsolete or stale and brought the universe into the 21st century without feeling like he was aping the film series. What he achieved was no small feat. I'm surprised many have soured on the work since it's launch, but that's usually the case anyway. I'll give it another go eventually. As for Boyd, as I may have said earlier (but can't be bothered to double check), Devil May Care has me a little on edge about returning to the 1960's. However, it seems as though Boyd's Bond will be a little younger than Faulks' character, and, optimistically, act a little younger, too. I can only hope that he will be able to reflect on Bond's age and role in the world without wandering into the realm of pastiche, which is fairly easy to do as we've seen. We'll see. Faulks really phoned it in, and clearly did not take a lot of time to research much of anything to craft a compelling narrative (this is where Deaver also succeeded: thorough research). All I hope is that Boyd does the legwork, and manages to camouflage the box ticking that will be taking place with some panache.

I must say that I was not excited about CARTE BLANCHE at all - and I did not even get the feeling that this updated Deaver-Bond was working. He seemed to be stripped of all the class and fun that I associate with the character.

While I don´t think that this has made it necessary to bring the character back to the Cold War era I do love the idea, hoping for a novel more in line with the qualities I missed in Deaver´s work.

[Dustin]

The quality of CARTE BLANCHE aside, nowhere did IFP actually state they had dropped the general idea of the rebooted modern Bond. For all we know they could go back to that whenever they like to. And with any writer they choose, Deaver himself included. He seems to be generally wrapped up in work for years, so if he returns it's going to be way down the line. But the fact Boyd writes a period book doesn't indicate there won't be modern Bonds in the future.

In fact it seems as if all those being asked had been free to pick their own setting. Interestingly John Gardner in his recollection mentioned he presented Glidrose with the idea to - slightly - age Bond and set him into the 1980s - and found the Glidrose men readily agreeing with his proposal. I seem to remember similar stories by Faulks and Deaver, so perhaps you really can do whatever you wanted once IFP is ringing at the door?

Edited by Dustin, 16 June 2012 - 07:18 AM.

[Jack Spang]

It seems like IFP is fairly open to what the author desires. I found the story in CB relatively enjoyable but I think it's a crime what Deaver did to the character of Bond, almost completely changing his personality, and I wasn't happy with the origin story and how Bond now longer works for the SIS. I won't be surprised if Deaver returns to write a sequel to his book but I'd rather he didn't return. I'm open to a modern Bond yarn again just as I am a period piece, but if a contemporary Bond story is to be written I hope another author scribes it and makes no reference to CB, moreover, has Bond back working for the SIS.

[glidrose]

The Grauniad has a short story (three thousand words) by William Boyd on their site. Perhaps not the best introduction to Boyd if you're wondering what a Bond novel from him might be like. I will say this, though. If Kingsley Amis were still with us I'm not sure he'd be thrilled by the announcement that Boyd's writing Bond.

Came across this quote of Amis's some time ago:

"Wm Boyd's no good in the sense you can't see he's doing anything. A short story (in his bk of them) rambles on and you think I can stand this, something might happen in a minute, and then you turn over a page and find the next one has got some space wasted at the bottom, because that's the end. But the one we must put a contract on is D.M. Thomas. Long ago (my dear little brothers in Christ) we learnt that you haven't got to be able to enjoy a piece of music or want to see a picture again or understood a poem or (a more recent one) recognise the subject of a cartoon or caricature for it to be good. Now we know you needn't like or respect a novel f.i.t.b.g. One, and Christopher Priest and Pat Barker and Maggie Gee are no good. Don't know what to say about M**t** A***. Bet you do though, what?"

BTW, M**t** A*** stands for "Martin Amis" - Amis's own son - in case that wasn't already clear.

[glidrose]

William Boyd on his Bond novel:

Q: How do you feel about writing the next James Bond novel?
A: "It's a fantastic, exciting challenge. I was very familiar with Ian Fleming as a character and even put him in one of my novels as a character. The film Bond is a cartoon character. I think the literary Bond is far more interesting. The intriguing thing about getting the job is you're given virtual total liberty. This isn't going to be a pastiche of Ian Fleming. It's going to be a William Boyd novel that happens to have James Bond in it."

Q: What separates literary from commercial fiction?
A: "The worse the book the more stereotypical the situation, the characters and most importantly the language. I think the better the book, the more idiosyncratic it is. There should be fewer stereotypical situations, fewer characters from central casting. The language should be accurate and precise, not lazy and overused. That's the distinction for me."

[OmarB]

Nothing new yet?

[Matt_13]

Yes, there hasn't been nearly as much hype for this as there was for Carte Blanche. I believe we knew when Deaver handed in his first draft. Not a word from Boyd about the status of the project.

[OmarB]

Yeah, not nearly the head that DMC or CB got leading up to their publishing.

[Dustin]

With SKYFALL just out - or about to be started in a number of countries - any news about Boyd's book would be drowned in the white noise of the film. I suspect we'll hear something around Christmas or early next year.

[PPK_19]

This is a good news! I read his book New Confessions and enjoyed it very much. He can write, that's for sure.

[OmarB]

True. As it is I avoided the forum for months avoiding Skyfall, but even the Lit section has been glacial. We need some heat back in the Lit Bond catagory. We can only go over the same set of novels so many times.

[glidrose]

Don't know if anybody's posted this as it's from June, but Boyd says,

“He is a middle-aged man, a middle-aged spy, and that’s one of the things that interests me. The as-yet-untitled novel is set in 1969, with Bond aged 45. I’m a realistic novelist and what interests me about Bond is the human being. There will be no mountains filled with atom bombs or global plagues, no gadgets, no superpowers or preposterous enemies - there will be an entirely believable psychopath, not a preposterous psychopath. And similarly with love affairs - in my novel they will be entirely believable.”

http://www.telegraph...iddle-aged.html

[Dustin]

Encouraging quotes there. Hopefully we'll learn a bit more soon.

[tdalton]

The quotes are definitely encouraging, but so were the ones leading up to DEVIL MAY CARE and CARTE BLANCHE. After being let down by those two lackluster efforts, I'm not getting my hopes up this time around.