29 replies to this topic

[marktmurphy]

Couldn't see this posted elsewhere: it's been reported that Lee Child was asked to take over from Benson recently but declined. Was this just for the Fleming anniversary novel or for a new series?

http://commanderbond...item&item=30123

Follow the link for the full story!

[spynovelfan]

That's pretty interesting. The 'next few Bond novels', eh?

I think they will always have a problem getting a best-selling writer to take time out of their lucrative careers to take a chance writing Bond. Too many risks for the writer: commercial failure, critical failure, own career being overshadowed, etc.

But I'd love to see Bret Easton Ellis do it.

[stromberg]

Was this just for the Fleming anniversary novel or for a new series?

Planned as a one off, as far as our information goes:
http://commanderbond...es/2903-1.shtml

[marktmurphy]

Was this just for the Fleming anniversary novel or for a new series?

Planned as a one off, as far as our information goes:
http://commanderbond...es/2903-1.shtml

Yeah; but that was a while ago. This is newer info.

[stromberg]

Could imagine that their approach to this is that they intend to do only one, but (as a backup) ask the authors if theyr'e willing to do more than one in case it becomes a big success and demand for a second one is there.

[spynovelfan]

I seriously doubt Forsyth would do it - he's a Fleming fan, but what would be in it for him? He is one of the best-known thriller writers of the last 100 years, so why risk dampening that by having someone else's name fog up his resume? He can't need the money, and he writes much slower now anyway. Le Carre would never do it, for dozens of reasons (and they'd be crazy to let him if he agreed).

I'd say these were the categories they're likely to go for:

Someone from another genre, like Amis was, who's interested in a risk/diversion/piece of fun. I'd put William Gibson, Easton Ellis, Paul Theroux, William Boyd into this category.

Someone who's better known for other things, like Higson: Hugh Laurie, Stephen Fry, someone along those lines.

Someone from the fan community (as Benson was): take a peek in CBN's fan fiction section for likely candidates.

A successful and proven thriller writer, but nowhere near a household name (as Gardner was). I reckon Dan Fesperman, Adrian McKinty, John Creed, GM Ford, Simon Kernick, Adrian Matthews, Joel Ross and Kate Mosse all have the greatest chance of doing this: they've all been nominated for the Ian Fleming Steel Dagger award.

[marktmurphy]

A successful and proven thriller writer, but nowhere near a household name (as Gardner was). I reckon Dan Fesperman, Adrian McKinty, John Creed, GM Ford, Simon Kernick, Adrian Matthews, Joel Ross and Kate Mosse all have the greatest chance of doing this: they've all been nominated for the Ian Fleming Steel Dagger award.

I suppose Child would fit in that one (although a bit more of a name)?

[spynovelfan]

A successful and proven thriller writer, but nowhere near a household name (as Gardner was). I reckon Dan Fesperman, Adrian McKinty, John Creed, GM Ford, Simon Kernick, Adrian Matthews, Joel Ross and Kate Mosse all have the greatest chance of doing this: they've all been nominated for the Ian Fleming Steel Dagger award.

That's sort of the catagory that Child's in, isn't it (although a bit more of a name)?

Lee Child is much more of a name. He's now one of the best-selling writers in the world, with sales topping one million a year. He's over 10 books into his Reacher series and his sales are getting bigger for each one. At a guess, those on the above list sell under 50,000 copies a book. I deliberately missed out some Steel Dagger nominees, like Daniel Silva and Henry Porter. They're too successful to need or want to do this.

It's a little like the Clive Owen/Hugh Jackman situation, only with the added problem that the adult book series hasn't been commercially or critically a success for a very long time.

[marktmurphy]

Oh really? Well then, I'd say that they're more likely to try and go for an established name rather the types you listed if they were after Child. But you're quite right- I can't see many of them going for it.

[spynovelfan]

Oh really? Well then, I'd say that they're more likely to try and go for an established name rather the types you listed if they were after Child. But you're quite right- I can't see many of them going for it.

Yes, I suppose they'll work their way down the list. If we're lucky, they might get a very good writer who's not yet a household name. The Craig option.

[Roebuck]

Love the Reacher novels but I can

[stromberg]

I seriously doubt Forsyth would do it - he's a Fleming fan, but what would be in it for him? He is one of the best-known thriller writers of the last 100 years, so why risk dampening that by having someone else's name fog up his resume?

Thought I mentioned this in the other thread, but obviously I din't.

I recall seeing Forsyth some 5 or 10 years ago in a German talkshow (and was surprised that his German is near perfect). They asked him if he ever had plans for something like the Bond series, or if he could imagine even writing a new Bond novel or movie script.

His response didn't sound very positive on Bond. He said he doesn't like Bond very much, as the series is very unrealistic and just not really his cup of tea. Was also one of the reasons he gave why he'd never make an attempt of writing a Bond novel/script (even if approached for it). If memory serves, he also said something about not wanting to tamper with other writers' creations and the fact that he surely wouldn't have the freedom to write it as he wants.

[belvedere]

I'd love to see Jack DuBrul have a go at it. He is the author of the Philip Mercer series of novels, and if you haven't read them, you are in for a treat. He also is the new co-author of the Oregon Files novels of Clive Cussler.

Another possibility is Brad Thor - he is a thriller writer who also is a good travel writer - this might take 007 to new and exciting places, unlike the Gardner novels (could we have more mundane US locations, please - and I am American mind you).

[Double-Oh Agent]

I haven't read anything from Lee Child so I can't say whether his rejecting the Bond gig is good or bad news. As for who should be Raymond Benson's successor, the IFP probably will have a tough time finding one to do it unless they are not a well-known author. I believe it should probably be a British author but other than that, I'm not sure who. But whoever it is, hopefully they will be a good choice and one who is right for the job. And I can't wait to read their results for myself.

[godwulf]

I met "Lee Child" (actually Jim Grant) this afternoon, and asked him the question that I've had on my mind since reading that he'd been offered the Bond series a couple of times and turned it down.

I told him that I'd just read Killing Floor and liked his writing style very much - that it put me in mind of Raymond Chandler. (I don't know how to compliment an author much beyond that.) I mentioned the Bond proposals, and assured him that I was aware why he'd turned them down...that my question was more along the lines of, "What do you think it is about your writing that made them ask you?"

He said (and this is, I believe, pretty close to his exact words), "I don't think it was anything to do with style...it was just being a British thriller writer who sells very well around the world."

[zencat]

Sounds right. I think a major part of the plan was to get a big name writer for the Centenary novel.

Cool that you asked him about it.

[Righty007]

I came in here thinking info on PROJECT X had been leaked...

[Double-Oh Agent]

Thanks for passing on the information godwulf. It's nice to know. Good question too.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I came in here thinking info on PROJECT X had been leaked...

I did to.

I still Hope Brad Meltzer will be the next Bond Author though.

[OmarB]

I love Lee's work, I think he would have been a splendid choice. The Reacher series is a damn good read and does put me in mind of Fleming's style at times, along with Spillane and Hammet.

[Glenn]

In a way I am glad that Lee Child will not be writing a Bond. As I sit here eagerly waiting for his next novel, Worth Dying For, to be published, I cannot image him taking time out from the Reacher series to write a Bond. I wouldn't want him to take time out. Keep writing Jack Reacher!

A lot of other names have been suggested here, some of which I really wouldn't want to see write a Bond novel. Eric van Lustbader's Jason Bourne series is dire, poorly written and poorly plotted. Brad Thor is far too right wing for Bond. Thor pushes his own personal politics into his novels, the usual gung-ho of shooting percieved enemies first and the rest of the world should bow before the American government/military. James Bond as a right wing mouthpiece? I don't think so. Jack du Brul - I have only read some of his 'Clive Cussler' novels, they are okay, but nothing really spectacular.

My own vote to Bernard Cornwell, author of the Richard Sharpe series. I recently finished reading Sharpe's Tiger, the first novel of his that I have read, and was stunned at just how good it was. Now I am itching to go on and read Sharpe's Triumph. Cornwell always writes period adventure novels, but I would love to see him takle Bond.

Edit: I'm wrong, Cornwell has also written six contemporary thrillers.

Edited by Glenn, 10 June 2010 - 10:43 AM.

[Trident]

Don't exactly see Fleming's style in Lee. Still, he would have been an interesting choice. Mainly because Lee was able to think up some scary villains for Reacher, something the continuations could make great use of. Pacing and themes of Lee's Reacher would seem to be completely different from Bond's though.

[whiteskwirl]

I only read the first 300 pages of Killing Floor and it was dreadful. At that point in the novel, Reacher is trying to get through a crowd at the airport, and it was the realization that this was the most action and the hardest thing Reacher had done at that point that finally made me quit reading. Plus, Child's staccato writing style is annoying. He'll use three short sentences to describe what ought to be one fluid motion (such as something like: He picked up his mug of coffee. Took a drink. Set the mug down on the nightstand.) Ugh. You just can't get into a rhythm with all those short sentences. Vary those sentences!

That was his first Reacher novel, so maybe he got better, but it's too late. I don't think I'll go back to him, unless he does end up writing a Bond novel someday. I would read it just because it was Bond, but I hope he never writes one.

Even amongst whatever great thriller writers people could name, the choice of a Bond author ought to be an author who is a fan of James Bond. Otherwise, we'll likely end up with another author like John Gardner who will get bored with Bond quickly and it'll show in the writing.

[Trident]

I only read the first 300 pages of Killing Floor and it was dreadful. At that point in the novel, Reacher is trying to get through a crowd at the airport, and it was the realization that this was the most action and the hardest thing Reacher had done at that point that finally made me quit reading. Plus, Child's staccato writing style is annoying. He'll use three short sentences to describe what ought to be one fluid motion (such as something like: He picked up his mug of coffee. Took a drink. Set the mug down on the nightstand.) Ugh. You just can't get into a rhythm with all those short sentences. Vary those sentences!

The writing is deliberately so. It's a means to smuggle certain fantastical elements under the radar by hiding them underneath lots of everyday stuff. Also it's first person by a character who isn't supposed to be overly wordy, so the short sentences are spot on IMO (although they also work in his thrid person books). Give KILLING FLOOR another try, it really is much better than you think now. Just allow for the thing to fall into place towards the end. And perhaps best compare it to a western, not to an 'ordinary' thriller. If you want to start afresh with another book, then TRIPWIRE could be recommended. If that still fails to pass your judgement, then the Reachers just may not be made for you.

A general issue of most Reachers would seem to be pagecount. Most of the books I've read so far could indeed do with 100 pages or so less. But as I already wrote, there is a reason for all that detail. If you compare Child's THE ENEMY with Ross Thomas's AH, TREACHERY! you'll find basically the same plot told in two completely different ways. Thomas uses 270 pages or so, Child nearly twice as much. But Child has to deal with an enormous amount of unlikely circumstances and OTT behaviour that's got be hushed up somehow, and it actually works IMO.

[The Shark]

Brad Thor is far too right wing for Bond. Thor pushes his own personal politics into his novels, the usual gung-ho of shooting percieved enemies first and the rest of the world should bow before the American government/military. James Bond as a right wing mouthpiece?

Isn't Fleming's Bond essentially a Capitalist/Decadent/Right-Wing/Cultural Imperialist poster boy/mouth piece for the west?

Of course that isn't the direct intention of Fleming's novels, indeed far from it. Though it does seep through, and many academics have written many theses on Bond's phallic imperialism and conservatism.

While I'd strongly contend that Bond is very much non-partisan, and a moderate at best, he seems to swing more toward the right than the left. A conservative with a small "c". Either way, on the "gung-ho" comment - isn't that somewhat equivocal to Bond's black and white perspective on morality throughout the novels, and his way of rationalising his actions? Playing Cowboys and Red Indians?

A provoking trail of thought nevertheless, and I'd quite like to discuss this.

[Trident]

While I'd strongly contend that Bond is very much non-partisan, and a moderate at best, he seems to swing more toward the right than the left. A conservative with a small "c". Either way, on the "gung-ho" comment - isn't that somewhat equivocal to Bond's black and white perspective on morality throughout the novels, and his way of rationalising his actions? Playing Cowboys and Red Indians?

A provoking trail of thought nevertheless, and I'd quite like to discuss this.

The thing is, it's not so easy to nail this question about morality. Bond always comes up against monsters, his enemies are never ordinary George from the neighbourhood. Or, worse even, justified and likeable ordinary George.

I really think Bond is surprisingly thoughtful and considerate about his world. He notices an awful lot, yet for the most part refrains from judging. Even when Bond observes the people gazing at the runway of Miami's airport and suspects them of secretly hoping to observe a crash, he still doesn't condemn them for being a mob of sensationalist a**es. Instead he rationalises that everybody is somehow involved in the deaths of people in some way or other; a surprisingly 'modern', even global thought.

Bond is only able to go so relentlessly after his targets because he (like all of us indeed) vests or even 'outsources' part of his conscience and judgement to someone else, in his case to M, trusting in this man's better judgement. And he's even criticised by M for going the easy route. As morals go there is certainly some of it to be found in Bond that goes far beyond the dumb-stupid shoot-'em-up/let-God-sort-'em-out variety that is the current staple diet of the contemporary thriller genre.

[marktmurphy]

'Worth Dying For'? That's almost a decent Bond title!

[Glenn]

'Worth Dying For'? That's almost a decent Bond title!

It even has a great cover, in a series of great (British) covers - the American artwork is pants.

http://www.amazon.co...h...2507&sr=1-1

[glidrose]

Brad Thor is far too right wing for Bond. Thor pushes his own personal politics into his novels, the usual gung-ho of shooting percieved enemies first and the rest of the world should bow before the American government/military. James Bond as a right wing mouthpiece?

Isn't Fleming's Bond essentially a Capitalist/Decadent/Right-Wing/Cultural Imperialist poster boy/mouth piece for the west?

Of course that isn't the direct intention of Fleming's novels, indeed far from it. Though it does seep through, and many academics have written many theses on Bond's phallic imperialism and conservatism.

While I'd strongly contend that Bond is very much non-partisan, and a moderate at best, he seems to swing more toward the right than the left. A conservative with a small "c". Either way, on the "gung-ho" comment - isn't that somewhat equivocal to Bond's black and white perspective on morality throughout the novels, and his way of rationalising his actions? Playing Cowboys and Red Indians?

A provoking trail of thought nevertheless, and I'd quite like to discuss this.

I've always thought the following summed Bond's politics up nicely: "Bond had no use for politicians of any stripe but was happy so long as Labour was out of power."

[Dustin]

I've always thought the following summed Bond's politics up nicely: "Bond had no use for politicians of any stripe but was happy so long as Labour was out of power."

Perhaps. But in Bond's world Labour was never really a factor. No musings about Attlee's stint, no sign of Wilson on Bond's horizon ever. And Bond knew about how relative and unreliable the whole political business is, rightfully identifying the current flavour of politics as just the one he would have fought against only a few decades earlier.