103 replies to this topic

[Jim]

So - rebrand or (Christ) reinvent that.

That is James Bond.

(Only really makes sense when reading previous page -ha!)

[zencat]

Originally posted by Loomis
I think Xenobia is calling for the reinvention of Bond in future fiction as a politically correct and more sensitive character, in tune with today's sensibilities; and also calling for the Fleming novels to be marketed in a new way, to tie in with this rebranding of 007.

Hmmm. I just re-read Xen's top post and I didn't get that. (And I wouldn't agree with this if it was what she said.) I think Xen was saying that Fleming's Bond was not a woman-hater at all, but a very real man with real opinions, much more so than the superhero of the films. If IFP (we have to stop using Gildrose) let the authors develop Bond to their own tastes -- free of the 2-demensonal image associated with "James Bond 007", not only would they get books that are more "Fleming-like" (i.e. honest and more reflective of the times) but they might capture a new set of female fans who don't need a guy to be PC or a superhero, just real.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

I just re-read Xen's top post and I didn't get that. (And I wouldn't agree with this if it was what she said.) I think Xen was saying that Fleming's Bond was not a woman-hater at all, but a very real man with real opinions, much more so than the superhero of the films. ... they might capture a new set of female fans who don't need a guy to be PC or a superhero, just real.

Well, I wrote that Xen seems to be calling for a Bond who is a "more sensitive character", amounting to the same thing as "a very real man with real opinions".

However, didn't Fleming, Amis, Gardner and Benson always try to write Bond as "real"? Whether they succeeded is another matter, but didn't they try? Even in an outlandish Benson effort like "High Time to Kill", Bond is not a superhero (not a Moore-style superhero, at any rate).

So what if some feminist critics decry Bond as a monster of the male gender? How much clout do they have in terms of what the global reading masses buy? Joe Blow (and Mrs Joe Blow, come to that) couldn't care less what someone like Andrea Dworkin thinks of Bond or Fleming.

[Jim]

Exactly

So, why run scared of such persons by trying to - effectively - apologise to their beliefs and "reinvent" or "rebrand" James Bond as something it isn't just to please them?

It is what it is. If they don't like it, they can shut up and shave.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Loomis
Well, I wrote that Xen seems to be calling for a Bond who is a "more sensitive character", amounting to the same thing as "a very real man with real opinions".  

I think sensitivity in a character can come off as fake or, gasp!, PC. Especially when we're talking about James Bond. I deliberately used the word "opinions" because I like all the " one cannot make love on a pillow mattress" type of stuff. Opinions are frequently insensitive...but honest and real and that's why you can enjoy them even if you don't agree with them. That's what I mean by a "real" character. Maybe "honest" is a better word than "real." Who's to say what's real?

Originally posted by Loomis
However, didn't Fleming, Amis, Gardner and Benson always try to write Bond as "real"? Whether they succeeded is another matter, but didn't they try? Even in an outlandish Benson effort like "High Time to Kill", Bond is not a superhero (not a Moore-style superhero, at any rate).  

I think Gardner tried to make Bond "sensitive," which, like I said, comes off a fake and PC. I think Benson brought Bond back closer to a Bond who lives in the Fleming mindset. But I do think the film Bond image gets in the way of how audiences perceive the character of Bond when reading the books.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

I think sensitivity in a character can come off as fake or, gasp!, PC. Especially when we're talking about James Bond. I deliberately used the word "opinions" because I like all the " one cannot make love on a pillow mattress" type of stuff. Opinions are frequently insensitive...but honest and real and that's why you can enjoy them even if you don't agree with them. That's what I mean by a "real" character.  

Well put.

Originally posted by zencat

I do think the film Bond image gets in the way of how audiences perceive the character of Bond when reading the books.  

Yes, but short of some kind of radical rebranding exercise, what can IFP do to rectify that? Should there be steps to rectify that? I mean, apart from the fact that the film Bond image is the only thing selling the novels (be they written by Fleming or others) to the uninitiated, preconceived notions of Bond have been so firmly embedded in our culture that it's not surprising that many people "wouldn't be seen dead" reading a Bond novel. How to engineer a situation in which thousands of women who've never shown the slightest flicker of interest in books featuring 007 suddenly flock to bookshops to buy either Fleming or a new continuation novel? Impossible. Beyond the abilities of Harry Potter and his magic wand. As Jim puts it, Bond is Bond, and you can like it or lump it.

[Jim]

The point's true - if those coming to the books for the first time now have a preconceived (prejudiced?) notion of what Bond is from the current set of films, they will read the books in an attempt to latch onto whatever aspects of Bond (the concept beyond the character) they believe emerge out of the books to link back to their perception of Bond so that they can "connect".

That this is very difficult and leads to some unfortunate proposals about marketing the Fleming series exhibits how far apart the two concepts now are. Granted, it is easier to play the game with the Benson books, but those are a slightly unhappy compromise between the two aspects of Bond.

And isn't this how the rot set into the written Bond (1981 onwards)- true, there's a larger audience out there for the films, so let's have the books written and marketed to the film audience, let's make Bond a bit more "film-like"; we'll rake in the dollars. Hmm...

But I'm not blind enough to realise that the converse is by and large true - that those having their notion of Bond from the books will approach the films (with increasing caution) in an attempt to connect what they have read to what they are seeing. There isn't a huge amount of coherence either way, save perhaps for the first couple of films.

Moral of story? there is none. I'm insufficiently conceited to believe I've any real insight into this. But marketing the books to the film audience, nice easy reading blandy Bondy, has caused flesh wounds already. Why kill it? The two entities are sufficiently separate that they should be recognised as precisely that - two entities. There may well be crossover audience - and I'm certainly not proposng that one can only enjoy one or the other - but cross-pollination of content or approach in marketing really hasn't worked and it dilutes the strengths, the individual effects, of both of them.

To market the Bond books on the basis of "you liked this aspect of the character from the films, well children it's the same in the books-er-ish" devalues the books, devalues the films and patronises the audience by presupposing that they cannot handle two different representations of "James Bond: The Idea", lest their heads explode in the "confusion".

Leave Bond be.

[clinkeroo]

Originally posted by Jim
The two entities are sufficiently separate that they should be recognised as precisely that - two entities. There may well be crossover audience - and I'm certainly not proposng that one can only enjoy one or the other - but cross-pollination of content or approach in marketing really hasn't worked and it dilutes the strengths, the individual effects, of both of them.

Amen, exceptionally well stated.

It also saddens me that the character of James Bond has become more important than the literary style and effect created by Fleming. It is as if pop culture has eaten this amazing meal created by Fleming, but only remembers the taste of the dessert.

I wish that Fleming had created other enduring characters with their own exploits (No, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang does not qualify) so that people would remember his writing first, and his characters second. I don't love the literary Bond because of the character of Bond, and I think most of us that have studied Fleming will agree with this, but because of the amazing, descriptive world and style that Fleming created, of which that character is just a small part.

Fleming wanted Bond to be bland, and later in the series he admitted to not even liking James Bond as a man; Fleming described him as cruel, Fleming described him as a blunt instrument. The more we move toward defining, or redefining, his character, the more we move away from the wishes of his creator.

[Mister Asterix]

First, the IFP doesn’t need saving. Remember these guys get their percentages of the filmRsquo;s profits. They don’ really need more money. Though I don’t think they will turn down any money.

Now to the more important topic, how to save the literary Bond series.

The IFP does not need to provide us with a more PC Bond or an revamped Bond. What they need to provide us with is a great, new writer – a writer with his own strengths. Who has a healthy repect for the character, but is not afraid to make the series his own. And the IFP has to have the balls to let the writer experiment. They need to not be afraid of having another The Spy Who Loved Me, or even a bigger (percieved) failure. They must realise that half of Bond fandom is not going to like anything that they put out. So there is really no reason to be afraid.

Nobody is Ian Fleming. And I’d bet that if Fleming rose from the grave, typed out one last masterpiece that many fans would complain that the zombie Fleming just isn’t the same as the old live Fleming.

What the series needs is a fresh writer, one who knows the craft as well as he knows the character.


Personally, I know what I would do. I would hire Jim to write the series. Or clinkeroo. I would then let him do what he thought best for the character. I would let him write what he wanted and I would let write his own titles. If he wanted to write a novel that had Bond as a secondary character that only appears in five pages then that’s what I’d publish.

[zencat]

Well said, Mr Asterix.

They also need to get serious about promotion if they want to sell their books.

[Xenobia]

I would love to know where folks said I wanted Bond to be PC. I don't. Let me spell out what I want to see happen.

I want Glidrose to encourage, via scholarships and publishing critical commentaries on the Bond literary canon, that disspells any misintrepretations of 007 coming from folks who have only seen the movies, and never read the novels cover to cover.

I want someone to be there at a conference when some pencil necked Feminist geek calls Bond a misogynistic dinosaur, so that person can stand up and say "You're wrong and here's why you are wrong, textually."

I want someone to stand up to people who pull quotes out of context (*ahem* JIM) to prove their point of view, and then recite in front of the audience what that quote means in context to the chapter and to the novel as a whole.

I don't think anyone WANTS to work for Glidrose because they are scared off by the idea that they have to hold to the WRONG IDEAS of what Fleming wrote. Let the authors come in, write Bond in the nineties, keeping the core of what Fleming created. This is what I would like to see happen.

Children will read what they want. Mummy and Daddy can't watch them all the time, although I do say they could fare worse than reading Fleming. I would like to see more women read the Bond novels, but that will only happen when there is a concerted effort to prove that Bond is not the monster stupid feminists have portrayed him to be.

Now am I being clear?

-- Xenobia

[Jim]

That's all clear enough, but it bears little relation to your opening post on this thread which is exclusively about the character of James Bond. Perhaps your view has changed - no, maybe you've "reinvented" it.

Originally posted by Xenobia


Let the authors come in, write Bond in the nineties, keeping the core of what Fleming created.  

-- Xenobia

Three problems with this.

Firstly, the perception of "core" differs person to person.
Secondly, what Fleming wrote was James Bond in the mid-fifties to early sixties. That is the context. Bond updated looks compromised and cheap - only my view maybe.
Thirdly...nineties...soooo last decade. Have a look at the calendar.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Xenobia

I want someone to stand up to people who pull quotes out of context (*ahem* JIM) to prove their point of view, and then recite in front of the audience what that quote means in context to the chapter and to the novel as a whole.

-- Xenobia

...how does one prove a point of view? How can an opinion be proven? I'm not conceited enough to expect my opinions to be agreed with, nor will I hound someone down on these boards (or elsewhere) until they agree with me. In an ideal world...

I have no misguided belief that my opinions are of any value to anybody else, nor am I labouring under the delusion that people should respect them. Others might like to try this game. It is terribly liberating.

You might well be right about nobody wanting (sorry, WANTING) to work for Glidrose/IFP. But then I might be quoting "out of context" again. Naughty Jim.

(NB: puzzled by the concept that one may quote in context, if as I understand your argument to be that the context is the book itself. To quote in context would be to read out the whole book, or fairly hefty chunks of it. Blimey, that'd be dull. The reason nobody would take much notice of the attempt to put it in context, if this is what putting in context suffers as a definition, would not be because of the content but because it would be such a crashingly boring method of doing it)

[marktmurphy]

Originally posted by Xenobia
[B]
I want Glidrose to encourage, via scholarships and publishing critical commentaries on the Bond literary canon, that disspells any misintrepretations of 007 coming from folks who have only seen the movies, and never read the novels cover to cover.

I want someone to be there at a conference when some pencil necked Feminist geek calls Bond a misogynistic dinosaur, so that person can stand up and say "You're wrong and here's why you are wrong, textually."

Sorry for quoting you out of context, but as I and most of the other people here aren't morons I think we'll be okay. Right, this argument is bizarre: why would IFP care? And I think most people worth having an opinion on Bond books have a fairly accurate view. Heavens, you've only read one, and yet you seem to think you have some amazing insight into what Fleming was trying to achieve (which is of course to sell as many books as possible and then sell the film rights). How do you know IFP aren't defending Bond at these conferences- been to any recently? Been to any in which a 50 year old pulp book series is discussed? I think not. And the point is, of course- if no-one wants to read them (and the films do give any prospective readers a fairly good idea of what they're going to get) because of what they think they'll get, then so what? People are allowed to decide for themselves these types of things, you now. And why do you care? You can't even be bothered to read them youself, so why would it give you a warm fuzzy feeling if others read them?

I want someone to stand up to people who pull quotes out of context (*ahem* JIM) to prove their point of view, and then recite in front of the audience what that quote means in context to the chapter and to the novel as a whole.

Snore. End of (fictional) 'conference'. Everyone thinks Bond fans are boring obsessive nerds. No-one reads Bond books.

I don't think anyone WANTS to work for Glidrose because they are scared off by the idea that they have to hold to the WRONG IDEAS of what Fleming wrote.  Let the authors come in, write Bond in the nineties, keeping the core of what Fleming created.  This is what I would like to see happen.

If someone wants to write new Bond novels and hasn't even bothered to read the Flemings, well, they're not prospective Bond authors are they? Incidentally, the 'core' of Fleming's Bond was a man from the fifties with all the points of view a man from post war Britain had. And he liked to kill people. Nice, eh?

I would like to see more women read the Bond novels, but that will only happen when there is a concerted effort to prove that Bond is not the monster stupid feminists have portrayed him to be.

What feminists? And why don't you put your money where your mouth is and read some more yourself? How do you know women aren't reading them? From the lack of women here? Well guess what- this place is hardly a good demographic: its all 15 year old boys who like to play Nightfire.

Now am I being clear?

Everyone knows what you're saying. They just have no idea why you're saying it.

[Jim]

Originally posted by marktmurphy


If someone wants to write new Bond novels and hasn't even bothered to read the Flemings, well, they're not prospective Bond authors are they? Incidentally, the 'core' of Fleming's Bond was a man from the fifties with all the points of view a man from post war Britain had. And he liked to kill people. Nice, eh?
 
Everyone knows what you're saying. They just have no idea why you're saying it.

Oh, superb

Some boring obsessive nerd will doubtless point out that Bond often expresses a dislike for killing - although one has to boggle at that theory (Lordy - taken out of context, but does anyone really want me to quote huge damn great chunks of Goldfinger? Thought not) - theory falls apart a bit because he does kill rather a lot of folk. Suggests to me he quite likes it. Basically a depressive government licensed serial killer. Fab.

With a 50s/early 60s mindset. And without that, granted, it isn't James Bond. It is a bloke in a book who just happens to be called James Bond. This is why the update novels never convinced; either one changes the lead character's mindset - in which case it isn't James Bond (largely Mr Gardner) - or he expresses himself in a Fleming manner but in a contemporary setting (largely Mr Benson) and that isn't "James Bond the Concept".

For what it's worth, if there are further novels, keep him in the decade he inhabited. That's the marketing angle - and with those pulpy 50s covers for the US (why not here? Damn - I'd buy them) IFP are actually doing A GOOD THING. At least they understand what they're dealing with.

Even if others don't

The Holmes/Bond thing again - there have been a number of Holmes "continuation" novels or short stories and yet I'm unaware of any set in (say) 1935 or in space. Generally seem to be in period and period makes character makes concept (not sure I care whether that's true but it seems to go along with the conceptual waffle, a rich vein of which runs through this thread).

But the thread hasn't been as pointless as you intimate, Murphers - it has introduced me to the word "textually", although I'm not entirely sure that it is a word. I like it. I shall drop it into conversation. "You're wrong, you disgraceful feminist hag, textually" Sounds fun.

p.s. what is Nightfire by the way? And does it matter that I don't know?

[Jim]

Originally posted by Xenobia

I want someone to be there at a conference when some pencil necked Feminist geek calls Bond a misogynistic dinosaur, so that person can stand up and say "You're wrong and here's why you are wrong, textually."

-- Xenobia

Hugely amused by this, viz: Hanging about aside conference halls, waiting for a conference to come along and then leaping up upon one's feet (or foot) and screaming "You're wrong and here's why you are wrong, textually" (still really enjoying that "word") only to find out it's a photocopier sales seminar.

Conference junkies - adrenalin rush. Feel the thrill as you nibble a choccy biccy.

Or have I taken this quote out of context? Really must stop doing that.

But maybe I'm a Taking Quotes Out of Context junkie. I need my fix.

[marktmurphy]

Heh.
The only possible problem with seeting any continuation novels in the 50's is that the books will be competing directly with Fleming. The recent novels do have at least the novel factor (excuse that pun) that they are like James Bond books, but set in today's world. Something Fleming's books can't provide. So when you have a new set of books set in the 50s they have no new concept to sell. They are, effectively, like Fleming books but not as good. So what would be the point?
Don't forget also that any globe-hopping novel would require a great deal more research than Fleming ever undertook as the writer would not only have to ideally travel to the location, but also find out what it was then too. Thus it could never really hope to be as good as Fleming.

I realise your point is not to entertain thoughts of more novels, just a 'if it has to be done, do it like this'- however the problem with the James Bond novels is that the hero was just a cypher and the plots fairly throwaway- it is only the writing style that makes them worth reading. Happily its a fairly incredible one which rises the quality of the books high above its contemporaries. Therefore, if the only thing which makes the books worth reading is Fleming, then there is no point in any new novels. Unless, of course, the subject matter is approached in a wholly new and interesting way which doesn't seek to replicate Fleming (or reference back to every character Bond met in Fleming's books or how he felt when he ate that boiled egg in 'Live and Let Die' or somesuch). Worth doing or not?
I dunno really.

Plus Xenobia, if you think Gildrose should make people understand what the Bond character was all about (as if that matters) surely the only way to do that is make them read the books. And they've just reprinted them again with funky covers. What more do you want? Them to spend megabucks promoting a bunch of 50 year old books that everybody has already heard of? And would you care for the moon on a stick also?

[marktmurphy]

Didn't John Gardner write some Holmes books?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Xenobia

I would love to know where folks said I wanted Bond to be PC.  

You did not explicitly state that you wanted Bond to be PC, but that is what I inferred from:

Originally posted by Xenobia

The way that Glidrose can save itself and reinvent itself is to begin to aggressively challenge the idea that the James Bond of the literary series is much harder, much more the misogynist, much more cruel, than the 007 we see on screen. Nothing could be further from the truth. ... if it is revealed that Bond is very human, and in his humanity does extraordinary things, a new generation of fans, and a new group of fans -- women specifically -- will be drawn to the series. Right now, I suspect many people share what used to be my fear, that the literary Bond would not be palatable and would negatively affect my view of the cinematic Bond.  

Less "hardness", misogyny, cruelty? More "humanity"? A new generation of fans? More female readers? Sorry, it sounds PC to me. And given that you, Xen, have on other threads called for Colin Salmon to be given the Bond role in the films, condemned the use of the word "" in "Live and Let Die" and publishers of recent reprints' failure to censor said word, applauded the "New Man" that is Brosnan's Bond, and made clear that you are not exactly a fan of Ian Fleming's novels, I do have a feeling that, Bondwise, you'd prefer to shop on the politically correct side of the street.

Originally posted by clinkeroo

I don't love the literary Bond because of the character of Bond, and I think most of us that have studied Fleming will agree with this, but because of the amazing, descriptive world and style that Fleming created, of which that character is just a small part.

Agreed 100%. I've said it before and I'll say it again (although it has been said many times by others): Fleming's Bond is essentially a rather dull, and certainly very shallow, chap, to whom exciting things happen. A blank canvas, and deliberately so.

Originally posted by Jim

For what it's worth, if there are further novels, keep him in the decade he inhabited.

Sounds good. How else to ensure that a new novel makes a splash? I'd suggest that the only way to go is making the literary Bond of the future as unlike the Bond of the Eon film series as possible, rather than essentially the same fun-for-all-the-family animal. How about something really dark, a "Dark Knight Returns" for the series? How about bringing back the casual racism, the misogyny, the snobbery, the xenophobia? Yep, you read that right. These are just some ideas to kick around. How about making 007 an utter **** who just happens to be good at saving the world? An adult, angst-ridden, bleak, brutal novel, with explicit sex scenes and graphic violence (I'm thinking "American Psycho", not the halfhearted clitoris-fumbling and eye-scorching of "Never Dream of Dying"). A Bond novel that will actually shock and disturb. Think Martin Amis, J.G. Ballard, heck, even Stephen King. Think Julian Barnes, Hanif Kureishi, Paul Theroux.... There must be dozens of noted authors who, given creative freedom, might well be interested in writing at least one Bond adventure. Where's today's Kingsley Amis? Failing a "name" writer, I'd endorse suggestions that Jim and/or clinkeroo ought to be considered for the "gig". Why neither has been approached is a mystery to me (perhaps the people at IFP don't have internet access).

[Loomis]

Originally posted by marktmurphy
 
So when you have a new set of books set in the 50s they have no new concept to sell. They are, effectively, like Fleming books but not as good. So what would be the point?
Don't forget also that any globe-hopping novel would require a great deal more research than Fleming ever undertook as the writer would not only have to ideally travel to the location, but also find out what it was then too.  

Good points, marktmurphy. I guess the "concept" might be the freedom to include the sort of sex and violence against a 50s backdrop that could not have been printed back in the day. Who knows, perhaps the the fact that the research for a period Bond adventure would be more demanding might be just the sort of challenge to attract a noted author?

[marktmurphy]

How else to ensure that a new novel makes a splash? I'd suggest that the only way to go is making the literary Bond of the future as unlike the Bond of the Eon film series as possible, rather than essentially the same fun-for-all-the-family animal. How about something really dark, a "Dark Knight Returns" for the series? How about bringing back the casual racism, the misogyny, the snobbery, the xenophobia?

That would be good- but I'd worry they wouldn't go for this as it would run the risk of alienating the audience that may be attracted to the books from the films. I may be wrong as I know nothing about this sort of thing, but I know a little about brand management and Bond is a brand, and if you mess around with the public's perception of that brand you risk destroying it.

[Simon]

For my two cents worth, wouldn't the brand be more applicable to the film series.

Isn't the point of, what this thread has become, to treat a potential literary audience to something hitherto unbranded? I doubt now, the books would ever seriously affect the film brand.

[Jim]

Originally posted by marktmurphy
Heh.  
The only possible problem with seeting any continuation novels in the 50's is that the books will be competing directly with Fleming.  

I realise your point is not to entertain thoughts of more novels, just a 'if it has to be done, do it like this'- however the problem with the James Bond novels is that the hero was just a cypher and the plots fairly throwaway- it is only the writing style that makes them worth reading. Happily its a fairly incredible one which rises the quality of the books high above its contemporaries. Therefore, if the only thing which makes the books worth reading is Fleming, then there is no point in any new novels. Unless, of course, the subject matter is approached in a wholly new and interesting way which doesn't seek to replicate Fleming (or reference back to every character Bond met in Fleming's books or how he felt when he ate that boiled egg in 'Live and Let Die' or somesuch). Worth doing or not?  
I dunno really.

Excellent points both - agreed, there would be both competition for "timeframe" with Fleming (not that he ever really kept a hold on the dates when he had things happening) - a theoretical "New Old" book couldn't just be shoved in after You Only Live Twice, unless it's solely about Bond's brainwashing (wouldn't be that exciting) and, naturally, the narrative style. The style is the key to these books, wholly agree with you. Pastiche Fleming would be a bit odd and it would probably fail. Imitation wouldn't be very flattering. It would be (inherently, rather obviously) artifice. But a stylised author of the Amis. M ilk could give it a whirl to their own strengths- I've never felt Colonel Sun was anything other than an Amis. K work (although I've read a fair amount of his stuff anyway) - his narrative meter and his grammatical constructs are distinct from Fleming and the book - and James Bond - doesn't suffer for it.

I think there is the capacity - as already stated by Loomers - to include more substantially graphic material; not horrific per se, but make the experience quite intense. You can sense the urge in Fleming to really let go with some of the crazier sexual stuff and the rich vein of brutalised SM that runs through it all. Would have been banned then - and after all, these were considered edgy, adult material at their time - why not have it edgy and adult (and no, I'm not just extolling the virtues of lobbing in the clitoris now and again (although "lobbing" is a pretty intense practice, trust me) - that was just childish desire to shock). Why not put Bond back onto the edge of acceptable conduct? Give the books some guts, some danger, something illicit - American Psycho is a fantastic example of the nerves Bond should be hitting, the reactions the Bond series should be getting, the brouhaha, the controversy, teetering on the brink of just about being banned. Who the hell would go about - or even think - of raising a public stink (hence public awareness, no such thing as bad publicity) about - say - The Facts of Death or Death is Forever? They're just stories. Wow.

Really just raising a theory because to be perfectly frank I'm not sure I really want any more official Bond books - and that's coming from someone with an interest in James Bond. Sorry, but the last dozen or so - last half of Gardner, all of Benson, haven't impressed me.

I suppose that's material for a poll around here - given that there's no new novel on the horizon, something of a blank canvas

"When would you want a new Bond novel set?"

1950s
1960s pre-Amis
1960s post-Amis
21st century
Don't care, just want a new one
Don't care about the books
I can't read

That sort of thing

[marktmurphy]

Unfortunately I feel our debate ends here as I think I pretty much agree with everything you've said. The one mandate would be that I feel the publishers may be unwilling to risk alienating the audience that come to the books from the films (which would certainly come to read the books if said brouhaha was generated), however this would make a 50s setting viable for me. And it always seems a lot cooler in period, but that could just be Fleming.
Amis, as you say, made it a possiblity that Bond could continue- as did, oddly, Christopher Wood (although the juxtaposition of setting in which we'd seen the Rogmeister smirking through suddlenly becoming full of rape and pillage may have something to do with this).
Personally, I'd like to see a range of limited run novellas in which (big name?) authors get to have a play with Bond and see what they could do with it. Publicity is generated from Monsieur BigName writing for JamesBonddoubleohseven, and Monsieur BigName is more desposed to do it because a) he likes Fleming, its only a short, one off novella and won't take too much effort. Lots of nice experiments with different writers and different themes could be fun, n'est pas?

[marktmurphy]

Originally posted by Simon
For my two cents worth, wouldn't the brand be more applicable to the film series.  

Isn't the point of, what this thread has become, to treat a potential literary audience to something hitherto unbranded?  I doubt now, the books would ever seriously affect the film brand.

The problem is not whether the film brand is affected as its fairly clear that's pretty much indestructible. However if the reader comes to the books expecting something to latch onto from the films and finds nothing, their confidence in James Bond Of Bookland is ruined and they will not trust the books to deliver Bond, even afetr a relaunch. The Bond Book brand may be ruined, but that's taken a fair bit of stick itself- see Jim's opinions on whether the series should continue above. He doesn't want any more novels as the previous bunch were so dire- his confidence in the brand is ruined and its only because he's such a big fan that he continues to read them.

[Jim]

Originally posted by marktmurphy


The problem is not whether the film brand is affected as its fairly clear that's pretty much indestructible. However if the reader comes to the books expecting something to latch onto from the films and finds nothing, their confidence in James Bond Of Bookland is ruined and they will not trust the books to deliver Bond, even afetr a relaunch.

That's sound reasoning - whether it's a commercially viable solution, but one way to avoid this is to make it damnably clear in the marketing that the books are different - very different - and if one is going to the books expecting to find the films written down - or indeed, the attitude of the films written down - or anything much to latch onto from the films, you're going to be mistaken but shouldn't be disappointed that the books are different - emphasise the difference/ "You've seen the films, now read the books" can't work anymore. They gave up adapting the books years ago.

It's not exclusive marketing, nor is it shutting off the books from those who favour the films and vice versa. It's rewarding the audience with enough sense that they can derive enjoyment from these two distinct things. Cross-pollination breeds Gardner/Benson. Keep them apart. Treat them as different things. I know I've got a copy of The Man with the Golden Gun paperback from 1974 with the film poster as its cover, and photos from the film on the back - basically, shooting back to 1974 now, if you did see the film, enjoyed it (this is possible, apparently) and went out to buy the book of the film - you'd be crushed and confused, hoplessly confused and true, would just not get any sort of handle on the written Bond at alll; probably give up on it there and then. Obvious reason why they marketed the books this way, coat tails of the films etc, but I'm not sure the books really DO need the films any more.

Subliminally, IFP is going this way - the new US covers are a bold statement of the books and the confidence in those books. Stuff the films.

[marktmurphy]

Then that is good- its not my thinking that the readers would be disappointed at the way the written Bond goes, merely a fear that that's how the IFP thinks. The new covers are, as you say, proof to the contrary. Which is good.

What do you say to the novella idea I outline above?

[Jim]

It's a good one, and one I'm surprised hasn't been taken up this year - a collection of Bond short stories by noted writers for the 50th anniversary of Casino Royale.

(Digressing slightly - is that pronounced Roy-Ale or Royal? I know what the film does, but there's some footage of an interview with Fleming when he pronounces it "Royal". Query ends here)

We appear to have "reinvented" this thread, considering its wayward start, spinning in piffle about barging into random conferences and shrieking the word "textually". 'Mazing how "art" can imitate life

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jim

I know I've got a copy of The Man with the Golden Gun paperback from 1974 with the film poster as its cover, and photos from the film on the back - basically, shooting back to 1974 now, if you did see the film, enjoyed it (this is possible, apparently) and went out to buy the book of the film - you'd be crushed and confused, hoplessly confused and true, would just not get any sort of handle on the written Bond at alll; probably give up on it there and then.  

Not a problem exclusive to the Bond novels, of course. Anyone who, having enjoyed the film, and wanting to experience it in book form, bought a copy of Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" with Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman on the cover would be in for a short, sharp shock (well, a 900+-page shock, thank you, I'll be here all week:D). Likewise (although we're not talking a literary series here), I own a copy of the novel on which DIE HARD was based. The cover design features Bruce Willis and the Nakatomi skyscraper, but the text it is intended to attract attention to bears little resemblance to what eventually became the movie version, and does not even feature the character of John McClane.

Originally posted by Jim

I'm not sure the books really DO need the films any more.  

You know what? They don't, or at least the Fleming novels don't. Fleming's stature as a giant of 20th century literature is sufficient to sell them. No need to (say) put drawings of Pierce Brosnan or Sean Connery on the covers of the Fleming re-issues.

Originally posted by Jim

the new US covers are a bold statement of the books and the confidence in those books.

I agree. As are the new UK covers, which carry no reminders of the films whatsoever.

Originally posted by marktmurphy

I'd like to see a range of limited run novellas in which (big name?) authors get to have a play with Bond and see what they could do with it. Publicity is generated from Monsieur BigName writing for JamesBonddoubleohseven, and Monsieur BigName is more desposed to do it because a) he likes Fleming, its only a short, one off novella and won't take too much effort. Lots of nice experiments with different writers and different themes could be fun, n'est pas?

Oui. If You Build It, They Will Come. If the quality is there, the reading public will be interested.

Personally, I think the closest modern equivalent to the series of Fleming novels is Thomas Harris' Hannibal Lecter triology. The Lecter books are essentially pap, but brilliantly written, being (as Jim wrote of Fleming's work) "edgy, adult material", full of suspense, twisted sexuality, violence, etc., and even gastronomy and snobbery (Lecter is really the James Bond of serial killers). Harris' prose is spellbinding. Only when the Bond novels are once again written to such standards will the literary series have a shot at regaining its Fleming era glory.

[marktmurphy]

Originally posted by Jim
(Digressing slightly - is that pronounced Roy-Ale or Royal? I know what the film does, but there's some footage of an interview with Fleming when he pronounces it "Royal". Query ends here)

I think its because he was unutterably posh. See also: Terry-Thomas pronouncing 'shower' as 'shaaa' (as in 'You're an absolute shaaaa') and various Two Ronnies sketches.