108 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Hehe...

[Loomis]

I would recommend re-reading Colonel Sun....

Never Dream of Dying ROCKS!

I knew it couldn't last.

[hrabb04]

Gotta agree on that one. Never Dream of Dying is a damned good book.

[zencat]

Ha! Thank you, sir.

But let's not let these other points be forgotten as they fall a page behind.

[quote name='zencat' date='20 January 2005 - 09:08']Man, there is a lot to respond to in this thread. I checked a few facts with Raymond, and here's a few important points of clarification...

1.

[spynovelfan]

[quote name='zencat' date='20 January 2005 - 17:08']Man, there is a lot to respond to in this thread. I checked a few facts with Raymond, and here's a few important points of clarification...

[/quote]

Thanks very much for this, Zencat. Very interesting stuff.

[quote]1.

Edited by spynovelfan, 20 January 2005 - 09:22 PM.

[hrabb04]

I've been searching this thread, and I can't find anything about the former Robert Guilliame TV show. I hope they do a movie about it like they did with The Mod Squad...only better.

[spynovelfan]

I've been searching this thread, and I can't find anything about the former Robert Guilliame TV show.  I hope they do a movie about it like they did with The Mod Squad...only better.

Do you make that gag in every thread that has Benson's name in the title?

[Loomis]

* I think the promotional possibilities for the Double-0 Section idea are worth considering. Silverfin has the whole 'Before he was James Bond' stuff. But imagine. Silhouettes of Bond-like figures, but differing from the poses we've seen before. 'Nobody does it better than 007? Ask 003.' 'Stirred, not shaken.' And so on.

Just playing devil's advocate, spy, but isn't there the risk that such books might meet the same fate as the game "GoldenEye: Rogue Agent", slated and shunned for not actually featuring James Bond? (As I believe GERA has been slated and shunned, at any rate - I don't pay all that much attention to the gaming side of Bond, and I'm just going by the hazy memory of something I read at some point here on CBn, so I may be wrong.)

James Bond is a familiar brand, and marketable under the right circumstances, we all agree on that - is this also true of the Double-O Section, though?

[spynovelfan]

Well, I think so, but I could be wrong, of course - and it's pretty unlikely to happen.

I don't know much about Rogue Agent, either, but isn't that it's been critically slammed, rather than commercially unsuccesful? GoldenEye sold seven million copies, so even if it sells half that it's not doing badly, surely? And perhaps part of the problem was that it was billed as a sequel to GoldenEye, with that word in the title, and it's not anything of the sort? There were rumours for a long time that there would be a GE sequel, and then this came out - and no Bond, and not really any connection.

I think it all depends on what the books are like. If they're decent spy thrillers, along the lines of the competition, and they have money and promotion and distribution behind them, I think Splinter Cell and Ludlum and Clancy fans would snap them up. The Higson idea isn't so different - don't try to follow Fleming chronologically, think laterally, think period. I just think this has more potential. Others, I'm sure, have other ideas.

One problem I can see with the Higson thing, if it's a success - where does that lead adult continuations? Kind of buggers them up, doesn't it? Unless they're going to take them into period, too. But then, will they just start Bond up again after Colonel Sun, and effectively wipe out the Gardner and Benson eras?

Mess with Bond and you piss fans and critics off, and risk damaging the character for good. Mess with 002? Can't see anything but an improvement on what's happened so far.

Edited by spynovelfan, 20 January 2005 - 10:14 PM.

[Loomis]

One problem I can see with the Higson thing, if it's a success - where does that lead adult continuations? Kind of buggers them up, doesn't it? Unless they're going to take them into period, too. But then, will they just start Bond up again after Colonel Sun, and effectively wipe out the Gardner and Benson eras?

Starting up again after "Colonel Sun" would be the way to go, IMO. Set new adult continuations in the late '60s and early '70s, and the character could credibly be the same guy created by Fleming. I don't see why the Gardner and Benson eras would be wiped out if they did this - it would just plug some of the long gap between CS and "Licence Renewed".

[hrabb04]

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='20 January 2005 - 21:34'][quote name='hrabb04' date='20 January 2005 - 20:51']I've been searching this thread, and I can't find anything about the former Robert Guilliame TV show.

[spynovelfan]

Yeah, that could also work. But it's very risky, I think. The combination of James Bond and the 60s means that the writer will get burned all over again. Are 16-year-old kids really going to be interested in the third round of 'It's Fleming's successor' articles? The writer will be paranoid about pissing all the fans off and try to emulate the Fleming style and sweep. That kind of book isn't what people read nowadays. The problem with the Bond continuation idea as it is is that the fear of not being as good as Fleming interferes

[Loomis]

Look, here's the thing: I want another book of the quality of "You Only Live Twice". I want adult, intelligent, sophisticated Bond novels, written by someone capable of "that languid, Fleet Street drawl as smoky and cynical as the morning-after atmosphere of a Mayfair nightclub". I also want these things to be massive bestsellers, lining the shelves of all bookshops everywhere, and devoured by millions of "heterosexuals in airports" (or however Fleming put it).

Oh, well.

[hrabb04]

Loomis, with these new books, the readership they are going after will still be struggling with puberty!

[Mister Asterix]

One problem I can see with the Higson thing, if it's a success - where does that lead adult continuations? Kind of buggers them up, doesn't it? Unless they're going to take them into period, too. But then, will they just start Bond up again after Colonel Sun, and effectively wipe out the Gardner and Benson eras?

Starting up again after "Colonel Sun" would be the way to go, IMO. Set new adult continuations in the late '60s and early '70s, and the character could credibly be the same guy created by Fleming. I don't see why the Gardner and Benson eras would be wiped out if they did this - it would just plug some of the long gap between CS and "Licence Renewed".

[mra]I

[spynovelfan]

Look, here's the thing: I want another book of the quality of "You Only Live Twice". I want adult, intelligent, sophisticated Bond novels, written by someone capable of "that languid, Fleet Street drawl as smoky and cynical as the morning-after atmosphere of a Mayfair nightclub". I also want these things to be massive bestsellers, lining the shelves of all bookshops everywhere, and devoured by millions of "heterosexuals in airports" (or however Fleming put it).

So do I, so do I. It's not going to happen, though.

What you're really interested in is the first bit, though, isn't it? The adult, intelligent, sophisticated Bond novels. Their being massive bestsellers as well is a bonus. It's an idea that appeals, just because it shows the world. But it's not really integral to what you want.

Unfortunately, though, it's integral to what will happen. The two ideas can't co-exist. Best-selling thrillers have moved on, and we live in a world where anything that did have that languid Fleet Street drawl won't sell. If someone did actually manage to write another Bond novel that was set in the 60s and *perfectly* recreated Fleming - it would flop. Most people have not read Fleming's books. Why aren't they best-sellers every time they're reprinted? It's partly because people feel they know them already from the films - but it's also because they've dated. They are, by today's standards, too leisurely, too old-fashioned, too sophisticated and so on. Thrillers now increasingly resemble computer games and films. Plentiful explosions, car chases on ice, sniper rifles and balaclavas.

We can hold out for someone to write a book as good as a Fleming and manage to make it sell in huge quantities, but I think we'll be waiting a long time. In the meanwhile, failed attempts to do that merely push Bond in book form ever further down that mid-list.

Addendum to the above: one of the reasons Rogue Agent is not selling as well as Splinter Cell is because it's not as good a game. You have to provide a product the market wants. If Splinter Cell's Sam Fisher was a double-0 agent in MI6, rather than an agent of the NSA's Third Echelon section, do you think it would have made any difference to sales of the game? I don't. In most first-person shooters and blockbuster spy thrillers, the protagonist is almost interchangeable. He's white, male, athletic, calculating, ruthless, suave, efficient, and so on. He's characterless, effectively. The branding comes from the surrounding details: the Grimsdotters, M's desk lamp and so on. The people who created Splinter Cell created a *new* game. New character, new iconography, new back story. Those don't make any difference to how good the game is to play - they're the pieces that will build the brand if it succeeds. If the game is poor, it doesn't matter what the protagonist's name is or what intelligence outfit he works for. So they had this great game. They could have just launched it as it was. Splinter Cell. Sam Fisher. Grimsdottir. Could have been a massive success anyway, but it's risky. It's new. No brand. So they bought (I speculate) a brand: Tom Clancy. It could just as easily have been Robert Ludlum's Splinter Cell - nobody would have said 'But, hey, this feels more like Clancy!' Ludlum also does stuff about lone wolf operatives taking out terrorists, and so on. If it had been Ludlum (from another idea he had on his deathbed), it would have been just as huge.

The same applies to the Bond books. The basics are that you need an exciting, commerical spy thriller featuring exotic locales, violent shoot-outs, car chases, close escapes, gadgetry, beautiful women, a smattering of sex, conspiracies, betrayal, explosions and so on. Once you have that, you need the branding. Scene with M, Moneypenny, Boothroyd. London. If we're going with my idea, you create a few more. 004 is half-French and smokes cigars. He drives an Alfa Romeo and he has an on-off girlfriend called Lucia, an aristocrat. Do it right, and you'll have Amazon reviews of the fourth book in the series complaining that Lucia seems a little too common and that the writer clearly hasn't read the other books.

I like the idea, but it's just an idea, to show what could be done with some imagination. Here's an imaginary press release:

'Double O Section operational

Ian Fleming Publications Ltd is thrilled to announce the commission of
a new series of books based on the world of Ian Fleming's James Bond.

Fans of the books and films will know that the "00" in 007 signifies
that Bond has a licence to kill. "Double 0 Section" is a new series of
full-length novels following the adventures of the MI6 department's
other agents. Four such agents are mentioned in passing in Fleming's
novels.

Edited by spynovelfan, 21 January 2005 - 10:43 AM.

[Loomis]

Best-selling thrillers have moved on, and we live in a world where anything that did have that languid Fleet Street drawl won't sell. If someone did actually manage to write another Bond novel that was set in the 60s and *perfectly* recreated Fleming - it would flop. Most people have not read Fleming's books. Why aren't they best-sellers every time they're reprinted? It's partly because people feel they know them already from the films - but it's also because they've dated. They are, by today's standards, too leisurely, too old-fashioned, too sophisticated and so on. Thrillers now increasingly resemble computer games and films. Plentiful explosions, car chases on ice, sniper rifles and balaclavas.

I don't agree that a YOLT-type book with that languid Fleet Street drawl wouldn't sell. Sure, it almost certainly wouldn't do "Splinter Cell"-type business, but surely there's always a market for things that are never going to achieve amazing sales but have their fans nonetheless? I mean, you can pop into HMV or wherever, and browse the DVD shelves, and you're not only able to buy titles like THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING and the STAR WARS box set, you can buy films by people like Mizoguchi, Ozu and Satyajit Ray. If a Benson can shift a few thousand copies (nothing by Tom Clancy or Stephen King standards) and put a smile on the faces of Benson's employers, why should we assume that an adult, sophisticated, etc. Bond novel couldn't do likewise? (As for who'd write such a book, well, that's a separate issue, which we've touched on already in this thread.)

And the Flemings do sell - if they didn't, I'm sure they wouldn't keep republishing them so regularly. Also, young people and people who know Bond only through the films do buy them - sometimes. I was in a bookshop once with a friend (and we hadn't been discussing Bond) who was looking at the crime or thriller section or wherever the Flemings were, and he said: "You know, I've seen all the Bond films, but I've never actually read any of the novels." Whereupon, he picked up and bought "Dr No". (Okay, this guy was well into his 30s, and therefore maybe not as "young" as all that, but I think you may be underestimating Fleming's continued commercial pulling power.)

[spynovelfan]

Well, okay, it's possible that brilliantly executed Fleming-style continuations would sell in moderate numbers. But, yes, who would write them? Someone who is capable of pulling off a feat that a successful thriller writer - Gardner - couldn't, and write something adult, sophisticated, intelligent, and with that post-casino fug... It's quite a job to pull off, isn't it? The McCrums of the world already write articles on the pointlessness of trying to follow Fleming. Put it in period and really give it a go, and you're really going to have to do it exceedingly well not to be pulled apart. And in that game, the reviews *would* matter. If the reviewers say 'It tries to emulate Fleming's languid Fleet Street drawl, but the whole thing is a misconceived mess that doesn't have half the flair or vigour of the originals' you might not even have a moderate success. Presuming it can be done, though, we're talking about a really brilliant writer. What's in it for them? If they can do that, they can write their own series and make a lot more. See Martin Cruz Smith, Alan Furst, Robert Wilson...

Edited by spynovelfan, 21 January 2005 - 01:16 PM.

[Catspaw]

Spynovelfan said:

"Someone in this thread made the comment that whoever is the Bond continuation author should want their name on the cover, because they'll be the one that all the fans are ripping apart for having Bond wear Yves Saint Laurent suits, or whatever."

That was me. I said a writer should want their name on the work, but not because of the fan reaction. I come at this as a creative and someone whose role is to provide advice and solutions for my clients. For most of the writers I know, they do the same thing. I was making the point that professional pride should be well developed in any creative professional, and the willingness to stand beside the work keeps a creative accountable and focussed on the responsibility they have to the process. If you don't have that, well it really is only work for hire, you are only an employee, and that's not a position of growth. There's nothing wrong with doing the meat and potatoes kind of assignment. You have to move through that to get better assignments, to build your name. Perhaps being a hired writer is what you want to be doing. I would also argue that not every star writer is worthy of the praise they get. Often a basic talent is backed up by superior marketing and business ability.

Many great novel writers don't get the attention they deserve, or get lost as we continue to move towards a purely visual culture. The current realities of books as a stepping stone to bigger dollar projects like movies, or conversely a book being used as only one facet of marketing plan diminishes the value we put on the written word. Many business people will continue to wish to have people be workers as opposed to thinkers because it suits their interests. A worker is easy to control because the power is not in their grasp. Quality of work only diminishes in this kind of relationship.

Further to the idea of a Clancy-style marketing plan, once you go down this path there is no turning back. Is James Bond merely a commodity? Doing this saturates the market, so will it peak and then fall off? What does this add to the James Bond identity?

I argue this would only diminish the brand. Brand is not the marketing plan. It's not the logo. It's not the products you put out. Brand is the relationship between the person producing the work and the audience which receives the work. It is an act of communication. And you have to consider you audience's wants and needs. Once a brand relationship is well established, it's part of your life. But if the producer radically changes what they offer their audience, they run the risk of destroying whatever good they may have built up over a period of time. I believe there is still a literariness to Bond which would be destroyed. While Fleming did it for the money, his work was appreciated on a level beyond this. The Playboy excerpts were events in a magazine (beyond the sex) that was known for its quality of writing and art direction. Could you imagine any of the Clancy brandettes being given this treatment? Clancy himself, perhaps, but not the pulp knockoff.

I think IFP made a correct decision to do the continuation novels in the way they did them. Regardless of the flaws people may have perceived in these books, they took the character seriously and did not violate (IMO) what had come before them. From a business perspective, that's all they had to do. The Fleming books continue to sell. Not in large numbers, not in movie numbers, but they sell. Printing after printing I can go into the bookstore and find a few Flemings. Part of current marketing theory is that you need to have new product to show the existing product is still viable. If you don't it becomes vintage or dated, not of the now and they're viewed differently by booksellers. So you leverage the Fleming books by keeping a new one in print. With movies, games and other products for Bond, a current novel is a good part of IFP's business model. "Look, they're paying attention. Look, they're still going. Look, they remember what this business was built upon."

The new juvenile book is a bit odd. Certainly, there was the James Bond Jr. cartoon series, but it didn't supplant the books or movies. This move smacks of a marketing guy telling IFP that Harry Potter is huge and they should pursue this market because of the dollars being spread around there. However, the thing often overlooked is that Harry Potter is Harry Potter because that's how it was conceived. There's authenticity. Any reworking of Bond to fit this market will be seen as such, no matter how good Higson's writing is. (I guess I'm going to have to read it now.)

Is backing off from the adult market a wise move? Perhaps if the continuation novels became a dead fish in terms of declining sales, well you might have to back off from that market for a while. Overall, sustainability is more important than a surge of huge numbers. Sustainability builds brand loyalty, and in the long run more rewarding financially and culturally than the next big thing that becomes last year's big thing. You can't sell last year's big thing at any price.

Spreading Bond across a number of pulp books would dissolve the brand's core identity and remove it from the place it occupies in the literary world.

[marktmurphy]

Interesting points, Catspaw. I must say I agree with your definition of Bond as a very high class version of a pulp concept.

Personally I'd still like to see a limited run of novellas in the style Telosprint- very high quality expensive books by a series of famous writers. No, these wouldn't be for the mass market, but Bond isn't anymore. The young Bond is a clever way to go for big sales, but we all know what we really want. Unfortunately I'm not sure anyone else wants Bond novels like we do- so why not short books by big names as Telos publish?

Here's a thread I started on the subject: http://debrief.comma...topic=13832&hl=

[spynovelfan]

Lots of interesting ideas, Catspaw. To them, then.

I was making the point that professional pride should be well developed in any creative professional, and the willingness to stand beside the work keeps a creative accountable and focussed on the responsibility they have to the process.

How do you explain Kingsley Amis writing a Bond novel under another name, then? He didn't stand by his work - was Colonel Sun not creatively accountable? More pertinently, has Raymond Benson somehow lost his professional pride between writing the Bond continuations and penning the Splinter Cell novel? I suspect he's probably got quite a bit of his pride back with that job.

I have no idea what clients you have or how you consult them, but this doesn't sound like any writers I know, including myself. I have plenty of pride in my work. That's one reason I wouldn't accept the Bond gig as it has been, ie with my name on it (talking hypothetically, naturally). That doesn't mean nobody will ever know I did it, though. Professional pride, for me, is doing the best I can do and being paid the proper price for it. Sure, credit would be nice - but as the brand stands now, the credit isn't worth taking. The job could still be worth doing, though. Not just the paycheck - there can be pride in work, for the sake of it, without credit.

If you don't have that, well it really is only work for hire, you are only an employee, and that's not a position of growth.

All published writers *are* employees, working for hire, and it's a delusion to think otherwise. Publishing is a business. It is a position to grow from, though. As a young, struggling writer, Martin Cruz Smith wrote spy thrillers, Westerns and other pulp novels for fixed fees on short deadlines, anonymously or under pseudonyms. It taught him a lot, and he worked his way up, and eventually became the critically acclaimed and commercially successful novelist he is today. I've talked to him about his early years, and he's grateful for the money they gave him to feed his family, and the lessons they taught him about writing.

There's nothing wrong with doing the meat and potatoes kind of assignment. You have to move through that to get better assignments, to build your name.

I think this can happen even if you don't have your name on the books. Just because the reader doesn't know who wrote it, doesn't mean the publisher doesn't. Benson will have a lot more clout in the publishing world after penning two NYT bestsellers. Just as he used the Bond assignment to build his name - which presumably brought him to the attention of the Splinter Cell people - he will use the SC gigs to build his name. It proves he knows how to deliver books that sell. That is important to publishers. A few years down the line, they may succeed in building him into his own brand, and we'll have books called 'Raymond Benson's...' whatever.

Perhaps being a hired writer is what you want to be doing.

Me? Not especially, no. I'm not putting myself forward to write these things. It's an idea of how IFP could get the Bond books back on track.

I would also argue that not every star writer is worthy of the praise they get. Often a basic talent is backed up by superior marketing and business ability.

Well, that I would agree with.

Many great novel writers don't get the attention they deserve, or get lost as we continue to move towards a purely visual culture.

That, too. But if you want to run a business, you run it in the culture that exists, not the one you wish still existed.

Many business people will continue to wish to have people be workers as opposed to thinkers because it suits their interests. A worker is easy to control because the power is not in their grasp. Quality of work only diminishes in this kind of relationship.

Publishers are business people, and they are primarily interested in whether or not a writer can sell books. They always have been. Even in Ian Fleming's day.

Further to the idea of a Clancy-style marketing plan, once you go down this path there is no turning back. Is James Bond merely a commodity? Doing this saturates the market, so will it peak and then fall off? What does this add to the James Bond identity?

It admittedly wouldn't add a hell of a lot. That's part of the beauty of it. You make maximum use of the brand with minimum risk to damaging the heritage. If it goes wrong, it's a financial mistake, but there's no long-term damage to the core of the brand, the character of James Bond. It was just that odd idea IFP had to do books on the double-0 agents. If it goes right, you can add a lot to the brand and a little to Bond. Fill in a few gaps in the books, discreetly. Or at least suggest what may have happened. Perhaps Mary Goodnight married 005.

I argue this would only diminish the brand. Brand is not the marketing plan. It's not the logo. It's not the products you put out. Brand is the relationship between the person producing the work and the audience which receives the work.

There hasn't been an audience for this work, to speak of, for a good many years. So the brand is in trouble. So how to fix that.

It is an act of communication. And you have to consider you audience's wants and needs.

Indeed. My theory is that the audience's wants and needs are different from what they've been offered. I think the audience wants stuff a little more like the book Benson has just written. They want lots of them, too.

I believe there is still a literariness to Bond which would be destroyed. While Fleming did it for the money, his work was appreciated on a level beyond this. The Playboy excerpts were events in a magazine (beyond the sex) that was known for its quality of writing and art direction. Could you imagine any of the Clancy brandettes being given this treatment? Clancy himself, perhaps, but not the pulp knockoff.

Was Benson's Playboy story an event, though? Not really. So why do you thinkk there is still a 'literariness' there. Very few people are even aware that continuations exist. And aren't you rather forgetting the films? Does anyone really care who wrote them, and wasn't the last half of Die Another Day quite a distance from Fleming's books? The audience seem to want that brand. Has it damaged Fleming's brand? Hardly.

I think IFP made a correct decision to do the continuation novels in the way they did them. Regardless of the flaws people may have perceived in these books, they took the character seriously and did not violate (IMO) what had come before them.

Beg to differ. John Gardner's books massively violated what came before. He replaced Q with Q'ute. In some of the books, the protagonist is plainly not James Bond, but an entirely different character using that name. I don't think Gardner took the character seriously *at all*.

From a business perspective, that's all they had to do.

But if they did that, and that's all they had to do - why have they not been more commercially successful?

So you leverage the Fleming books by keeping a new one in print. With movies, games and other products for Bond, a current novel is a good part of IFP's business model. "Look, they're paying attention. Look, they're still going. Look, they remember what this business was built upon."

But they've suspended the adult continuations. I thought you were defending IFP's current thinking on this.

Overall, sustainability is more important than a surge of huge numbers. Sustainability builds brand loyalty, and in the long run more rewarding financially and culturally than the next big thing that becomes last year's big thing. You can't sell last year's big thing at any price.

I think the James Bond continuation books are the year before last year's big thing. And they haven't really been selling, at any price. I don't think they've been culturally rewarding since Colonel Sun - the culture is unaware they exist - and only mildly financially rewarding since Gardner's fifth book. I think they could be extremely financially rewarding, and possibly much more culturally rewarding, too. It wouldn't be the culture of the 1950s, though - it would be today's culture. I get the sense you feel it's largely an empty culture, increasingly visual and uncreative and the rest. I feel the same sometimes. But it's not. We're just getting old, and find it harder to see the wood for the trees. The IFP is the same. But you can be a snob and lose money and watch the weeds grow round a great literary franchise as ghouls rob the grave - or you can buckle up and get down in the dirt and beat them at their own game. To mix several clich

Edited by spynovelfan, 22 January 2005 - 11:22 PM.

[spynovelfan]

Just thought I'd resurrect this opinionated and contentious thread (oh, okay, it was me being opinionated and contentious), as I saw the following:

'Rumours are that IFP will be unveiling a new adult series of James Bond books, but unlike previous continuation authors John Gardner and Raymond Benson, the timeless character will be put back into his original late 1950's/early 1960's setting, rather than the modern day.'

http://www.mi6.co.uk...php?itemid=2212

Could it be that some of the ideas outlined in this thread might actually happen?

[Trident]

Hey! If they'd really do period storys this time, I'd love it.
If only for the sheer pleasure of reading about Bond in his own time, so to say. I think it could turn out marvelous!

BTW: When I bought Gardners "Death Is Forever" paperback edition in 1993 (I can't believe it. Is it really that long ago?) there was a tag line to the bottom of the cover reading
: A CLASSIC JAMES BOND ADVENTURE.

I was briefly wondering, if Gardner had set his story in the sixties, as "CLASSIC" to me meant a period story. No such luck. In fact, I don't even recall the story itself apart from something with a french TGV and a scene in Venice. I found it dull and forgot the thing the moment I put it down. Making it period probably wouldn't have helped much.

Edited by Trident, 11 April 2005 - 03:07 PM.

[David Schofield]

Hey! If they'd really do period storys this time, I'd love it.
If only for the sheer pleasure of reading about Bond in his own time, so to say. I think it could turn out marvelous!

BTW: When I bought Gardners "Death Is Forever" paperback edition in 1993 (I can't believe it. Is it really that long ago?) there was a tag line to the bottom of the cover reading
: A CLASSIC JAMES BOND ADVENTURE.

I was briefly wondering, if Gardner had set his story in the sixties, as "CLASSIC" to me meant a period story. No such luck. In fact, I don't even recall the story itself apart from something with a french TGV and a scene in Venice. I found it dull and forgot the thing the moment I put it down. Making it period probably wouldn't have helped much.

Yes, I think there is little doubt that, regardless of the story quality, had Gardner written period adventures - even Colonel Sun-period sequels - he would have been better received. Ditto Benson.

There is something "unFleming" and Brosnanesque about an 80s/90s Bond which jars, to me.

[Trident]

That's exactly what I think. Bond is very much a child of his time, the fities and sixties. Many things in this two decades have been less difficult to understand. The west itself was per difinitionem the "good" side and Vietnam, Nixon, Irangate and so on have not yet happened in his world. Bonds cause was always a just one and no reader could deny this. And his lifestyle was the one every one in these times seemed to like and to crave.

But since then the world has changed drastically and an "authentic" (that means faithfull to Fleming) Bond has become the "cold war relic" of Dench's M in "GOLDENEYE". Updating Bond to modern life is essentially a "mission impossible" as nowadays there is hardly any space left for the things we (or at any rate I) love Bond for. A depressive part time alcoholic, addict to cigarettes, gambling and promiscuity is hard to imagine in a government outfit such as the secret service. Much less as a high profile member of an elite branch of said service. Today such an operative would have to be described completely different from Bond.

Gardner was trying to go both ways (at least for the first three books) in letting Bond smoke and drink less, drive a "sensible" car and pointing out that Bond had a daily work-out rutine in order to stay fit and ready for action. In later books these small details were almost completely forgotten and the emphasis was very much on high-tech equipment and the dreaded tripple crosses Gardner was so fond of. The person Bond was disappeared (IMHO) almost completely. And the use of an inheritance from a "forgotten" uncle, the purchase of a Bentley Mulsanne Turbo, a "steady" girlfriend with a downright dreadful name didn't help one little bit. There was something missing in those days and it was not only a proper storyline. It was the main reason the books were written in the first place. To tell further adventures of Bond, James Bond.

Benson on the other hand seemed eager to go back to the roots of the original creation of Fleming, trying to bring back a feeling that has long since been missing. But he too could not deny the changes in society, politics and lifestyle that took place since TMWTGG or CS. To bridge this gap, Benson had to lean more to the EON/cinema Bond not all fans are happy with. That too seems to be a reason his works often resemble a script for a movie. I believe, Benson himself mentioned somewhere the possibility of period books set in the sixties. Such works might have been the ultimate answer to the dilemma not just Benson but all continuation writers have to face sooner or later.

Maybe it is partially due to this aspect that IFP authorised the books of Higson to be set in the thirties. From the point of view of a publisher such a move is not very clever for a "childrens book", as the works are to be baptised. Set seventy years previous to the time the actual readers live in is a dangerous risk for a book with a target readership ranging from 11 to, say 16. But it seems to be a success all the same.

[David Schofield]

That's exactly what I think. Bond is very much a child of his time, the fities and sixties. Many things in this two decades have been less difficult to understand. The west itself was per difinitionem the "good" side and Vietnam, Nixon, Irangate and so on have not yet happened in his world. Bonds cause was always a just one and no reader could deny this. And his lifestyle was the one every one in these times seemed to like and to crave.

But since then the world has changed drastically and an "authentic" (that means faithfull to Fleming) Bond has become the "cold war relic" of Dench's M in "GOLDENEYE". Updating Bond to modern life is essentially a "mission impossible" as nowadays there is hardly any space left for the things we (or at any rate I) love Bond for. A depressive part time alcoholic, addict to cigarettes, gambling and promiscuity is hard to imagine in a government outfit such as the secret service. Much less as a high profile member of an elite branch of said service. Today such an operative would have to be described completely different from Bond.

Gardner was trying to go both ways (at least for the first three books) in letting Bond smoke and drink less, drive a "sensible" car and pointing out that Bond had a daily work-out rutine in order to stay fit and ready for action. In later books these small details were almost completely forgotten and the emphasis was very much on high-tech equipment and the dreaded tripple crosses Gardner was so fond of. The person Bond was disappeared (IMHO) almost completely. And the use of an inheritance from a "forgotten" uncle, the purchase of a Bentley Mulsanne Turbo, a "steady" girlfriend with a downright dreadful name didn't help one little bit. There was something missing in those days and it was not only a proper storyline. It was the main reason the books were written in the first place. To tell further adventures of Bond, James Bond. 

Benson on the other hand seemed eager to go back to the roots of the original creation of Fleming, trying to bring back a feeling that has long since been missing. But he too could not deny the changes in society, politics and lifestyle that took place since TMWTGG or CS. To bridge this gap, Benson had to lean more to the EON/cinema Bond not all fans are happy with. That too seems to be a reason his works often resemble a script for a movie. I believe, Benson himself mentioned somewhere the possibility of period books set in the sixties. Such works might have been the ultimate answer to the dilemma not just Benson but all continuation writers have to face sooner or later.

Maybe it is partially due to this aspect that IFP authorised the books of Higson to be set in the thirties. From the point of view of a publisher such a move is not very clever for a "childrens book", as the works are to be baptised. Set seventy years previous to the time the actual readers live in is a dangerous risk for a book with a target readership ranging from 11 to, say 16. But it seems to be a success all the same.

All you have said pretty much sums up my feelings. An up to date Bond, though, literally portayed as the "relic of the cold war", smoking, boozing, living high and driving ridiculously expensive cars - without the compromise Gardner and Benson felt obliged to introduce - now THAT would be interesting, no?

[spynovelfan]

It could be, David, but it also has its problems. The advantage of setting continuations in the 50s and 60s is also that you don't have the age problem. Gardner and Benson had to compromise or we'd start asking how this guy hadn't been sacked - and shouldn;'t he be in his eighties by now? You might be able to do it for one or two books, but it's hardly sustainable.

Nice post, Trident. But I disagree that Bond was a child of his times. Even in the 60s, the Bond books felt like they were from at least 10 years previously. Where's the drugs or rock'n'roll in Fleming's books? *That* was the 'time' by the later books. Bond lives in a very old-fashioned and ordered version of the 50s and 60s, surely - Fleming's vision of it. It's much more akin to the 30s and 40s, the time of John Buchan and Bulldog Drummond. I agree that in Fleming's books one over-riding premise is that England is on the side of good, and a major world power to boot. But the reality was quite different. The Empire was over then, and the Americans by far the greater force in every sense, including the intelligence arena. And though Vietnam had not yet happened, I could give you several examples when it's arguable Britain was by definition on the side of good, as you put it. A starting place might be the recent documents revealing the treatment of Mau Mau prisoners in Kenya. Or that Britain invented the concentration camp in the Boer wars. Or that many members of the British establishment were fascist and Nazi sympathisers right up to - and in some cases during and after - World War Two. Or Churchill's gassing of the Kurds. Or the War of the Running Dogs. The Opium Wars. India. Bear in mind, also, that for the entirety of Fleming's books, MI6 was in fact penetrated to a very high level by the Russians.

You said: "Bonds cause was always a just one and no reader could deny this." When reading the books, perhaps - you get swept along. But when you put the book down and pick another one up, I'm not so sure Bond's cause was as clearly just as you're making out. Painting one's enemies as evil and oneself just makes for easier-to-read fiction and better propaganda. It's rarely the truth. That was just as true in Fleming's time as it is today.

Edited by spynovelfan, 14 April 2005 - 08:41 AM.

[David Schofield]

It could be, David, but it also has its problems. The advantage of setting continuations in the 50s and 60s is also that you don't have the age problem. Gardner and Benson had to compromise or we'd start asking how this guy hadn't been sacked - and shouldn;'t he be in  his eighties by now? You might be able to do it for one or two books, but it's hardly sustainable.

Nice post, Trident. But I disagree that Bond was a child of his times. Even in the 60s, the Bond books felt like they were from at least 10 years previously. Where's the drugs or rock'n'roll in Fleming's books? *That* was the 'time' by the later books. Bond lives in a very old-fashioned and ordered version of the 50s and 60s, surely - Fleming's vision of it. It's much more akin to the 30s and 40s, the time of John Buchan and Bulldog Drummond. I agree that in Fleming's books one over-riding premise is that England is on the side of good, and a major world power to boot. But the reality was quite different. The Empire was over then, and the Americans by far the greater force in every sense, including the intelligence arena. And though Vietnam had not yet happened, I could give you several examples when it's arguable Britain was by definition on the side of good, as you put it. A starting place might be the recent documents revealing the treatment of Mau Mau prisoners in Kenya. Or that Britain invented the concentration camp in the Boer wars. Or that many members of the British establishment were fascist and Nazi sympathisers right up to - and in some cases during and after - World War Two. Or Churchill's gassing of the Kurds. Or the War of the Running Dogs. The Opium Wars. India. Bear in mind, also, that for the entirety of Fleming's books, MI6 was in fact penetrated to a very high level by the Russians.

You said: "Bonds cause was always a just one and no reader could deny this." When reading the books, perhaps - you get swept along. But when you put the book down and pick another one up, I'm not so sure Bond's cause was as clearly just as you're making out. Painting one's enemies as evil and oneself just makes for easier-to-read fiction and better propaganda. It's rarely the truth. That was just as true in Fleming's time as it is today.

As usual, well reasoned and well exemplified, Spy.

However, I think the notion of the 50s and early 60s as simpler times than the later 60s and 70s, as an image at least, still holds good. Further, Bond (and Fleming) were surely moral and social products of that time rather than the more uptight Drummond/Buchan age? And remember, Fleming was trying to promote this image (largely because he believed in the "never had it so good" philosophy?), together with trying to maintain the idea of Britain as a major power. Was Britain still "punching above its weight" internationally in the 50s as opposed to being seriously economically and politically knackered in the late 60s and 70s? Above all Bond (and Fleming if one wishes to accept that Bond expressed Fleming believes verbatim) was a loyal British agent serving his government: regardless of Britain's historical moral transgressions, is Bond likely to have accepted them? I presume to serve your country as a trained assassin a certain moral blinkeredness is required, even now?

As to my own point about a typically 50s James Bond in the 00s, wouldn't it just be nice to see the genuine conflict that brought about? If one can forget the age problem, wouldn't the conflict between a truely sexist Bond (say in his 40s) be fascinating compared with today's society, rather than the watered down compromise Bond (ie not Fleming's) that Gardner and Benson felt obliged to introduce.

[spynovelfan]

However, I think the notion of the 50s and early 60s as simpler times than the later 60s and 70s, as an image at least, still holds good. Further, Bond (and Fleming) were surely moral and social products of that time rather than the more uptight Drummond/Buchan age?

Well, of course Bond and Fleming were moral and social products (scary!) of their time. Nobody can live out of their own time. But if you compare the Fleming books to other culture of the time - including spy fiction - they're much more akin to Sapper and Buchan (and even earlier writeres like Oppenheim and LeQueux) than they are to stuff done in the late 50s and early 60s. Bond is a member of the British establishment, of course, so one wouldn't expect him to listen to the Blossom Toes or Pink Floyd. But the Ink Spots? His tastes and ideas are very much of the late 40s and early 50s. The 60s aren't really in Fleming's books at all, even the ones written in the 60s. The plots may have been from the day after tomorrow - the settings and the characters and the prose style and language were largely from the day before yesterday. You don't even need to read outlandish Bond clones featuring sexy birds and soft drugs to get this feeling. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, THE IPCRESS FILE and THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD were all published within a year of each other, 1962/3. Compare the language of them - Deighton is of the time, Le Carre a few years behind it, and Fleming's story could have been written in the late 40s or early 50s. Compare the ideas - the protagonists of the other two are both morally ambivalent about their work, despite them coming before Vietnam and so on. Bond is rarely ambivalent, as you point out.

And remember, Fleming was trying to promote this image (largely because he believed in the "never had it so good" philosophy?), together with trying to maintain the idea of Britain as a major power.

Well, yes. I was trying to say that. Fleming may have tried to make us believe that Bond was working for a just cause. But the idea that it *was* any more just than it would have been ten or twenty years later is deeply flawed.

Was Britain still "punching above its weight" internationally in the 50s as opposed to being seriously economically and politically knackered in the late 60s and 70s?

It wasn't in such dire straits financially, and the end of the 60s and early 70s were indeed a low point politically. But it wasn't really punching above its weight in my opinion, no. People in the establishment thought they were - just as Fleming did - but they were deluding themselves. The Americans were running the show (and the Russians, of course, who had at least six agents in the upper echelopns of the British establishment when Fleming started writing CASINO ROYALE).

Above all Bond (and Fleming if one wishes to accept that Bond expressed Fleming believes verbatim) was a loyal British agent serving his government: regardless of Britain's historical moral transgressions, is Bond likely to have accepted them?

No. My point was that it was no different then than it has been since or is now. The idea that it was a more innocent time because Vietnam and Iraq hadn't happened is a myth. If Bond had served in WW2, Malaya, Vietnam or Iraq he'd have had the same attitude. He'd have believed he was working for a just cause. Fleming's novels were, to an extent, propaganda. Bond is a loyal, extremely accomplished agent who never fails to save the world. In that respect, he was no different from the heroes of Russian spy novels.

As to my own point about a typically 50s James Bond in the 00s, wouldn't it just be nice to see the genuine conflict that brought about? If one can forget the age problem, wouldn't the conflict between a truely sexist Bond (say in his 40s) be fascinating compared with today's society, rather than the watered down compromise Bond (ie not Fleming's) that Gardner and Benson felt obliged to introduce.

I think it could be fascinating for a bit, but that it would wear off quite quickly. Unless it was done really brilliantly, of course. But people quite liked the idea of Bond showing his emotions in the films. Look how rapidly that became wearing. I think plots about Bond nearly being sacked for sexual harrassment or raging about his martinis being taken away from him would be very hard to sustain. However, I still think there would be room to explore that kind of thing in period continuations and not make heavy weather of it. Witness Shrublands.

Edited by spynovelfan, 14 April 2005 - 10:15 AM.

[David Schofield]

Well, of course Bond and Fleming were moral and social products (scary!) of their time. Nobody can live out of their own time. But if you compare the Fleming books to other culture of the time - including spy fiction - they're much more akin to Sapper and Buchan than they are to stuff done in the late 50s and early 60s. Bond is a member of the British establishment, of course, so one wouldn't expect him to listen to the Blossom Toes or Pink Floyd. But the Ink Spots? His tastes and ideas are very much of the late 40s and early 50s. The 60s aren't really in Fleming's books at all, even the ones written in the 60s. The plots may have been from the day after tomorrow - the setting and characters were largely fromthe day before yesterday. You don't even need to read outlandish Bond clones with sexy birds in to get this feeling. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, THE IPCRESS FILE and THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD were all published within a year of each other, 1962/3. Compare the language of them - Deighton is of the time, Le Carre a few years behind it, and Fleming's story could have been written in the 30s. Compare the ideas - the protagonists of the other two are both morally ambivalent about their work, despite them comign before Vietnam and so on. Bond is rarely ambivalent, as you point out.


I agree that the Fleming books of the 60's (remember the last one was written in early 64) don't reflect much of a change in attitude from the 50s. But then, did British society as a whole, particularly the class Fleming came from? Was Britain prior to the Beatles radically different from the 50s? There was the kitchen sink, angry young man brigade of writer, to which Le Carre and Deighton added their spy stories but weren't these essentially new-middle and working class writers; Fleming was, as you've stated, a product of the Establishment and the notion of radical change generally abhorent. However, what would have been fascinating is the jaded Bond/Fleming post YOLT attitude towards flower-power and Vietnam, 68 student riots, etc.