34 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Bond Authors Charlie Higson And Sebastian Faulks At Oxford Literary Festival

Event to be held from 31 March through 6 April

[zencat]

Man, I'd love to go to this. A double whammy.

[Qwerty]

Really.

Can't say there are two many events out there featuring two Bond authors at the same time.

Anyone here planning on attending?

[Sbott]

Sometime, not often, I do miss the UK.

[Jim]

Tickets for Sebastian Faulks ordered.

[zencat]

Bumping this up as a reminder. We have Jim at Faulks. Anyone going to see Charlie? I'd love someone to provide a report for my site.

[zencat]

Report on Faulks appearance in The Times. Nothing new about DMC. Kind of weird how he talks about the Flemings.

http://entertainment...icle3660622.ece

God, I'd love a plot tease of some kind. A Bond Girl name, a villain name, a location, anything! All he keeps saying is how fast he wrote it. "Dashed off in a couple of weeks for the Flemings." Maybe he doesn't even remember the Bond Girl name. Or maybe she's just "Bond Girl" to save time. Be nice if he gave the slightest hint that he took this seriously.

[Jim]

Curious event. Most curious.

[zencat]

Just listened to a podcast of this. Pretty fascinating how he talks about his other work, and how he talks about the Flemings comes off as more joking than it does in print. The moderator ends the Bond section with a big joke, "We all look forward to the first chapter when Bond goes into analysis", and everyone sheiks in laughter.

Of course, I don't know why that's a joke. After all he's been through, James Bond in 1966 might be on the couch. Frankly, I'd love to see a Faulks Bond novel start this way. Maybe Bond has been forced into analysis, Shurblands style, by M, and he hates it. This would actually be a great way to get out exposition. It would also be interesting to know Bond's (ie, Fleming's) thoughts about analysis.

But, no, it's apparently it is unthinkable to have something like this in a James Bond novel, which, we all know, is ONLY about guns and girls. Even the suggestion of serious content is hysterically funny.

Of course, it was the mod who made this joke, not Faulks. I know Faulks has to appear above this whole James Bond thing, but...

[Loomis]

Report on Faulks appearance in The Times. Nothing new about DMC. Kind of weird how he talks about the Flemings.

http://entertainment...icle3660622.ece

God, I'd love a plot tease of some kind. A Bond Girl name, a villain name, a location, anything! All he keeps saying is how fast he wrote it. "Dashed off in a couple of weeks for the Flemings." Maybe he doesn't even remember the Bond Girl name. Or maybe she's just "Bond Girl" to save time. Be nice if he gave the slightest hint that he took this seriously.

I'm afraid that I think he doesn't take it seriously - not as seriously as he takes the great novels that have won him literary acclaim. I reckon he thinks of his Bond book as a (lucrative) bit of fun. Bond is not his career, and I suspect that DEVIL MAY CARE isn't one of the works he'd like to be most remembered for when he's six feet under (although I'm sure it'll still be amazing, because it's Faulks).

If no one minds me quoting something I've read over at MI6, here's Kingsley Amis on COLONEL SUN:

"I wrote this book, sidestepping out of my career as a straight novelist for the occasion, because I was asked to do so and because I found the project irresistible."

http://www.mi6.co.uk...php3?s=literary

There ya go. Faulks is the new Amis, and I suspect that he'll give us the best continuation novel since COLONEL SUN. Why do I suspect this? Because I've read some of Faulks' novels and was blown away by their brilliance.

In any case, I don't want to know about Bond girls, locations and so on at this point. I think it's very refreshing how little we know about DEVIL MAY CARE. Hopefully I'll be able to crack it open next month without knowing chapter and verse and be, like, in suspense about how it's going to unfold, just like in the old days before every new book and film was always ruined by spoilers.

[Jim]

I'm sure it's all utterly beneath him.

[zencat]

The Amis comparison isn't really that valid as Amis was a huge Bond/Fleming aficionado who had already written two books about Bond before he took on CS. Despite what he said later, I think it's clear that he took CS very very seriously when wrote it. Just Amis saying "I found the project irresistible" is light years beyond anything Faulks has said about Bond.

And I don't need spoilers, I'd just like to get a sense of what original elements Faulks is bringing to the party (or his own sense of excitement or pride at what he's produced). The title is generic. I just want something to wash the increasingly foul taste I'm getting from interviews like this one where DMC is presented as pure fluff or worse.

[Loomis]

The Amis comparison isn't really that valid as Amis was a huge Bond/Fleming aficionado who had already written two books about Bond before he took on CS.

Good point. Mind you, I was under the impression that Faulks was a Bond fan - of sorts, anyway. Didn't he write some kind of parody short story once about Fleming's Bond being appalled by the modern world? And didn't he give TWINE a favourable (if rather bafflingly favourable!) press review? Hardly acts of someone with patrician contempt for all things 007. Still, I accept that Amis was in a whole different league of fandom.

If Faulks didn't have any interest in DEVIL MAY CARE and simply rushed it as a piece of lucrative hackwork the way that an acclaimed screenwriter like Robert Towne might do some autopilot "work" on the script for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II, then it'll certainly come through in the quality of the book. Also, it's frequently the case that brilliant talents - motivated by a curious combination of ego and "having a laugh" - dabble in side projects that turn out to be dire, e.g. Tarantino doing FOUR ROOMS after PULP FICTION.

For the moment, though, my money's on a superb Bond novel, simply because of Faulks' amazing talent and track record, although I'll concede the possibility that it's a dud, and if it is I certainly won't be championing it any more Just Because It's Faulks™. Anyway, time will soon tell.

[sharpshooter]

Indeed. I am taking it so far as Faulks trying to downplay his work and be modest. This can come off as being dismissive and bored, though. Fleming turned out these amazing Bond novels by following the procedure Faulks did. He seems to be confident that it worked.

[zencat]

Yeah, I guess it's all going to come down to the book. I do understand how someone of Faulks literary pedigree feels he has to distance himself from something like Bond. I just hope he doesn't mean it, and when he sat down at the keyboard he took it as seriously as one of his "serious" novels. One thing that made me sit up and feel excitement was when he said he discovered a very cool "cold war vehicle." That's the kind of thing I love to hear.

[Loomis]

The title is generic.

Agreed.

I just want something to wash the increasingly foul taste I'm getting from interviews like this one where DMC is presented as pure fluff or worse.

Fair enough. Okay, I admit that I'm biased, because the two Faulks novels I've read are probably among the best novels I've ever read. But I guess I'd have the same feeling as you do if Marc Forster were doing interviews in which he appeared to be mocking the Bond films and giving the impression that he was just pissing about in return for a lot of money.

Could be just a Brit perception here, though, but I don't think Faulks is being all that disrespectful - to me, he just comes across as suitably self-deprecating and modest in the classic British way. Probably doesn't play as well in America, where the impression I get is that people are expected to cheerlead their own work a lot more than over here.

[zencat]

Could be just a Brit perception here, though, but I don't think Faulks is being all that disrespectful - to me, he just comes across as suitably self-deprecating and modest in the classic British way. Probably doesn't play as well in America, where the impression I get is that people are expected to cheerlead their own work a lot more than over here.

That's a good point. But look at how well Charlie Higson handles this. He is very modest and self-deprecating (in that English way), but he still communicates excitement and enthusiasm for the work and respect for Bond (bigtime). He also knows how to drop clues and throw scraps to salivating fanboy dogs like me.

But maybe Faulks just needs the right forum where he can do this. CBn interview maybe?

[K1Bond007]

The moderator ends the Bond section with a big joke, "We all look forward to the first chapter when Bond goes into analysis", and everyone sheiks in laughter.

Of course, I don't know why that's a joke.

Probably because his last two books (Human Traces, Engleby) have involved deep psychiatric reviews of its characters. Human Traces is about discovering the nature of mental illness and Engleby.. according to reviews I've read involves a mental institution where the main character's psychosis is analyzed.

He's not widely known in the United States.. and really outside of Britain so I always saw Devil May Care as a sort of advertisement for him. Lets face it, how many people here actually knew who the hell he was before he was announced as the centenary author? In retrospect, I'm surprised I hadn't. I think he took the job seriously and probably wrote the best book he could within the 'rules' that Fleming set out (that's never an easy thing anyway). I think Faulks is also something of a Bond fan or a Fleming fan of sorts (I believe he's said as much) and I think his involvement is probably seen (by those that avidly read his novels) as beneath him. I don't know if he feels the same way, but there were plenty of people in Fleming's life that thought Bond was beneath him as well; Ann for instance, and she as well as her friends gave him hell for it frequently. I'm sure many thought it was beneath Amis too.

[zencat]

The moderator ends the Bond section with a big joke, "We all look forward to the first chapter when Bond goes into analysis", and everyone sheiks in laughter.

Of course, I don't know why that's a joke.

Probably because his last two books (Human Traces, Engleby) have involved deep psychiatric reviews of its characters. Human Traces is about discovering the nature of mental illness and Engleby.. according to reviews I've read involves a mental institution where the main character's psychosis is analyzed.

Oh, I understood the root of the joke. I'm just saying I don't how mixing something "serious" with James Bond was instantly laughable. I'm just trying to make the point that the whole topic of Bond was treated without much respect. It was, literary, a joke, and that peeves me because I was hoping to hear Faulks talk somewhat seriously (or at least intelligently) about this book he just wrote.

[Jim]

I think he took the job seriously and probably wrote the best book he could within the 'rules' that Fleming set out (that's never an easy thing anyway).

I expect this to be the case, and he is probably under strict instructions as to what he can say or reveal about this book anyway, largely because of sites like this one pouncing on his every syllable. Perhaps this offhand dismissiveness is lulling us into a false expectation of it not being up to much when it ultimately turns out to be something very special. The flipside being that humility is the worst form of conceit.

It may well prove more trivial than his other works but Faulks doing trivial is still likely to be interesting.

I suspect he was playing to the audience before him - having subjected myself to many Oxford Literary festivals, it's largely a gathering of ghastly snobs. I go for the biscuits.

[Scrambled Eggs]

Oh, I understood the root of the joke. I'm just saying I don't how mixing something "serious" with James Bond was instantly laughable. I'm just trying to make the point that the whole topic of Bond was treated without much respect. It was, literary, a joke, and that peeves me because I was hoping to hear Faulks talk somewhat seriously (or at least intelligently) about this book he just wrote.

None of us are fans of literary snobs and I feel your pain but I do think you're overdosing on the outrage a bit.

Realistically, he was never going to talk much about his Bond work in front of the kind of audience you get at literary festivals. It'd be like expecting Higson to turn up at a Fast Show convention and start talking about Bond.

They told a joke playing upon the fact that Faulks, based on his past work, is an unusual choice as a Bond author. That doesn't necessarily imply that that he's too good for it.

Edited by Scrambled Eggs, 02 April 2008 - 12:25 PM.

[Loomis]

Could be just a Brit perception here, though, but I don't think Faulks is being all that disrespectful - to me, he just comes across as suitably self-deprecating and modest in the classic British way. Probably doesn't play as well in America, where the impression I get is that people are expected to cheerlead their own work a lot more than over here.

That's a good point. But look at how well Charlie Higson handles this. He is very modest and self-deprecating (in that English way), but he still communicates excitement and enthusiasm for the work and respect for Bond (bigtime). He also knows how to drop clues and throw scraps to salivating fanboy dogs like me.

True, but I presume that in the world of children's books authors have to be more engaged with their readers, with personal appearances, treasure hunts, competitions and whatnot - which played to Higson's strengths as a comedian and entertainer. I guess IFP felt that Faulks doesn't need to grin and wink at his readership in quite the same way. Also, Higson was in it for a few years, whereas Faulks is just doing it as a one-off and has probably moved on to other projects. I suspect he'd be a little bemused by the idea that he should be "fan-friendly".

There may not have been many "scraps to salivating fanboy dogs", but it seems to me that DEVIL MAY CARE has - for a book that, let's not forget, will still remain unpublished for a few weeks! - long been receiving an extraordinary amount of fanfare and publicity. But the interesting thing is that (unlike with QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which is a guaranteed smash) we don't know how the world will respond to it once it's finally in bookshops. Will it be a runaway bestseller a la the Flemings? Will it be a middling hit? Or will it die a death?

Will the concept of a superstar of British literary fiction karaokeing Ian Fleming bowl over "people in general"? (I know a lot of people who would read Faulks, but probably wouldn't touch a Bond novel even if written by Faulks.) Does a new "adult" Bond novel have any appeal outside 007 fandom? (As I understand it, neither Benson nor Kate Westbrook sold very well.) Will the world at large merely glance at DEVIL MAY CARE with vaguely amused puzzlement and say "Very nice, dear" and then move on?

Or, in this magical centenary year that's slap bang in the middle of the glorious new dawn of Daniel Craig, does virtually everything done by IFP and Eon turn to gold these days?

[marktmurphy]

Just listened to a podcast of this. Pretty fascinating how he talks about his other work, and how he talks about the Flemings comes off as more joking than it does in print. The moderator ends the Bond section with a big joke, "We all look forward to the first chapter when Bond goes into analysis", and everyone sheiks in laughter.

Of course, I don't know why that's a joke. After all he's been through, James Bond in 1966 might be on the couch. Frankly, I'd love to see a Faulks Bond novel start this way. Maybe Bond has been forced into analysis, Shurblands style, by M, and he hates it. This would actually be a great way to get out exposition. It would also be interesting to know Bond's (ie, Fleming's) thoughts about analysis.

But, no, it's apparently it is unthinkable to have something like this in a James Bond novel, which, we all know, is ONLY about guns and girls. Even the suggestion of serious content is hysterically funny.

Of course, it was the mod who made this joke, not Faulks. I know Faulks has to appear above this whole James Bond thing, but...

Hmm. That's for fanfic, isn't it? When fans get so deeply immersed in the subject of their passion that they forget what it's for. Bond is light, throwaway, well-written fun entertainment. Full of sex and adventure and all that; 'James Bond Goes to the Psychoanalyst' doesn't fufill those aspects. A brief visit perhaps -he's had enough visits to shrinks as it is- but only that. Bond doesn't and shouldn't be tackling big subjects; it'd almost be insulting to them as he's not a complex figure.

[zencat]

Man, I wouldn't call any of the Fleming books light or throwaway. Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, You Only Live Twice, Oh Her Majesty's Secret Service (even The Spy Who Loved Me)...entertaining, yes, but I would never say these books don't contain complexities. I don't think we'd all be here today if the Fleming books were simply throwaway pulps packed with only action and sex.

Not that I want or expect Faulks to write a high-brow Drama. But I also don't want a Nick Carter (apologies to Nick Carter fans). And didn't the earliest promotion on DMC promise that "the new novel will be far removed from the gloss of 007

[zencat]

BTW, anyone make it to Charlie? This slobbering dog needs a scrap!

[zencat]

Excellent report on Charlie's appearance.

http://fifthestate.c...the-golden-job/

Cool that Charlie stayed at Goldeneye. Would love to know more about that.

[doublenoughtspy]

I did add a comment to the story:

Nice report.

Either Charlie or you confused Fleming's background with James Bond's - Ian Fleming did not kill anyone in New York or Norway.

Also, Bond's 2nd boarding school is Fettes, not Fetters. For trivia fans, Sean Connery did deliver milk to the school when he was young.

[zencat]

That's funny. I missed that.

[crheath]

I'm curious. I haven't read any of Faulks's work. Can anyone who's read him tell me about his writing style? Is there a particular reason he was chosen to continue Fleming's Bond?

[K1Bond007]

I did add a comment to the story:

Nice report.

Either Charlie or you confused Fleming's background with James Bond's - Ian Fleming did not kill anyone in New York or Norway.

I laughed when I read that.

I'm curious. I haven't read any of Faulks's work. Can anyone who's read him tell me about his writing style? Is there a particular reason he was chosen to continue Fleming's Bond?

Well he's very respected for one, but I think he was mostly chosen because like Fleming, Faulks is really good with writing about locations. His French trilogy for that reason is spectacular. (One of the locations in DMC is France)