202 replies to this topic

[terminus]

Why couldn't Flemming have chosen to amalgamate two different M's and two different secretaries into Moneypenny - he didn't want to change the background characters after a book, he wanted to give a sense of stability.

Call it creative decision, if you will and shut your cake hole and stop stop winging. I'd like to see any of you people who are moaning do better !

[Harmsway]

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

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.

I've seen Bond hardbacks in my local bookstores of all of the Benson novels every time one was released.

[David Schofield]

The lastest anomaly- the head of Q Branch 1952-79 is said to be Dr Desmond McCarthy. While I agree Boothroyd was only the Armourer in Fleming, isn't it widely accepted by readers - certainly in Gardner and Benosn (OK both date their adventures post 1979) - that Boothroyd is the head of Q Branch and so sort of goes against the grain... I mean why not just damn well use Major Boothroyd!!!!!

[marktmurphy]

I've seen Bond hardbacks in my local bookstores of all of the Benson novels every time one was released.

Really? I had to trapse around specıalıst bookshops in central London to find the last few Bensons. Well, before I stopped buying them, anyway!

As for the Boothroyd thing; I really don't see how she couldn't change that and allow the Fleming-wrote-about-a-real-world-person conceit alive. It wouldn't work with Boothroyd, surely?

[spynovelfan]

Because Boothroyd only appeared in Fleming's novels, what - once? Twice? And was Armourer, not head of Q Branch? Because this is meant to be the real story behind the Fleming books, and according to this Fleming called McCarthy Boothroyd and Smithhiggins Dundercake Bond? Because she is going to do something to McCarthy that you wouldn't have liked had she done it with Boothroyd? Or perhaps just because she wanted to annoy fanboy Fleming purists on the interweb?

[David Schofield]

Because Boothroyd only appeared in Fleming's novels, what - once? Twice? And was Armourer, not head of Q Branch? Because this is meant to be the real story behind the Fleming books, and according to this Fleming called McCarthy Boothroyd and Smithhiggins Dundercake Bond? Because she is going to do something to McCarthy that you wouldn't have liked had she done it with Boothroyd? Or perhaps just because she wanted to annoy fanboy Fleming purists on the interweb?

You're going to enjoy this book, Spy - more than me. I feel like a freakin' test driver for the damn thing

[David Schofield]

Oh, and less of the "fanboy purists"... I am older than Daniel Craig - though obviously I don't look it... and can actually remember buying James Bond and Moonraker first edition hardback at Harrods when I wer a lad

[Brisco]

You're going to enjoy this book, Spy - more than me. I feel like a freakin' test driver for the damn thing

Thanks for taking that role, David, and giving the rest of us some insight into what we can expect. (My copy won't ship from Amazon.co.uk until The Man His World has also come out.) I hope the "test driver" role doesn't seriously impede your enjoyment of the book!

Like Spynovelfan, I don't get too caught up in continuity. (Maybe that's because I'm a comics fan, too. Try working out a serious chronology for Batman, whose been around for longer than Bond!) I especially can't follow the argument that this Moneypenny should be Benson's Moneypenny from '98. But a few of the things you mention do appaul me a bit. The Casino Royale thing creating an internal error in the book itself is bad, especially for a supposed "diary!" And I don't much like the idea of monkeying with some of the few established dates in Fleming for the sake of incorporating the Mau Mau thing. But maybe when I read it that won't bother me. I'm also not big on the "Bond wasn't really Bond" idea. Pearson pulled it off pretty well with Bond being Bond. It's already a stretch, so come on!

But it all really comes down to how well the book is written and how much I enjoy it. I thought I was going to HATE SilverFin based on everything I heard about it in advance, and I quite liked it in the end. The only thing to really judge the book on will be the merits of its writing.

I wonder if it will ever get a US release? It's really odd for any Bond book not to. Weird.

Brisco

[terminus]

I think most of the griping with the book appears to be to do with the dates and change of character names -

Can we not accept that the secretary when the real CR occured was different to the secretary in the rest of the series - and that, in order to create a running character, Flemming, upon novelising the events took the name of the latter ?

The same with M - and with Q.

I don't see any room to cry foul over any discrepancy since we have no reason to believe Flemming wouldn't have changed some details to create better stories and characters.

[David Schofield]

I think most of the griping with the book appears to be to do with the dates and change of character names -

Can we not accept that the secretary when the real CR occured was different to the secretary in the rest of the series - and that, in order to create a running character, Flemming, upon novelising the events took the name of the latter ?

The same with M - and with Q.

I don't see any room to cry foul over any discrepancy since we have no reason to believe Flemming wouldn't have changed some details to create better stories and characters.

Fair point, though of course it would have been difficult fto Fleming to include Moneypenny in Casino Royale as he did - written in 1952, taking place in the Diaries in 1952 - when Moneypenny didn't join MI6 until AFTER the publication of the novel in 1953!

This is just clumsiness!

[David Schofield]

You're going to enjoy this book, Spy - more than me. I feel like a freakin' test driver for the damn thing

Thanks for taking that role, David, and giving the rest of us some insight into what we can expect. (My copy won't ship from Amazon.co.uk until The Man His World has also come out.) I hope the "test driver" role doesn't seriously impede your enjoyment of the book!

Like Spynovelfan, I don't get too caught up in continuity. (Maybe that's because I'm a comics fan, too. Try working out a serious chronology for Batman, whose been around for longer than Bond!) I especially can't follow the argument that this Moneypenny should be Benson's Moneypenny from '98. But a few of the things you mention do appaul me a bit. The Casino Royale thing creating an internal error in the book itself is bad, especially for a supposed "diary!" And I don't much like the idea of monkeying with some of the few established dates in Fleming for the sake of incorporating the Mau Mau thing. But maybe when I read it that won't bother me. I'm also not big on the "Bond wasn't really Bond" idea. Pearson pulled it off pretty well with Bond being Bond. It's already a stretch, so come on!

But it all really comes down to how well the book is written and how much I enjoy it. I thought I was going to HATE SilverFin based on everything I heard about it in advance, and I quite liked it in the end. The only thing to really judge the book on will be the merits of its writing.

I wonder if it will ever get a US release? It's really odd for any Bond book not to. Weird.

Brisco

Brisco, you're on my wavelength - this is a Diary so its dates claim to be 100% accurate by implication. Above all, it would have been so easy for the Diaries to include the few accepted dates from Fleming (Thunderball, for example) and this would not have had the slightest effect on the Diaries. The Diaries afterall start with a date from Fleming: 1 January 1962! The cock-up with Casino Royale is very bad and while admitting it is possible the Fleming's M in CR and LALD is not Miles Messervy, it certainly is by Moonraker - and that and M's actions are linked to CR and LALD - both of which took place - as tehy were published - prior to the Diaries stated Sir Miles became M in 1956. There is no reason for this.

Even the Mau Mau inclusion is unnecessary - why must Moneypenny and her sister not have returned to England until after their money was killed: it would have fitted in perfectly for the Moneypenny girls to have come to Enaglnd in say 1950, join MI6 in 1951 and still mourn their mother killed by Mau Mau in 1953 from rememberances in 1962. It makes no sense.

It all just grates - Spy thinks I am being oversensitive - but the story so far is good and I really can see no reason for these errors: only someone who had not taken the trouble top read and research Fleming could have made them. That is unforgiveable.

Edited by David Schofield, 14 October 2005 - 08:07 AM.

[Qwerty]

Got mine today - looks very cool!

Scanned the front and back cover:

Attached Files

•  MDfront.jpg   83.59KB   50 downloads
•  MDback.jpg   72.92KB   46 downloads

[Panther]

Mine just arrived too. I'm looking forward to reading it - errors of continuity notwithstanding. But I was shocked yesterday by the news that there was going to be no Miss M in Casino Royale. She was there in the book (with eyes that were 'cool, direct and quizzical'). Surely they can't make a film without her???

[Mona Lovesit]

The back cover is very bland.

[Qwerty]

The back cover is very bland.

Interesting (if few) lines on it though.

[Brisco]

Are there any reviews yet in England? Newpapers, magazines, anything? Anybody have links?

Mine is now shipping from Amazon!

Brisco

[Loomis]

Is this out in paperback yet? I ask as I saw "The Moneypenny Diaries" in Europe's largest bookshop (Waterstone's in Piccadilly), but all the copies on the shelf were hardbacks.

Anyone planning to review it for CBn? Jim? zencat?

[marktmurphy]

Roger Moore said he'd read it on Paul O'Grady's show last night (!). Perhaps he'd review it for us..

[spynovelfan]

Forgot to mention - there was a small piece in Saturday's Telegraph saying this was a trilogy and that it had been optioned.

[David Schofield]

Forgot to mention - there was a small piece in Saturday's Telegraph saying this was a trilogy and that it had been optioned.

Optioned to make a movie?

That could lead to problems - or the chance for Brozza to make that fabled comeback just for his fans.

[Trident]

Is this out in paperback yet? I ask as I saw "The Moneypenny Diaries" in Europe's largest bookshop (Waterstone's in Piccadilly), but all the copies on the shelf were hardbacks.

Anyone planning to review it for CBn? Jim? zencat?

Amazon lists the softback for May 2006. Don't know though if that date is right.

[Loomis]

Is this out in paperback yet? I ask as I saw "The Moneypenny Diaries" in Europe's largest bookshop (Waterstone's in Piccadilly), but all the copies on the shelf were hardbacks.

Anyone planning to review it for CBn? Jim? zencat?

Amazon lists the softback for May 2006. Don't know though if that date is right.

Cheers, Trident. I was under the impression that they were putting it out in hardback and paperback simultaneously.

[Trident]

Amazon lists the softback for May 2006. Don't know though if that date is right.

Cheers, Trident. I was under the impression that they were putting it out in hardback and paperback simultaneously.

I don't think so.
Looks like they want to make the money with the hardback first. And I hope the paperback will be out in May and not eaven later. Seems almost too short a time. I remember when you had to wait a whole year for the paperbacks.

[zencat]

Is this out in paperback yet? I ask as I saw "The Moneypenny Diaries" in Europe's largest bookshop (Waterstone's in Piccadilly), but all the copies on the shelf were hardbacks.

Anyone planning to review it for CBn? Jim? zencat?

Amazon lists the softback for May 2006. Don't know though if that date is right.

Cheers, Trident. I was under the impression that they were putting it out in hardback and paperback simultaneously.

No. That's a mistake we learned on SilverFin. Amazon lists the International (or "Export") Edition, which is a paperback, but this isn't THE paperback edition and if you pre-order it, it doesn't arrive.

[zencat]

Amazon lists the softback for May 2006. Don't know though if that date is right.

Do you have a link to that, Trident? I can't find that.

[Trident]

Here it is:
http://www.amazon.de...8612688-7064800

It's the German Amazon, so the language is German. The relevant term is:
Broschiert - 240 Seiten
Erscheinungsdatum: Mai 2006

I take it that this is the date for the paperback version.

[Panther]

Roger Moore said he'd read it on Paul O'Grady's show last night (!). Perhaps he'd review it for us. (haven't got the hang of this yet - sorry)

What did he say?

[Qwerty]

but this isn't THE paperback edition and if you pre-order it, it doesn't arrive.

God, yes. Don't - if it's anything like amazon and SF - they'll give you about 4 delays and then you end up just saying: " it."

[David Schofield]

Starting to struggle with this. About 2/3s way through and its starting to get a bit silly and predictable. Oh, and have I mentioned there are a lot of inconsistencies/contradictions of Fleming before?

I have finished every Bond novel - including Pearson, Wood, Gardner, yes even Benson - novelisations included, but this one seems to be dragging and a forced must finish unlike anything I've read before.

[Panther]

Well, I'm reading it and absolutely galloping through. Sure, there are a couple of inconsistencies, but nothing like the scale of Fleming - only a pedant would complain about them.

Here we see the Bond world through a fresh pair of eyes. It is not meant to be Fleming's, it's not a continuation or a novelisation. It's new and fun and clever, I think.