48 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Haven't read Higson, so can't compare with that though.

Well, Pearson and Higson are apples and oranges. Pearson comes incredibly close to exuding the odour of Fleming, and tells stories of the younger Bond that Fleming himself might have come up with.

Higson, on the other hand, writes children's books with a 21st century sensibility. As Stallone says in ROCKY BALBOA, it is what it is.

However, I understand that Higson has read and knows his Fleming, and demonstrates as much in his books (to date, I've read only SILVERFIN), so it would be unfair to dismiss him entirely.

[Trident]

I'm from the school of thought that says what Fleming wrote is true, though not in our world - cause that's where we live and Fleming lived - that the YOLT obit joke was about a series of books written by Bloggs about a spy called Jones, that the David Niven and Ursula Andress refer to were not OURS, that MI6 was good in the 1960s, and that anything published, whether authorised by IFP or not, that contradicts this is, well, just writing about Fleming's Bond.

Very much what I'd call my own approach to the matter. But I have to confess that it's rather fun speculating about Fleming's experiment and getting clear about my own reaction to it. Truth be told, I haven't given it very much thought before and only properly started after coming across this thread.

Edited by Trident, 07 May 2008 - 04:10 PM.

[spynovelfan]

Haven't read Higson, so can't compare with that though.

Well, Pearson and Higson are apples and oranges. Pearson comes incredibly close to exuding the odour of Fleming, and tells stories of the younger Bond that Fleming himself might have come up with.

Higson, on the other hand, writes children's books with a 21st century sensibility. As Stallone says in ROCKY BALBOA, it is what it is.

However, I understand that Higson has read and knows his Fleming, and demonstrates as much in his books (to date, I've read only SILVERFIN), so it would be unfair to dismiss him entirely.

Unfair to dismiss him at all, if you've only read one book.

Sorry I can't intellectualise it like some of you have rather brilliantly above, but I'm from the school of thought that says what Fleming wrote is true, though not in our world - cause that's where we live and Fleming lived - that the YOLT obit joke was about a series of books written by Bloggs about a spy called Jones, that the David Niven and Ursula Andress refer to were not OURS, that MI6 was good in the 1960s, and that anything published, whether authorised by IFP or not, that contradicts this is, well, just not writing about Fleming's Bond.

I've probably missed something here with that last bit, David, but in the above interpretation, what is the joke in the YOLT obit - what's funny about it? Surely the humour comes from the knowingness of referring to himself, of if not breaking the fourth wall at least discussing how it was built. The reference to David Niven was just a fun way of bringing his friend in, perhaps - but Ursula Andress? What would be the *point* of mentioning her if it was not to play a bit with this convention. Bond had become so big that he could... How would Bond move in the real world, our world? It's just a suggestion, a whimsy - but it is there, isn't it? And if you would rather think not, can you at least admit that that is your interpretation - and almost certainly was not Fleming's?

[Trident]

How would Bond move in the real world, our world? It's just a suggestion, a whimsy - but it is there, isn't it? And if you would rather think not, can you at least admit that that is your interpretation - and almost certainly was not Fleming's?

Well, I for one, after some consideration, would be prepared to agree with you that Fleming was aiming for just that, another break of convention, a new approach to his hero. What made me uncomfortable with this assumption was that it is something I'd rather expected from Paul Auster or Stephen Fry, not from Fleming. But, as you have already pointed out quite convincingly, Fleming was actually far more prone to experiments than he's usually given credit for.

[David Schofield]

Sorry I can't intellectualise it like some of you have rather brilliantly above, but I'm from the school of thought that says what Fleming wrote is true, though not in our world - cause that's where we live and Fleming lived - that the YOLT obit joke was about a series of books written by Bloggs about a spy called Jones, that the David Niven and Ursula Andress refer to were not OURS, that MI6 was good in the 1960s, and that anything published, whether authorised by IFP or not, that contradicts this is, well, just not writing about Fleming's Bond.

I've probably missed something here with that last bit, David, but in the above interpretation, what is the joke in the YOLT obit - what's funny about it? Surely the humour comes from the knowingness of referring to himself, of if not breaking the fourth wall at least discussing how it was built. The reference to David Niven was just a fun way of bringing his friend in, perhaps - but Ursula Andress? What would be the *point* of mentioning her if it was not to play a bit with this convention. Bond had become so big that he could... How would Bond move in the real world, our world? It's just a suggestion, a whimsy - but it is there, isn't it? And if you would rather think not, can you at least admit that that is your interpretation - and almost certainly was not Fleming's?

Of course its my interpretation of Bond. And probably wasn't what Fleming intended.

Of course Fleming was spoofing himself and his readers. But then as readers, for example, we try to think Fleming was a better writer than he gave himself credit for; Fleming was always suggesting his books were worthless entertainments, his writing not brilliant. And yet as readers we can't except THAT, that Fleming was a lousy writer because if we did where would be the valiidity in our reading him. I hope you get the point - the similarity - I am trying to make? Whether you agree or not...

But hey, I even try and make sense of the chronological consistencies in Fleming as well. Hell, I even think Bond is ageing and changes as the years of the novels pass

[Hitch]

Fleming was trying to fight the old enemy: the blank sheet of foolscap. Bond's "arc" is, in many ways, his author's attempt to stave off boredom with experimentation and sensation (Bond's "death" in FRWL, a post-modern foray in TSWLM, the shock ending of OHMSS), and thus provide a fillip to keep writing.

If an idea interested him then he could find the impetus to continue; the YOLT obituary tickled his fancy. At the time of writing, Bond was starting to take on a life of his own; any author worth his salt, who liked to try new things, and, like any journalist, needed to file his copy, would have jumped at the prospect of writing a witty and rather clever obituary of his creation. He found the literary in-joke both irresistible and useful, and no doubt felt that it deserved a tall glass of iced gin.

(Statin' the bleedin' obvious is my secret superpower.)

Briefly, I'd class Pearson's biography of Bond as the best continuation novel (yah-boo-sucks), and recommend his Fleming biography wholeheartedly.

Edited by Hitch, 07 May 2008 - 09:23 PM.

[Hitch]

I've killed yet another thread, haven't I?

*sigh*

Edited by Hitch, 09 May 2008 - 01:47 PM.

[Loomis]

Haven't read Higson, so can't compare with that though.

Well, Pearson and Higson are apples and oranges. Pearson comes incredibly close to exuding the odour of Fleming, and tells stories of the younger Bond that Fleming himself might have come up with.

Higson, on the other hand, writes children's books with a 21st century sensibility. As Stallone says in ROCKY BALBOA, it is what it is.

However, I understand that Higson has read and knows his Fleming, and demonstrates as much in his books (to date, I've read only SILVERFIN), so it would be unfair to dismiss him entirely.

Unfair to dismiss him at all, if you've only read one book.

Not really. I wouldn't presume to be able to discuss Higson authoritatively having read only one of his books, but I do think reading just one of his works qualifies one to pass judgement on him to at least a certain degree. Not, of course, that I am dismissing him, to any extent! But I think I have the right to do so. Reading SILVERFIN and dismissing Higson wouldn't be the same thing as, say, dismissing Craig as the ugly blond Bond before CASINO ROYALE had even been shot.

One thing I don't like about Pearson's book - and I'm only a few pages from the end now, so I think I'm allowed to pass comment - is the forced comic contrast between Fleming's-Bond-in-Flashback and The Ageing, Semi-Retired Bond. Isn't the latter painted as a bit too much of a figure of fun for your liking, spy? Are you entirely happy with the idea of Honey as a grotesque Bubbles Devere-style golddigger? I'm not.

[Jim]

Is there some sort of bet on to get ROCKY BALBOA into as many threads as possible?

[Hitch]

No, just his grey tracksuit.

Ithangyew.

[Trident]

I've killed yet another thread, haven't I?

*sigh*

Oh, no! It just may have decided to die at your feet by chance. At the most.


But actually it looks as if there might still be life in the body. Could see a revival any time, you know.

[Loomis]

Well, while the mortally wounded beast that is this thread expires in its final thrashings and gasps its agonised last breaths, I'll just take the opportunity to get in a couple more criticisms of Pearson, and hopefully provoke more good, passionate posts from spynovelfan.

The ending. I'm sorry, but having James Bond discussing the Connery films is just too cute. Also, the business with the giant rats is ridiculous. Really, it is. After dozens of deliciously Flemingian anecdotes and adventures, Pearson has to end by serving up a big fat hammy slab of Austin Powers (erm, as it were - I'm aware that Powers was invented many years later). Sharks with frickin' laser beams! Wouldn't it have been better to finish with a mission the details of which were left to the reader's imagination a bit more? What's more, there's never any doubt whatsoever in the reader's mind as to the path that Bond will ultimately choose. It's an anticlimax, and a daft one. Neither do I want to read about Bond's failures, a la the Prenderghast affair. I'll take the "perfect" Bond of COLONEL SUN, ta very much.

(Also, how would Fleming have known that Kissy was pregnant at the end of the mission he wrote up as YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? Sure, we're told that Tiger Tanaka managed to find everything out about what happened on Kissy's island - although to anyone who's read YOLT this seems very hard to believe - but everything would presumably have filtered through to Fleming and Bond long after the book had been published.)

I still say that the AUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY is little more than a (long) series of episodes. It's also overly contrived and misses a few marks, although not as many as it hits.

With all that said, yes, yes, it's still fantastic stuff, very well-written, bags and bags of Flemmmmmmmming, etc., etc. - but I can't subscribe to the view that it's perfect. An essential buy? Absolutely. Perfect? Nope. Now bring on DEVIL MAY CARE.

[Hitch]

I still say that the AUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY is little more than a (long) series of episodes. It's also overly contrived and misses a few marks, although not as many as it hits.

With all that said, yes, yes, it's still fantastic stuff, very well-written, bags and bags of Flemmmmmmmming, etc., etc. - but I can't subscribe to the view that it's perfect. An essential buy? Absolutely. Perfect? Nope. Now bring on DEVIL MAY CARE.

No one wants the perfect James Bond book. Half the fun is in the above first paragraph, the other half is in the second. But I'm glad you enjoyed Pearson's attempt. And I maintain that, of all the continuation novels, however episodic, his voice was the closest to Phlegming's. (It's been a good ten years since I read it so I'm prepared to accept, for this one time only, that I may possibly be talking poppycock.) Even his biography of I.F. seems to adopt the breezy style of its subject.

[Loomis]

No one wants the perfect James Bond book.

Speak for yourself, Hitch. A few of the James Bond books are perfect - most, of course, are not, and many of the continuation novels are a very long way from even being good. But I don't see why that means that no one wants the perfect James Bond book.

Pearson's book is unquestionably one of the very best continuation novels, and perhaps even better than a couple of the Flemings (certainly more fun to read, anyway). But there were a couple of things that did detract from my enjoyment, notably the "modern day" stuff with Honey.

I realise what Pearson was trying to do: he was trying to show the semi-retired Bond being strangled by the blubbery arms of the soft life, to the point that, when our hero (inevitably) returns to the spy game, we're cheering him on not just because he's going to go off again and kick butt, but we're also cheering his escape from a stifling life of luxury and what would have been a disastrous marriage.... but I think these sections of the book are a trifle overdone and absurd. But maybe they were always intended as parody. I do recall reading somewhere (possibly on this very thread) that Pearson initially conceived the book as a spoof before getting a bit more "serious" as he worked on it. Which would go a long way towards explaining its uneven tone.

And I maintain that, of all the continuation novels, however episodic, his voice was the closest to Phlegming's.

Yep. I've said that all along. Does anyone here know why Pearson didn't write more Bond adventures? Were sales of THE AUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY disappointing, or was Pearson simply not interested, or what?

[Hitch]

I don't want such a nebulous thing as the "perfect" James Bond book because then I'd stop reading them. Besides, my preferences change all the time. Sometimes I even enjoy Diamonds Are Forever. The great thing about Pearson's biography of 007 is that it's like the ultimate fan fiction novel (though that may be doing it a disservice), full of references and in-jokes that will delight or infuriate Fleming fans who need another belt of the good stuff. I'd recommend it above Colonel Sun for anyone who's feeling a bit bereft after finishing The Man With The Golden Gun.

[Trident]

There is much to be appreciated about JB:TABO007. The fine voice that comes so very, very close to Fleming, the mixture of phantastic ideas, dark and gritty action as well as the twist on the hero that for many readers is already so well-known and who, thanks to Pearson's efforts, appears suddenly in a new light.

Maybe the idea to write the untold 'true' story of literature's most famous secret agent had to turn out as a kind of satire. Equal parts a celebration and a deconstruction of the myth that Bond has become. And my impression is that Pearson was aware of this and quite deliberately played this aspect. Everything in Bond's world seems to have a, sometimes minor (the Beretta a 32.?), sometimes major (Honey Rider a spoiled luxury bird in the vein of Liz Krest minus her whipping husband?), twist in this novel.

There is a lot of reflection in Bond regarding his own ludicrous fame and fate, but his character is depicted rather unlikable, at times even unpleasant. If memory serves, Fleming himself expressed a similar view of his hero on several occasions. Nothing is ordinary in Bond's world and Pearson shows us this basic law of Bond's nature, crossing the border into fairytale or satire (laser-sharks anybody?). Not even Bond's (semi-?)retirement can be of the ale-in-the-pub/feeding-of-pidgeons variety. It has to be a high society hotel on the Bahamas, as the guest of Sir William Stephenson.

Retirement? Reconvalescence? Somehow my impression was more of a very nifty, top-notch, mink-lined lunatic asylum for someone the Secret Service' administration and the government desperately want to keep at bay but cannot get rid of for good in case they might need him again should 'something turn up'. Not one of M's best agents, but 'Playboy Bond', frequently criticized for his behaviour. Not just envied by his colleagues, but despised. And, unheard off, expelled by M (although reinstated in time to see his 'Casino Royale' adventure).

My feeling is, this Bond isn't just softly touching reality, he's colliding with it, taking a major crash. The 'Playboy Bond' moniker is doubtlessly something thousands of real-life spys were thinking about Mr Fleming's oeuvre with little or no sympathy. Mr Pearson cleverly played with this Bond-meets-his-own-myth idea and, to a large part, succeeds. But his initial assumption, 'Bond is real!' doesn't go down well with all and everybody. And, while enjoying it, I still have my doubts about several details.

But then again, I have similar complaints regarding almost every continuation and sometimes even with Fleming's own. So who am I to judge? For some people, low tar cigarettes and Saab 900's don't mix with Bond, for me they worked remarkably well. Similar things could be said for Amis', Benson's, Higson's or Westbrook's works. Pearson has doubtlessly chosen his approach on purpose and hasn't aimed for a traditional continuation. So maybe we shouldn't judge it by the standards of such continuation but as a stand-alone affair that is in effect Pearson's personal nod to Fleming's hero.

Edited by Trident, 10 May 2008 - 04:37 PM.

[Loomis]

The great thing about Pearson's biography of 007 is that it's like the ultimate fan fiction novel (though that may be doing it a disservice), full of references and in-jokes that will delight or infuriate Fleming fans who need another belt of the good stuff.

Yes. For me, it's the literary equivalent of DIE ANOTHER DAY.

I know that that sounds as though I'm really slamming it, but I'm rare among Bond fans in that I hold DIE ANOTHER DAY in extremely high regard. It's a big, epic, more than occasionally rather tasteless but always affectionate and very entertaining continuation of/tribute to the series that almost bursts at the seams with characters, locations, setpieces and (mostly unexplored) story ideas, and it references absolutely everything, with references to delight hardcore fans and also some references to bewilder and/or infuriate them (e.g. sniffing Rosa Klebb's shoe, and Bond snogging Moneypenny).

It has many moments of pure Fleming (e.g. meeting Raoul in Cuba, and using Blades as a location), great humour (e.g. Bond and Jinx finally running out of gadgets and using good old-fashioned wirecutters to get through the North Korean airport fence), and quite a bit of jumping of the shark (e.g. the face-swapping baddies, and the invisible car). It's a bit of a mess in places, and by no means does all of it work, but overall it's an absolute blast.

Yep, that's how I see it. JAMES BOND: THE AUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY = DIE ANOTHER DAY. For me, at least.

[spynovelfan]

I think your comparison of John Pearson's novel to DIE ANOTHER DAY is a bit like DIE ANOTHER DAY, Loomis: it started well, but very quickly degenerated into embarrassing contrivance.

Sorry, that's as far as you're going to wind me up with that one!

[Gabriel]

Young Bond is fine, but I never for a moment consider it to be in the same 'universe' as the Fleming Bond! The series has a name, which, to me, says it exists seperately from the rest of the Bonds.

Fleming's Bonds provide the back(front?)story, but beneath the surface level, I don't see the Higson books as connected to Fleming, Amis, Pearson, Gardner and Benson. They're fun books aimed at a younger audience and nothing more. That's not to say there's anything wrong with them!