Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

'The Moneypenny Diaries'


202 replies to this topic

#121 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 10 October 2005 - 10:23 PM

Very cool. This has easily become one of the most interesting books to "track" in the literary Bond canon.

#122 [dark]

[dark]

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6239 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 11 October 2005 - 07:24 AM

Can't say this revelation surprises me.

The whole "is it real or not?" thing never really worked, and the fact it came from John Murray, whom IFP had commissioned to publish The Man And His World was all too fishy.

All the same, I'm glad we have finality on the origins of this book and I'm very keen to pick it up. Good to see IFP flexing their creative muscles with their Bond rights (also, I believe this is the first period book featuring an adult Bond, no?).

#123 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 11 October 2005 - 08:25 AM

Got mine - actually held it in my hands. Therefore, it exists - which is more than I can say for Silverfin Limited Edition (so limited there's only one and Jim's got it).

View Post


Would you mind leafing through it and giving us some details, David? (And maybe a review when you've read it properly.) :)

Is it, like, y'know, a proper novel? Who makes appearances in it? M, Leiter, Blofeld, other big names? Bond?

View Post


Erm, ok dashed through the Intro and Chapter One - January.

No, its not in novel format but a diary. Intro deals with the editor receiving a chest full of Moneypenny's diaries 10 yeas after Moneypenny's death(rather like Shelock Holmes/Watson continuations) and deciding to research them for 5v years before publication.

However, here is the conceit: yes, Moneypenny is that of the Fleming novels, ditto M, Tanner, etc. Ian Fleming apparently had an insider in MI6 who - for no apparent reason - appraised him about certain files which became the James Bond novels. So Fleming's characters are "real" people, a bit like Pearson. However, Bond is not Bond: that is, his surname is not Bond but his christian name is James. Apparently Fleming decided to use the surname Bond to protect the real man's ID! In the diaries, he is refered to as 007, James or the Commander! I cannot see any reason for this at all. Other than that, Fleming's world is here other than to re-emphasise the "reality" of the diaries and the people in it, the author say's Fleming's MI6 HQ at Regent's Park is incorrect but that the team really opearted out of the real MI6 HQ of the time at Whitehall!

Why, oh why? Why try to create this "reality"? Why not just dive straight into Fleming's world?

January deals with January 1962 and the aftermath of Tracy assassination. Here we get some real classic errors - M has been head of MI6 since 1956, yet FRWL took place in that year according to the book, Loelia Ponsonby left MI6 in 1961 after THREE years yet Moonraker was clearly dated 1954, and finally it is noted thta Thunderball took palce in 1960 when SPECTRE's letters are clearly dated 1959!

This is a mess. Either I've got a copy that was badly proof-read of the author has done some lousy research.

This is a Bondian mess - even after two Chapters - and I'll guarantee is reputation will go down in Bond lore as a classic disaster. I'm not pleased to have brought it to you first.

Try enjoy, hopefully

#124 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 11 October 2005 - 08:57 AM

Bond is not Bond: that is, his surname is not Bond but his christian name is James. Apparently Fleming decided to use the surname Bond to protect the real man's ID! In the diaries, he is refered to as 007, James or the Commander!

View Post


Oh dang, missed that. Thought it was a bit odd that he was called James in the bit I read.

Have you worked out whether it's meant to be funny yet? I still don't get the concept behind this.

#125 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 11 October 2005 - 09:01 AM

January deals with January 1962 and the aftermath of Tracy assassination. Here we get some real classic errors - M has been head of MI6 since 1956, yet FRWL took place in that year according to the book, Loelia Ponsonby left MI6 in 1961 after THREE years yet Moonraker was clearly dated 1954, and finally it is noted thta Thunderball took palce in 1960 when SPECTRE's letters are clearly dated 1959!

This is a mess. Either I've got a copy that was badly proof-read of the author has done some lousy research.

View Post


To be fair, there's no reason to follow Fleming's timeline if the book sets out that he changed Bond's name (plus Fleming's continuity is famously all over the shop), but setting supposedly real world events after Fleming wrote about them is a bit of stretch!

#126 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 11 October 2005 - 09:04 AM

January deals with January 1962 and the aftermath of Tracy assassination. Here we get some real classic errors - M has been head of MI6 since 1956, yet FRWL took place in that year according to the book, Loelia Ponsonby left MI6 in 1961 after THREE years yet Moonraker was clearly dated 1954, and finally it is noted thta Thunderball took palce in 1960 when SPECTRE's letters are clearly dated 1959!

This is a mess. Either I've got a copy that was badly proof-read of the author has done some lousy research.

View Post


To be fair, there's no reason to follow Fleming's timeline if the book sets out that he changed Bond's name (plus Fleming's continuity is famously all over the shop), but setting supposedly real world events after Fleming wrote about them is a bit of stretch!

View Post


Oh, I'd agree that Fleming was all over the place with his dateline - BUT he clearly suggests if I recall M took over in 1946, not 56, if I remember correctly and Thunderball is clearly dated.

The Diaries attempts to use some real dates - 1962 and the Cuban missile crisis - and make the whole thing "real" - seems unnecessary to deliberately change some Fleming dates but not others. I think they are juts mistakes.

#127 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 11 October 2005 - 01:06 PM

Just had a flick through it in the shop. Nice though it is to see a new IFP Bond hardback in prominent place, I just couldn't bring myself to buy it. It just looks plain bad, unfortunately.

I did see mentions of 'Bond' though- is he definitely not called it in the book? Perhaps the bit I read was comparing it to Fleming.

#128 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 11 October 2005 - 01:15 PM

Got mine - actually held it in my hands. Therefore, it exists - which is more than I can say for Silverfin Limited Edition (so limited there's only one and Jim's got it).

View Post


Would you mind leafing through it and giving us some details, David? (And maybe a review when you've read it properly.) :)

Is it, like, y'know, a proper novel? Who makes appearances in it? M, Leiter, Blofeld, other big names? Bond?

View Post


Erm, ok dashed through the Intro and Chapter One - January.

No, its not in novel format but a diary. Intro deals with the editor receiving a chest full of Moneypenny's diaries 10 yeas after Moneypenny's death(rather like Shelock Holmes/Watson continuations) and deciding to research them for 5v years before publication.

However, here is the conceit: yes, Moneypenny is that of the Fleming novels, ditto M, Tanner, etc. Ian Fleming apparently had an insider in MI6 who - for no apparent reason - appraised him about certain files which became the James Bond novels. So Fleming's characters are "real" people, a bit like Pearson. However, Bond is not Bond: that is, his surname is not Bond but his christian name is James. Apparently Fleming decided to use the surname Bond to protect the real man's ID! In the diaries, he is refered to as 007, James or the Commander! I cannot see any reason for this at all. Other than that, Fleming's world is here other than to re-emphasise the "reality" of the diaries and the people in it, the author say's Fleming's MI6 HQ at Regent's Park is incorrect but that the team really opearted out of the real MI6 HQ of the time at Whitehall!

Why, oh why? Why try to create this "reality"? Why not just dive straight into Fleming's world?

January deals with January 1962 and the aftermath of Tracy assassination. Here we get some real classic errors - M has been head of MI6 since 1956, yet FRWL took place in that year according to the book, Loelia Ponsonby left MI6 in 1961 after THREE years yet Moonraker was clearly dated 1954, and finally it is noted thta Thunderball took palce in 1960 when SPECTRE's letters are clearly dated 1959!

This is a mess. Either I've got a copy that was badly proof-read of the author has done some lousy research.

This is a Bondian mess - even after two Chapters - and I'll guarantee is reputation will go down in Bond lore as a classic disaster. I'm not pleased to have brought it to you first.

Try enjoy, hopefully

View Post


Thanks. Not sure whether I'll get this. I think I'll wait for some more feedback before deciding.

#129 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 11 October 2005 - 05:54 PM

Latest discovery - this Moneypenny was interviewed for MI6 in July 1953 - that is, either two months if you do my chronology or two YEARS AFTER the Du Pont/Griswold chronology had her as M's secretary in IAN FLEMING'S Casino Royale!!!!

#130 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 11 October 2005 - 06:19 PM

(also, I believe this is the first period book featuring an adult Bond, no?).

View Post


Seems like it.

This can't arrive soon enough!

#131 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 11 October 2005 - 06:51 PM

Latest discovery - this Moneypenny was interviewed for MI6 in July 1953 - that is, either two months if you do my chronology or two YEARS AFTER the Du Pont/Griswold chronology had her as M's secretary in IAN FLEMING'S Casino Royale!!!!

View Post


Sigh. Is the chronology so important? It really is all to cock in Fleming. The guy is mid-thirties throughout the books (the author, Playboy interview) and yet the first and last books were published a decade apart. And, by Bond's admission (MOONRAKER, I think), he has around three missions a year. So if that's the case, how come LALD apparently takes place a year after CR? Or can it, because the scar's only just being removed. He's still sunburned from LALD at the start of MOONRAKER, so it must be a matter of *weeks* earlier. And so on. You'd go mad.

#132 terminus

terminus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Location:Manchester, UK

Posted 11 October 2005 - 07:54 PM

My boyfriend messaged me and told me my copy arrived this morning. But I won't get it till the middle of November.

#133 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 11 October 2005 - 09:09 PM

Sigh. Is the chronology so important?

View Post


You're quite right. It's all meaningless to me as I have the film chronology in my head anyway (LALD was before Dr No?! :) ).
What is important is what the point of the book is? Could someone please enlighten me? What's the concept? Is it a comedy? Who's the market? Because I read the dust jacket and put it straight down.

#134 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 11 October 2005 - 09:33 PM

Bridget Jones' Diary meets James Bond, told Flashman-style? Just a guess.

#135 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 11 October 2005 - 10:44 PM

Bridget Jones' Diary meets James Bond, told Flashman-style? Just a guess.

View Post


That's the kind of thing I was thinking, but it seems more serious and plot-based than that, which confused me heavily. Surely the very premise is comedic?

#136 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 08:24 AM

Latest discovery - this Moneypenny was interviewed for MI6 in July 1953 - that is, either two months if you do my chronology or two YEARS AFTER the Du Pont/Griswold chronology had her as M's secretary in IAN FLEMING'S Casino Royale!!!!

View Post


Sigh. Is the chronology so important? It really is all to cock in Fleming. The guy is mid-thirties throughout the books (the author, Playboy interview) and yet the first and last books were published a decade apart. And, by Bond's admission (MOONRAKER, I think), he has around three missions a year. So if that's the case, how come LALD apparently takes place a year after CR? Or can it, because the scar's only just being removed. He's still sunburned from LALD at the start of MOONRAKER, so it must be a matter of *weeks* earlier. And so on. You'd go mad.

View Post


Of course chronology in Fleming isn't important but accuracy is: how can you say, for example, as the Moneypenny Diaries do, that M wasn't incharge of MI6 before 1956 when clearly he was - Christ, Spy, whenever you accept Moonraker was set, it was written before 1956 and M was firmly in place.

But the classic one for this is Moneypenny joining MI6 is 1953 and then the Diaries subsequently dating the events of Casino Royale to 1952: according to the timeline of the Diaries, NEITHER M nor Moneypenny were involved in Casino Royale!!! You want to believe that???

All this mucking about with Fleming's ATTEMPTED chronology is to allow the Diaries to have Moneypenny arriving in England from Kenya after her mother was massacred in the Mau Mau unprising: it is purely a plot devise to enable this event and time to be included in the story at the expense of Fleming. This is extremely slovenly.

And as Mark points out, what is therefore the point of the book IF it doesn't fit with Fleming's world? Is it comedy, parody rather that pastiche!!!

And to really annoy you, Spy, May is given the surname Davidson - as given by Higson in Silverfin - and reference is made to her meeting Bond when he was a boy while she tended to his dying uncle (Max, from Silverfin): this Moneypenny died in 1990 - can't be the same one at M's party in the Facts of Death in 1998, then. Goodbye, Mr Benson.

Thanks IFP.

Edited by David Schofield, 12 October 2005 - 08:40 AM.


#137 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:12 AM

'Goodbye Mr Benson?' How is Moneypenny still working for MI6 in 1998 if she joined in 1953? In long-running series, you simply cannot think about the chronology in this way. "Of course chronology in Fleming isn't important but accuracy is". Well why not apply that to Fleming's work, in that case? Or does that not count, because only continuation authors can get it wrong? Fleming was incredibly inaccurate and makes *dozens* of mistakes with his 'chronology'.

It isn't, really, a choronology. Bond is in his mid-thirties, and the books are all loosely set in the 50s/early 60s. Fleming only wrote of 13 full-length missions, and they span a decade. But, as I've already said, at the start of LIVE AND LET DIE, Bond has his SMERSH scar removed as a matter of urgency - the events of CASINO ROYALE have only just happened. At the start of MOONRAKER Bond is still suburned from his fortnight with Solitaire at the end of LIVE AND LET DIE. And so on. On that timeline - each mission running into each other with a gap of a few weeks between each - THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is set in 1953. This is the 'immediate' timeline, if you like. He needed that for a sense of immediacy, and because it would have been very tedious to have had to explain in eah book what Bond had been doing for a year. Also would have been disappointing - what, he just sits around for a year between missions? So he compresses that time, and in a few pages gives us the idea that Bond is a dull civil servant between missions, he's playing cards, getting pissed, shagging married women, and he's all ready for another mission. Bond thinks back to the last one - fresh in his head, so it's easy for the reader. This is all the immediate, short-term timeline. Extended from one book to the next, it's believable. Put them all together, it's not. So simultaneous to it, there's a long timeline. Halfway through the book, when we've forgotten that this is meant to be just a couple of weeks after the last mission, Fleming makes a reference to an event that grounds us a year or more later. This is so that we have the sense that these missions are happening in real time as well, ie as the books are being published (about one a year). So Bond stays the same age. Just as you cannot examine the plausibility of Bond's missions too closely, you can't look at the chronology. You're not meant to. It's a trick, sleight of hand to get round the fact that he had one book a year and an active agent staying roughly the same age. The same trick is used in pretty much every long-running series. Adam Hall did it with Quiller. Try dating the Jean Bruce OSS117 series - there was a new book every couple of weeks! It's just somehing you can't think about too much, and to pin down this book for messing with the chronology (when you haven't read the whole book yet!) seems to me to be completely futile. When there are several possible birth dates for the character, you know there's no chronology!

#138 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:16 AM

'Goodbye Mr Benson?' How is Moneypenny still working for MI6 in 1998 if she joined in 1953? In long-running series, you simply cannot think about the chronology in this way. "Of course chronology in Fleming isn't important but accuracy is". Well why not apply that to Fleming's work, in that case? Or does that not count, because only continuation authors can get it wrong? Fleming was incredibly inaccurate and makes *dozens* of mistakes with his 'chronology'.

It isn't, really, a choronology. Bond is in his mid-thirties, and the books are all loosely set in the 50s/early 60s. Fleming only wrote of 13 full-length missions, and they span a decade. But, as I've already said, at the start of LIVE AND LET DIE, Bond has his SMERSH scar removed as a matter of urgency - the events of CASINO ROYALE have only just happened. At the start of MOONRAKER Bond is still suburned from his fortnight with Solitaire at the end of LIVE AND LET DIE. And so on. On that timeline - each mission running into each other with a gap of a few weeks between each - THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is set in 1953. This is the 'immediate' timeline, if you like. He needed that for a sense of immediacy, and because it would have been very tedious to have had to explain in eah book what Bond had been doing for a year. Also would have been disappointing - what, he just sits around for a year between missions? So he compresses that time, and in a few pages gives us the idea that Bond is a dull civil servant between missions, he's playing cards, getting pissed, shagging married women, and he's all ready for another mission. Bond thinks back to the last one - fresh in his head, so it's easy for the reader. This is all the immediate, short-term timeline. Extended from one book to the next, it's believable. Put them all together, it's not. So simultaneous to it, there's a long timeline. Halfway through the book, when we've forgotten that this is meant to be just a couple of weeks after the last mission, Fleming makes a reference to an event that grounds us a year or more later. This is so that we have the sense that these missions are happening in real time as well, ie as the books are being published (about one a year). So Bond stays the same age. Just as you cannot examine the plausibility of Bond's missions too closely, you can't look at the chronology. You're not meant to. It's a trick, sleight of hand to get round the fact that he had one book a year and an active agent staying roughly the same age. The same trick is used in pretty much every long-running series. Adam Hall did it with Quiller. Try dating the Jean Bruce OSS117 series - there was a new book every couple of weeks! It's just somehing you can't think about too much, and to pin down this book for messing with the chronology (when you haven't read the whole book yet!) seems to me to be completely futile. When there are several possible birth dates for the character, you know there's no chronology!

View Post


As I've said before, accept chronology if you wish - by interpreting it as you can - or ignore it, as you chose to do, Spy.

But as I pointed out in the post you have just replied to, having M not take over MI6 until 1956, Moneypenny not join unitil 1953 AND THEN set Casino Roayle in 1952 - therefore excluding them - is just bloody stupied and has NOTHING to do with damn chronology!

#139 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:23 AM

She specifies CR in '52 and that M doesn't take over as M until '56? Yes, that's a little bit of an obvious one to spot. But is it really so different from the first chapter of LIVE AND LET DIE being set a few weeks after CASINO ROYALE, which was written in 1952 and published in '53, and Fleming referencing a past beauty pageant of 1954 later in the book? How can Mr Big work for SMERSH, which Fleming himself tells us disbanded in 53? Fleming made *dozens* of similar 'mistakes' - why not rip his chronology apart, too?

#140 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:34 AM

She specifies CR in '52 and that M doesn't take over as M until '56? Yes, that's a little bit of an obvious one to spot. But is it really so different from the first chapter of LIVE AND LET DIE being set a few weeks after CASINO ROYALE, which was written in 1952 and published in '53, and Fleming referencing a past beauty pageant of 1954 later in the book? How can Mr Big work for SMERSH, which Fleming himself tells us disbanded in 53? Fleming made *dozens* of similar 'mistakes' - why not rip his chronology apart, too?

View Post


Without deabting the whole thing... sure, its just more glaring in this case AND far easier to get right - Fleming's books are down and the FACT is that M and Moneypenny are in them - its harder to get it wrong and what's the point!

#141 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:38 AM

Yes, okay, it's more glaring. But surely not enough to pan the whole book. I have a hunch this is going to be seen as one of the better books IFP has released. And I think it also has a chance of being a best-seller. I reckon, finally, they've got their heads screwed on.

Q'ute isn't in it, is she?

#142 Hitch

Hitch

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1219 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:39 AM

Spynovelfan, I like your summary of how and why Fleming played fast and loose with Bond's chronology for the sake of expediency. Nothing kills a story quicker than a slavish adherence to facts and figures - authors often do the wackiest things because all that matters is telling a good story. The Moneypenny Diaries can feature Bond at the Charge of the Light Brigade for all I care, so long as the book entertains me. Yes, it's fun to pick holes and paradoxes in stories (and I don't think Fleming ever intended to write so many books about one character, which explains a lot of the inconsistencies), but it ain't history, folks. Relax, light a Morlands, order an Americano and shrug it off. That's what 007 would do. Fleming would take a shufty at the corrected proofs of his latest opus, improve a troublesome paragraph with an inspired mot juste and then jet off to the Bahamas safe in the knowledge that his bank manager was happy and his doctor worried.

#143 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:40 AM

And as Mark points out, what is therefore the point of the book IF it doesn't fit with Fleming's world? Is it comedy, parody rather that pastiche!!!

View Post


Well, no- I don't care whether it fits precisely with Fleming or not; I just don't get what the book is aiming to be. It's already clear that it doesn't intend to fit with Fleming's details and timeline precisely, although the Casino Royale thing does sound a little nonsensical. Are M and Moneypenny supposed to be in place during Royale in this book? Does it actually contradict itself? Contradicting Fleming is by the by, contradicting itself would be bad.

But all these details aside, is it any good?

#144 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:46 AM

And I think it also has a chance of being a best-seller. I reckon, finally, they've got their heads screwed on.

View Post


It's certainly interesting that it is a Bond hardback which you can actually find in your local bookshop- something not seen for quite a few years. Plus it's had publicity in the sunday papers- again rare for an IFP work. Whether it's a bestseller might depend on whether it's actually any good or not, plus I'm still not sure who the audience is for it. I'm a Bond fan and I'm not particularly interested.

#145 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:56 AM

However, here is the conceit: yes, Moneypenny is that of the Fleming novels, ditto M, Tanner, etc. Ian Fleming apparently had an insider in MI6 who - for no apparent reason - appraised him about certain files which became the James Bond novels. So Fleming's characters are "real" people, a bit like Pearson. However, Bond is not Bond: that is, his surname is not Bond but his christian name is James. Apparently Fleming decided to use the surname Bond to protect the real man's ID! In the diaries, he is refered to as 007, James or the Commander! I cannot see any reason for this at all. Other than that, Fleming's world is here other than to re-emphasise the "reality" of the diaries and the people in it, the author say's Fleming's MI6 HQ at Regent's Park is incorrect but that the team really opearted out of the real MI6 HQ of the time at Whitehall!

Why, oh why? Why try to create this "reality"? Why not just dive straight into Fleming's world?

View Post


Doesn't this answer your concern, David? If this is the case, it's not set in Fleming's world any more than George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman adventures are set in Hughes'. It is, in fact, the same premise - the discovery of real papers about a fictional character. So if Fleming wrote up these adventures, he'd have had no idea that Moneypenny actually joined MI6 in 56 so can't have been in Royale-les-Eaux in '52 - or he could have gotten it wrong. Presumably, the diaries are claming to be the *real* history behind the exaggerated tellings of them in the works of Ian Fleming. I can see why that premise troubles you - it doesn't me. I find it the cleverest way of getting round the problem already alluded to of a very shaky timeline in Fleming. But you can't have your cake and eat it - if Bond's briefing at the start of CR was actually in Whitehall according to the book, and not Regent's Park, why is is any sillier to say that Moneypenny wasn't there then, or even a different M? Presumably this is all skirted over anyway, and takes place to an extent off-stage. I can see that the skewing of it to fit in the Mau-Mau events might annoy, but Fleming did the same thing. Witness SMERSH to replace SPECTRE because of the Beria mistake, changing Bond's nationality, gun, and so on.

I concur with Hitch - is it well written and entertaining? I really don't think the book will stand or fall on continuity in a series that has hundreds of continuation problems already. You don't seem to mind that Moneypenny is roughly the same age in 1998 as she was in 1953 - so why should this worry you? You just have to not think about chronology at all in a series like this.

Is the writing any good? :)

#146 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 12:11 PM

Actually, the writing of its type - female twin-set-and-pearls colonial diary - is good and the reflection of Bond post Tracy's death it very good.

As I said to start with, though, it would have been better to dive straight into Fleming - not try to be more "real" - and reflect the GIVEN dates/situations more accurately.

That's what makes it worse.

#147 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 12:47 PM

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='12 October 2005 - 09:56']
[quote name='David Schofield' date='11 October 2005 - 08:25']However, here is the conceit: yes, Moneypenny is that of the Fleming novels, ditto M, Tanner, etc. Ian Fleming apparently had an insider in MI6 who - for no apparent reason - appraised him about certain files which became the James Bond novels. So Fleming's characters are "real" people, a bit like Pearson. However, Bond is not Bond: that is, his surname is not Bond but his christian name is James. Apparently Fleming decided to use the surname Bond to protect the real man's ID! In the diaries, he is refered to as 007, James or the Commander! I cannot see any reason for this at all. Other than that, Fleming's world is here other than to re-emphasise the "reality" of the diaries and the people in it, the author say's Fleming's MI6 HQ at Regent's Park is incorrect but that the team really opearted out of the real MI6 HQ of the time at Whitehall!

Why, oh why? Why try to create this "reality"? Why not just dive straight into Fleming's world?

View Post

[/quote]

Doesn't this answer your concern, David? If this is the case, it's not set in Fleming's world any more than George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman adventures are set in Hughes'. It is, in fact, the same premise - the discovery of real papers about a fictional character. So if Fleming wrote up these adventures, he'd have had no idea that Moneypenny actually joined MI6 in 56 so can't have been in Royale-les-Eaux in '52 - or he could have gotten it wrong. Presumably, the diaries are claming to be the *real* history behind the exaggerated tellings of them in the works of Ian Fleming. I can see why that premise troubles you - it doesn't me. I find it the cleverest way of getting round the problem already alluded to of a very shaky timeline in Fleming. But you can't have your cake and eat it - if Bond's briefing at the start of CR was actually in Whitehall according to the book, and not Regent's Park, why is is any sillier to say that Moneypenny wasn't there then, or even a different M? Presumably this is all skirted over anyway, and takes place to an extent off-stage. I can see that the skewing of it to fit in the Mau-Mau events might annoy, but Fleming did the same thing. Witness SMERSH to replace SPECTRE because of the Beria mistake, changing Bond's nationality, gun, and so on.

Sure, again, but of course Fleming writing about events in advance of them actually happening and including people there who weren't actually in place at the time but would ultimately be is quite a trick! Hey, perhaps the "real" people of the Diary just mocked up the events after reading them in Fleming's book!

Pedantic, perhaps. But just as easy to get it right as well.

#148 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 12:52 PM

True - hadn't thought of that. And, indeed, Fraser has rarely got a single thing wrong with Flashman and that's part of the fun. But weight-wise, the skill of the writing and the entertainment quotient of this are far more important to me than this sort of thing. :)

#149 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 12:59 PM

True - hadn't thought of that. And, indeed, Fraser has rarely got a single thing wrong with Flashman and that's part of the fun. But weight-wise, the skill of the writing and the entertainment quotient of this are far more important to me than this sort  of thing. :)

View Post


I have a feeling, Spy, that when you read this book and it evokes the pearls and twin sets gossip in tht loo, the world of Lyons coffee houses, "platonic" relationships with boyfriends, trips by Mini to Henley at the weekend against the backdrop of working in the same office as and with James Bond, the background of his grief for Tracy, you'll be wondering why it couldn't have been completely - and so easily - authentic.

#150 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 01:10 PM

Maybe - but that description makes me want to read the book very badly indeed. This sounds like a gem from where I'm sitting, silly mistake about when M takes over as head of MI6 or not.

Stop being such a fusspot! :)