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

Will Continuation Bond Author Have to Go Through This?


32 replies to this topic

#1 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 16 May 2007 - 08:03 PM

Rhett, Scarlett and Friends Prepare For Yet Another Encore by MOTOKO RICH, NY Times 16.05.2007

Interesting piece.

What fetters would IFP place on the new adult Bond author?
M can't be a traitor?
Bond can't be [insert special interest group most annoying to Daily Mail/Express reader here]
Bond can't have sex with [insert special interest group most annoying to Daily Mail/Express reader here]

What rules do you think will be imposed on C-Bond Author?

Nigel Smith brought James Bond his coffee as 007 was ploughing through that morning's SIGINT. Upon taking a sip, Bond frowned: "This isn't my Jamaican Blue Mountain, Nigel. Has 008 been poncing my supply again?"

"No, sir, actually a missive from the MicroGlobe One Oversight Committee. Fair Trade only now."

Ever since M had come out of the closet and continued a public relationship with a female assistant to the Nigerian High Commission (well, that short hair had always been a bit butch), things had certainly changed. Was the Service being compromised? Bond certainly thought so but it made his job easier. He had to report to his controller by satellite squirt in the afternoon. He hoped Al-Zaquaari in Tehran would be there to get his signal.


#2 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 16 May 2007 - 08:15 PM

My guess is aside from telling the author what time period to set it in (which may be necessary to tie in with future plans), IFP puts no constrictions on the C author whatsoever, especially as he (or she?) is a major name. Give them freedom to do their own thing. If there's something that needs to be changed, do it at the manuscript stage. This is my guess, at least.

Interesting article, ACE. Thanks.

#3 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 May 2007 - 06:39 AM

"No, sir, actually a missive from the MicroGlobe One Oversight Committee. Fair Trade only now."



LOOOL! :cooltongue:

Great find, ACE. Very interesting. I've been wondering too, what restrictions there would be.

My guess is aside from telling the author what time period to set it in (which may be necessary to tie in with future plans), IFP puts no constrictions on the C author whatsoever, especially as he (or she?) is a major name. Give them freedom to do their own thing. If there's something that needs to be changed, do it at the manuscript stage. This is my guess, at least.




I sincerely hope you're right there, zencat. Provided it's somebody who really cares for Bond. If not, no restrictions at all might prove a bad idea. For example, with Gardner I'd have whished for more restrictions at times. OTOH, the less a writer is fenced in by IFP the higher the chances for a really original and outstanding piece. Honestly, I don't really know what to prefer regarding such restrictions. It's a case of eating the cake and yet still have it.

That said, I'm sure there are at least some basic rules that mustn't be broken.

Bond won't have a sudden and belated coming-out as:

-traitor

-communist

-religious fanatic

-punk rock fan

-microbiotic nutrition follower


Bond most probably won't come across one of his own (hypothetic) children.

Bond will still be connected in some way with the Secret Service and/or will endure some kind of adventure therefore (and not a 500 pages divorce-drama with a former secretary/a stewardess/a geisha).

#4 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 08:39 AM

Loved the satire, ACE - perhaps you should write up something longer. A Bond Strikes Camp for the new millenium?

I suspect they take everything on a case-by-case basis. They have to submit synopses and clear the plotlines anyway, and if there's something controversial it would be discussed, I'm sure. But Bond losing his marbles, his memory, being brainwashed by the Russians - these might all on the face of it seem like no-nos, but they were high-points in Fleming's books. 'What, you mean Bond doesn't even appear for the first half of the novel?' Case by case basis, I'm sure: the security is the judgement of the board. They had an off day when they let Q'ute in. :cooltongue:

#5 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 08:50 AM

Bond most probably won't come across one of his own (hypothetic) children.


Benson actually did this, although apparently Gardner was specifically prohibited from using Bond's son or daughter as a character - I remember an interview in which he said fans used to write to him asking why he didn't do it and he'd reply that he wasn't allowed to.

Benson did it in a short story. I wonder whether he'd have had permission to do so in a novel.

#6 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 May 2007 - 09:12 AM

Loved the little satire, ACE - perhaps you should write up something longer. A Bond Strikes Camp for the new millenium?

I suspect they take everything on a case-by-case basis. They have to submit synopses and clear the plotlines anyway, and if there's something controversial it would be discussed, I'm sure. But Bond losing his marbles, his memory, being brainwashed by the Russians - these might all on the face of it seem like no-nos, but they were high-points in Fleming's books. 'What, you mean Bond doesn't even appear for the first half of the novel?' Case by case basis, I'm sure: the security is the judgement of the board. They had an off day when they let Q'ute in. :cooltongue:


Yes, I just thought about some of these things. In fact, Fleming was often very, very good when he experimented with Bond and did away with some sacred cows. And I for one would like to see Bond explore previously undiscovered regions. Problem is, IMHO, while doing so it's easy to lose focus on Bond. My problem with many continuations was that Bond seemed to be absent not only for the first half but sometimes for the entire novels. And the parts that concerned itself not with Bond weren't that readable in the bargain.

When Fleming did FRWL, the first half was as readable, gripping, thrilling and ingenious as his other books and sometimes even more so. And the second half, dealing with Bond, Bond was simply there, living through one of his best adventures with lots of colourful atmosphere, dangers and a fierce, violent fight at the climax as well as an uncertain open end. Unfortunately, no continuation succeeded in a similar way with mixing up the Bond ingredients up to now. I honestly wish it would happen with the Centenary.

#7 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 May 2007 - 09:24 AM

Bond most probably won't come across one of his own (hypothetic) children.


Benson actually did this, although apparently Gardner was specifically prohibited from using Bond's son or daughter as a character - I remember an interview in which he said fans used to write to him asking why he didn't do it and he'd reply that he wasn't allowed to.

Benson did it in a short story. I wonder whether he'd have had permission to do so in a novel.


Yes, 'A Blast From The Past'. Frankly, I was a little bit underwhelmed because his son was so quickly done away with. Since YOLT no single word about Bond's child. All of a sudden it turns out to be a grown son (in his twentys if I recall correctly), his mother deceased by cancer, living in NY. And killed half a page after we learned that. Might as well have been left entirely to fandom speculation, IMO. Likewise, we learn next to nothing about Irma Bunt's exploits since YOLT. While I really liked the basic idea of ABFTP, I feel it would have made great stuff for an entire novel instead a short short story.

Edited by Trident, 18 May 2007 - 09:25 AM.


#8 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 09:58 AM

Yes, I just thought about some of these things. In fact, Fleming was often very, very good when he experimented with Bond and did away with some sacred cows. And I for one would like to see Bond explore previously undiscovered regions. Problem is, IMHO, while doing so it's easy to lose focus on Bond. My problem with many continuations was that Bond seemed to be absent not only for the first half but sometimes for the entire novels. And the parts that concerned itself not with Bond weren't that readable in the bargain.

When Fleming did FRWL, the first half was as readable, gripping, thrilling and ingenious as his other books and sometimes even more so. And the second half, dealing with Bond, Bond was simply there, living through one of his best adventures with lots of colourful atmosphere, dangers and a fierce, violent fight at the climax as well as an uncertain open end. Unfortunately, no continuation succeeded in a similar way with mixing up the Bond ingredients up to now. I honestly wish it would happen with the Centenary.


ALl true - but then look at THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, which even Fleming had problems with. I think there was at least one short story of Fleming's that Glidrose felt didn't cut the mustard. Ultimately, have you hired the continuation writer or not? I suppose there is an opt-out in the contracts if they really disagree on it.

I'm pretty sure Benson said he could only use Bond's son on the condition he killed him off in that story. Even a novel might have suggested other spin-offs or possibilities, or jsut raised the profile of this sort of idea to a tricky extent. It's all a bit of a grey area, regarding rights - whose character is a relative of James Bond? How far do you go? To take an example we've just been given, would it be an infringement of copyright for an author to have a head of MI6 who plays cards at Whites? Course not. But what if it's at Blades, which is a Fleming invention, as in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL? Still of course not - it's one line, a neat little tribute, nothing more. But what if it had been more. What if he'd been called M, and featured in other novels?

In the Tintin thread, Loomis asked why Bond has not been merchandised to the same extent as Herge's character. One reason is that the rights to Bond are all over the place: there are essentially two separate fields of action, the literary and cinematic ones, and they are controlled and managed by different people, who meet at some points (novelisations, for instance), but not fully. I think IFP can't have certain things in their novels without affecting the film rights, or raising tricky issues regarding them. At some point before 2073 or whenever the copyright runs out, this may change, and we may see more formal collaboration that has less grey areas.

#9 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 10:48 AM

I agree with most of the posts above regarding the care and restrictions (or lack thereof) placed on a new Bond author.

Firstly, IFP now is very different to the Glidrose of yore. Perhaps because publishing has changed so much over the years. I think ever since Glidrose became IFP, they have been like Danjaq now compared to the 70's and 80's. From what I understand, the handling of merchandizing rights was done in a rather Broadway Danny Rose-ish manner. Of course, it is only recently that the Fleming family have bought back the literary rights to their family's cultural contribution to the world. However, now, both copyright holders seem far more professional, savvy and understanding of the IP they own and have successfully and uniquely continued to exploit.

Charlie Higson says very few fetters have been placed upon him. I think the new Bond author will already be a fan or knowledgeable about litBond. I also think they will be a professional author for whom getting the book right (whatever that means) will be as important for him/her.

James Suzuki does not actually appear in Blast From The Past. He is referred to offstage. That is how Raymond Benson got away with using him. The character rights to Bond and related persons were sold to Danjaq sometime ago (that's why no novels need to be purchased to continue the film series).

I agree that Fleming really twisted and turned Bond's world. However, with the exception of the kidnap of M, no other author has come close. Gardner had some very good ideas: the disbanding of the 00 Section but it's secret retention, the MicroGlobe One oversight committee but he never followed them through or gave rise to their dramatic implication (imagine an unauthorized licence to kill mission being discovered by M's superiors - huge drama there). Raymond Bneson's Doubleshot tried to give Bond a psychological handicap. I think that is because the guardians of the character are scared to treat 007's world as their own and do not want to make irrevocable changes.

As for Bond not being as merchandized as Tin Tin - surely the most significant signifier of merchandize are the fact there are a series of huge films? That is the first product which emanates from the book. Also, the Tin Tin brand has been much more carefully handled - one glance at the Tin Tin shop in Floral St is evidence of this - but in commercial terms, I doubt a single Tin Tin item has the impact of the GoldenEye N64 game. The merchandizing template was set in the Bondmania days in the mid-1960's and despite peaks and troughs, with the revamped Brosnan Bonds, 007 licenses still seem as sought after as ever. Tin Tin merchandize may be superficially more prevalent but in real commericial terms, I think it Bond and Tin Tin would be broadly similar. As brands, they are quite different, and appeal to different demographics to an extent.

Based on IFP's recent output (Young Bond, Moneypenny Diaries, James Bond The Man And His World), I have enormous faith that the new Bond novel will be a carefully and passionately written adventure, true to the spirit and essence of Fleming but above all, a damn good read.

#10 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 11:18 AM

I like the idea of M being found out - of course that should have been done.

I guess what Loomis meant by merchandise is that Bond doesn't currently have as much of the minor accessories you'd expect it to have, and they're not widely available, or available from one place. There has been lots over the years (cologne, even!), but where is the readily available licensed material now: clothing, for example, which Tintin has. The problem, of course, is that apart from there being two universes that aren't entirely in collaboration with each other, the subject matter itself doesn't really lend itself in the same way. An umbrella with Professor Calculus printed on it is fine for kids. A replica Ronson lighter or even Walther PPK clearly cannot be marketed. Tintin is a perpetual adolescent who just punches people occasionally, and as such merchandise can be made on that kind of level. You can buy (very expensive) outfits for babies with Tintin's face on them. You couldn't do the same for Bond! Even if you tried to do clothes for adults, that would fall flat: licenced 'James Bond' shirts go against the ethos: they need to be Turnbull and Asser or whoever. Still, I think it's clear that the biggest series of films in the world is under-exploited in this field. There are dedicated Tintin shops in some cities - the only 007 shop I know of is a trendy club/beachwear boutique in Puerto Banus, southern Spain. :angry: It would be fitting if London, say, had an official shop selling all the books, DVDs, toy cars, figurines, swimming trunks :cooltongue: and everything else connected with Bond. On Bond street, preferably. :lol:

#11 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 11:32 AM

I agree snf,

The product is different. But I count merchandizing as being products ancillary to the books - after all, we are talking about literary characters. Therefore any Bond DVD is a piece of Bond merchandize.

OK, but I get and agree with your point. Remember, Bond as a brand would be diminished if one had fast food tie-ins (I remember the LTK/KFC tie-in - we're gonna get the American market with this one, boys - hmmm) or other brand-destroying links. I recall they used to have smaller licences but I guess they now feel it is better to focus on a few larger, global brands. In the UK, Tin Tin stuff is not that prevalent but I know on the Continent it is far more pervasive.

Yes, I agree Bond should have more of a presence but licensing and the administration of those licences is a complex and fraught business and Danjaq did not have the infrastructure to deal with close brand management.

#12 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 11:37 AM

And, as you say, the films themselves are the biggest form of merchandising there is, and also contain deals within them. Omega even had a line of dialogue in the last one!

I share your hopes for the coming novel.

#13 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 18 May 2007 - 05:13 PM

Bond most probably won't come across one of his own (hypothetic) children.


Benson actually did this, although apparently Gardner was specifically prohibited from using Bond's son or daughter as a character - I remember an interview in which he said fans used to write to him asking why he didn't do it and he'd reply that he wasn't allowed to.

Benson did it in a short story. I wonder whether he'd have had permission to do so in a novel.


Yes, 'A Blast From The Past'. Frankly, I was a little bit underwhelmed because his son was so quickly done away with. Since YOLT no single word about Bond's child. All of a sudden it turns out to be a grown son (in his twentys if I recall correctly), his mother deceased by cancer, living in NY. And killed half a page after we learned that. Might as well have been left entirely to fandom speculation, IMO. Likewise, we learn next to nothing about Irma Bunt's exploits since YOLT. While I really liked the basic idea of ABFTP, I feel it would have made great stuff for an entire novel instead a short short story.


Well a third of the story was cut for space reasons so there could have been more there on the things you've mentioned (I've never seen the full thing). Also, I don't think Benson ever meant for his short stories to be taken seriously so that might be why Glidrose/IFP was okay with the use of Bond's son. It's even seemingly outside Benson's own continuity (whatever you can make of it, anyway).

#14 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 18 May 2007 - 05:39 PM

Re Bond's son from my Benson CBn interview:

[box]Q. James Bond's son, James Suzuki, could have been a franchise character all his own. Did Glidrose

#15 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 05:41 PM

Well a third of the story was cut for space reasons so there could have been more there on the things you've mentioned (I've never seen the full thing). Also, I don't think Benson ever meant for his short stories to be taken seriously so that might be why Glidrose/IFP was okay with the use of Bond's son. It's even seemingly outside Benson's own continuity (whatever you can make of it, anyway).

Yes, good point K1Bond007. Raymond Benson's 007 debut was severely edited, as were some his novels, The Facts Of Death in particular. However, Bond's son, James Suzuki, would still have appeared "offstage" for the legal reasons mentioned earlier. In the short story, Bond's son never actually appears.

#16 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 23 May 2007 - 12:39 PM

Of course what WOULD we fans think if Bond admitted to a little homosexual experimentation during his Eton years/halves (delete as preferable)? After all, he would not be the first to have at that school or in the English public school system. Perhaps that was the reason for his tension with Roland Marquis in "High Time to Kill": maybe Bond was, literaly, his "fag"?

Would we denounce the continuation author immediately? Would we say Fleming's Bond just wouldn't do that (on what evidence)? Would we be so repulsed we stopped reading at that point? Would we say that the continuation author is totally wrong because Fleming's character wouldn't do that sort of thing, as we have when other continuation authors have come up with their own ideas?

Then again, Bond was probably the only one in his dorm at Eton in the 1930s who didn't.... :cooltongue:

#17 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 24 May 2007 - 09:15 AM

Of course what WOULD we fans think if Bond admitted to a little homosexual experimentation during his Eton years/halves (delete as preferable)? After all, he would not be the first to have at that school or in the English public school system. Perhaps that was the reason for his tension with Roland Marquis in "High Time to Kill": maybe Bond was, literaly, his "fag"?

Would we denounce the continuation author immediately? Would we say Fleming's Bond just wouldn't do that (on what evidence)? Would we be so repulsed we stopped reading at that point? Would we say that the continuation author is totally wrong because Fleming's character wouldn't do that sort of thing, as we have when other continuation authors have come up with their own ideas?

Then again, Bond was probably the only one in his dorm at Eton in the 1930s who didn't.... :cooltongue:



Hmmm. Pffffffft. Hmmmmmm.

Really, really difficult question! My gut would almost immediately tell me: No.

But why not?

The only thing I can come up with at the moment would be the (rather weak) explanation that it just doesn't seem fitting to Bond. Which by no means would really prevent him from having had 'experiences' during his school-days.

Earlier on I posted some ideas which I thought would be no-go-fields for the continuation:

Bond won't have a sudden and belated coming-out as:

-traitor

-communist

-religious fanatic

-punk rock fan

-microbiotic nutrition follower


I (deliberately) didn't exclude homosexual experiments of one kind or another. I think it wouldn't be beyond Bond. But I also think he would have hinted at such exploits earlier. To me, Bond is an ultimately non-conformistic character who doesn't pay a whole lot of heed to public opinion. Why would he keep homosexual experiences a secret? Even taking the hostile approach of the 50's/60's towards homosexuality into account, I should have thought Bond would have admitted at least to himself to any such adventures. But no such references show during Fleming's work. There would have been room for the mention of a brief episode on at least two occasions:

-Bond's encounter with Troop regarding the recruiting of intellectuals for the Secret Service and MI 5 in FRWL:

'Oh really', Troop had said with icy calm. 'So you suggest we should staff the organization with longhaired perverts. That's quite an original notion. I thought we were all agreed that homosexuals were about the worst security risk there is. I can't see the Americans handing over many atom secrets to a lot of pansies soaked in scent.'

'All intellectuals aren't homosexual. And many of them are bald. I'm just saying that...'

(From Russia With Love by Ian Fleming; Charter Novel paperback 1987; p.97)


While Troop represents clearly the so called 'public opinion' of the late 50's towards homosexuality (mixing it up entirely with intellectual behaviour/range/preferences and youth/beatnik sub-culture of the times) Bond's point of view seems much more relaxed and matter-of-fact. Although Bond doesn't object to the verdict of homosexuality as a security risk. At any rate, I'd have expected at least a minor reference to it, had Fleming's concept of Bond included homosexual tendencys/experiences.


-Bond's thoughts about Tilly Masterton in GF:

'Bond came to the conclusion that Tilly Masterton was one of those girls whose hormones had got mixed up. He knew the type well and thought they and their male counterparts were a direct consequence of giving votes to women and 'sexual equality'. As a result of fifty years of emancipation, feminine qualities were dying out or being transferred to the males. Pansies of both sexes were everywhere, not yet completely homosexual, but confused, not knowing what they were. The result was a herd of unhappy sexual misfits - barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men to be nannied. He was sorry for them, but he had no time for them.'
(Goldfinger by Ian Fleming; Berkley paperback 1985; p.221-222)

While this is a much more conservative, maybe even reactionary comment, homosexuality isn't condemned in itself if one reads closely. Bond's focus is on people who don't know what they are. Again, if any uncertainties during Bond's youth had bothered him, this would have been the place to voice them (if only to himself). No such mention is made. Bond is captured as a man who exactly knows what he is.

Granted, nothing of the above would really prevent Bond from having had homosexual encounters at Eton (or anytime later or before) and a continuation author writing about it. It's just that IMO it would seem somehow un-Bond. Not un-male or un-healthy or un-natural. Just un-Bond, not really fitting to him.

Of course, one might argue that homosexuality really was much more of a serious item regarding security back in the 50's/60's (and even as lately as the mid-80's as the infamous case of a Bundeswehr General in Germany proved) and that therefore Bond suppressed all memory of his own experience with that regard. Today, having reached a much more open minded approach towards homosexuality in general and homosexual experiments during puberty in particular, it would be possible to mention such events in a Bond novel. But I still would have second thoughts about it.

Edited by Trident, 24 May 2007 - 09:29 AM.


#18 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 09:28 AM

A well argued response, Trident; it was indeed your own list of no-noes which caused me to chuck in homosexuality!

As unpalatable as it may seem to us as Bond fans, the fact that Bond grew up in the sexually-repressed 1930s and at an English boarding school in whose environment such activities were common place, it would seem quite possible Bond had such experiences. And, of course, there is nothing in Fleming which would EXPLICITLY prevent this being true (the Bond-homosexuality references quoted could easily be explained as Bond deliberately blocking out his own experiences/having formed his opinion as a consequence of brief experimentation)...

I do, however, believe that Bond coming out is indeed beyond the pale, though I suspect one or two more "literary" writers might be interested in writing continuation Bond's IF they could play with Bond's sexuality in such a way :cooltongue:

And so much more these days is being admitted than in the 1950s (consider the Bond-Troop exchange). Indeed, in the 1950s, did Fleming's readers know that he was into p

#19 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 24 May 2007 - 10:12 AM

[quote name='David Schofield' post='741617' date='24 May 2007 - 09:28']And so much more these days is being admitted than in the 1950s (consider the Bond-Troop exchange). Indeed, in the 1950s, did Fleming's readers know that he was into p

#20 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 10:24 AM

what ultimatly seems a great idea to spark public interest for the Centenary novel could easily turn out as having a 'so-what?' reaction with the readers. It strongly would depend on how (and therefore by whom) it will be executed. Of course, having a literary ambitous approach towards Bond could easily become a success. But OTOH, I wouldn't want such a go merely based on a play with Bond's sexuality. That would be just too obvious and cheap IMHO (although any good writer may prove me wrong there).

First thought when being assigned with writing the Centenary and forced to come up with something entirely new:

Make him homosexual!

That just doesn't work for me. And, with no other original ideas, would make for a pretty bland thriller. Not necessarily a bad novel, but not a thriller. Kind of 'Death In Venice' with Bond. But then again I may be wrong. Still, I for one would exclude that possibility.



Absolutely, its just too gimmicky - and, frankly, so contradictory to all our beliefs about Bond. I think the reaction would simply be, sorry this can't be Bond - and then we'd spend hundreds of posts in thread discussing why Continuation Bond 2008 cannot be considered to be legitimately "canon".

However, I do think it might be an interesting twist (excuse the pun), if the new writer very subtley hinted at Eton "experimentation", put something in that could be read either way: yes, I - the writer - am suggesting at cuddles in the cold dorm, but if you - the reader - prefer not to accept it at that, that's up to you and you preference.
(Personnally, I, for example prefer the idea Kissy miscarried Bond's child as I just can't accept him as a father).

But if the new writer did just hint at a homosexual teenage experience and left us to make our minds up, I wonder how many would simply shrug and say, OK, or how many would be repulsed with distaste and deny the idea?

I don't even know how I'd deal with the suggestion...

#21 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 10:50 AM

James Bond watched his secretary, Nigel Smith, as he walked away. Hmmm, Bond mused. What a lovely bottom - he imagined it being as sensuous as Tatiana Romanova's. Bond sipped his Fair Trade coffee from a recycable earthenware coffee bowl purchased from Mungbeans of Islington and remembered his school days in Windsor. He cruel lips twisted into an involuntary grimace. Yes, best to forget those times. No wonder he slept with a gun under his pillow.

It was five minutes to prayer time and Bond needed to get his sending equipment ready to report to his Control in Tehran. Thankfully, the Prayer Room was the one place in Vauxhall Cross that was not monitored for sound or vision. Bond blessed his conversion a few years back although grimaced at other parts of the procedure. It made him ponder further about Nigel. What would it take to convert him? Tanner (or as Bond now had to call him, Ra's Ali Ghul) had been easy meat - but they had been "best friends" for all their time in the Service.


#22 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 24 May 2007 - 11:05 AM

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

This really is Hardcore!

#23 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 11:08 AM

Warten Sie, bis Sie den Rest des Buches gelesen haben!

#24 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 11:24 AM

Hey, ACE, Trident, not so fast with the laughter....

I've always thoughts Raymond Benson was a bit more knowing with his introduction of Nigel Smith. Consider: Nigel Smith "serves" Benson's Bond who is, essentially Brozza-Bond. Now wasn't Brozza always banging on about sensitive, feminie sides of Bond: isn't that what he got into tizzy with macho George Lazenby about? I rest my case.

(And as another bonus, Benson really is like Fleming viz references to homosexuality. And isn't Benson a bit obsessed with p

#25 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 11:37 AM

Erm, David, I think you might be reading a bit too much into things.

As for Mr Benson, I think very few people on these or any other boards are in a position to comment accurately on his personal life.

#26 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 11:46 AM

As for Mr Benson, I think very few people on these or any other boards are in a position to comment accurately on his personal life.


Spoil sport :cooltongue:

Take my "comments" about Mr Benson with the sense of fun with which they were intended. If they offend anyone, I apologise.

#27 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 11:47 AM

As for Mr Benson, I think very few people on these or any other boards are in a position to comment accurately on his personal life.


Spoil sport :angry:

Take my "comments" about Mr Benson with the sense of fun with which they were intended. If they offend anyone, I apologise.

OK ducky :cooltongue:

#28 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 24 May 2007 - 12:13 PM

Warten Sie, bis Sie den Rest des Buches gelesen haben!


Das Buch werd ich auf jeden Fall lesen! :cooltongue:

Back to the homosexuality topic:

Yes, such an ambivalent reference might actually work. And work without interfering with the rest of Bond-canon. But it's not as if we haven't had something in that vein before. After all, the torture scene in Casino Royale is pretty much a rape-scene. A rape of one male by the other i.e. a homosexual rape. Fleming even mentions the sexual twilight many tortured have come across. And LeChiffre's beads of sweat come from a kind of frenzy that is only partially caused by anger and/or hate. There definitely is a hint of sexual undertone in LeChiffre's acting. Never again is one of Bond's enemys so clearly depicted as rapist.

PS: LeChiffre's dossier at Secret Service even calls him a flagellant i.e. somebody who gains sexual satisfaction by whipping or flogging. Usually in the agressive role.

Edited by Trident, 24 May 2007 - 12:38 PM.


#29 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 12:31 PM

Is there?

I don't think the scene is equivalent to rape, at all. Unless one views rape as an assertion of power and not a sexual act. While Bond is naked and has his genitals beaten, there is no overt sexualization in this scene.

The only sexual element is ascribed to Bond's reminiscences of victims at the hand of Nazi torturers. Bond hopes to get to that stage so he can endure the pain. But it is clear that Bond does not get to that stage (where pain purportedly becomes pleasure).

However, there is no reference or inference that this is how Le Chiffre feels. I don't think Le Chiffre gets off on the torture. Far from it, he seems drained from the experience. We also know that Herr Nummer also consumes women in vast quantities (it's this prediction that got him into all this trouble in the first place!).

Certainly, in the film, there is a deliberate inference but it is kept subtle. But Le Chiffre does not appear to enjoy "scratching [Bond's] balls" in the movie.

I think these things are what we read into it. I guess it all falls on our individual interpretation.

#30 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 24 May 2007 - 12:37 PM

Is there?

I don't think the scene is equivalent to rape, at all. Unless one views rape as an assertion of power and not a sexual act. While Bond is naked and has his genitals beaten, there is no overt sexualization in this scene.

The only sexual element is ascribed to Bond's reminiscences of victims at the hand of Nazi torturers. Bond hopes to get to that stage so he can endure the pain.

However, there is no reference or inference that this is how Le Chiffre feels. I don't think Le Chiffre gets off on the torture. Far from it, he seems drained from the experience.

Certainly, in the film, there is a deliberate inference but it is kept subtle. But Le Chiffre does not appear to enjoy "scratching [Bond's] balls" in the movie.

I think these things are what we read into it. I guess it all falls on our individual interpretation.


If I may add this without fear of lowering the tone again :cooltongue: , Craig's cries (in the movie version) of pain do have an orgasmic tone (I was going to say ring) to them... Pleasure from pain, that kind of thing.