29 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Sebastian Faulks Talks James Bond With The Observer

Centenary Bond author discusses his two newest novels

[Jim]

Interesting interview generally if you're interested in his work, but it doesn't look like there's much new there about Devil May Care if that's all you're after.

[Jack Spang]

"But Bond doesn

Edited by Jack Spang, 16 March 2008 - 10:46 AM.

[MkB]

Twoo point:

[box]Bond doesn

[Loomis]

I wonder whether Faulks is deliberately trying to talk Bond down (a la P&W's quip of a couple of years ago about how their job was basically about "finding new ways to blow stuff up"), for he must know that Bond frequently reflects on things in Fleming and indeed shows occasional signs of manic depression (and I'm not just talking 'bout YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE).

Anyway, ENGLEBY rules and so will DEVIL MAY CARE.

[zencat]

Come on, Seb, throw us a bone here. A Bond Girl name, a location, a hint of what the villain is up to. I'm coming away with this with "shark" and that might have only been a quip. Learn from the Great Higson. Tease us into a frenzy!

[Loomis]

No, don't!

I guess it's only a matter of days before, say, The Sunday Times gets wind of the plot of DEVIL MAY CARE and splashes it all over its pages (and website). I really want to be spoiler-free for this one (oddly, I don't really care what I know in advance about QUANTUM OF SOLACE), and given to the level of publicity it's been getting of late, it's surprising that its details have remained under wraps like this, mere weeks before release.

Man, I hope I'm not building this book up too much for myself. Doubt it, though.

[zencat]

I don't want spoilers, but I do want something to get my motor running. Right now, I only see this book as a generic "new James Bond novel." I want a unique detail of some kind. A fresh location would do it. I did love when Faulks mentioned the book would feature...

Spoiler

"A very very exotic Cold War vehicle."

I like seeing a little a hint of skirt before I'm hit full in the face with the whole enchilada (pardon the mixed metaphor).

[Loomis]

Right now, I only see this book as a generic "new James Bond novel."

See, I see it as THE NEW SEBASTIAN FAULKS NOVEL™, which just in passing happens also to be a new James Bond novel.... erm, written AS Ian Fleming. But it's only because I love me my Faulks that I'm getting so worked up about it, although then again I'd never have started reading Faulks had it not been for his hiring by IFP. Chalk up another great thing I've become a fan of due entirely to my Bond fandom.

(Curse Bond for suckering me into buying that Lee Tamahori DVD box set, though. Just kidding.)

[zencat]

Good point. I've never read Faulks before so I'm not really factoring that in. And while he's said the book contains everything Bond fans like (cars, trains, girls, high life), I want to know that it contains something we haven't seen in a Bond novel before -- even if it's just a fresh location. That's what I latch onto. Hearing something like "James Bond goes to Africa" jazzes me while hearing "traditional Bond novel" doesn't really do much for me. But a 1960s setting...yeah, that does it for me, so maybe that's the thing to latch onto and look forward to.

[Single-O-Seven]

Good point. I've never read Faulks before so I'm not really factoring that in. And while he's said the book contains everything Bond fans like (cars, trains, girls, high life), I want to know that it contains something we haven't seen in a Bond novel before -- even if it's just a fresh location. That's what I latch onto. Hearing something like "James Bond goes to Africa" jazzes me while hearing "traditional Bond novel" doesn't really do much for me.

Actually, Zen, Bond goes into outer space in this one as he battles the Soviets, who are attempting to sabotage America's space program. Hope that's fresh enough for you!

BTW, I, too, was inspired to read Faulks. I picked up "A Fool's Alphabet", and I must say his breezy travelouges will fit nicely into a Fleming-esque Bond novel.

[Loomis]

Good point. I've never read Faulks before so I'm not really factoring that in.

Dude, read him. Now, I myself have read only two of his books, A FOOL'S ALPHABET and ENGLEBY, so I'm not even close to being an expert on the man, but both novels are among the best I've read in years. Beautifully written, highly original, thought-provoking and desperately moving.

Especially A FOOL'S ALPHABET, which I'd advise you to read right now as you await DEVIL MAY CARE. Why? Well, see the following thread:

http://debrief.comma...p...1878&st=120

These books give me hope that DEVIL MAY CARE may well be something truly incredible - not just "another Bond novel" (heck, that in itself is more than enough for us fans!), nor even "a very good Bond novel", but a true milestone in the history of 007. Having Faulks writing Bond after ENGLEBY is like Quentin Tarantino directing a Bond film straight after PULP FICTION (or pick any great director/great film you like).

For me, "the thing to latch onto and look forward to" is that the new Bond novel is by one of the greatest writers on earth (who's doing what seems to be a note-perfect imitation of Fleming into the bargain). Don't worry, this is so gonna rock!

[FLEMINGFAN]

While a literary Bond book is always good news, I did have higher hopes for this one than the ones of the past two decades.

If he did his proper research, he would find that Bond always pondered every action he did and did not 'just move on'. That recent interview with him sounds as if he, like all the other authors, is more influenced by the motion pictures than Ian Fleming.

Hopefully, that is all 'gossip' and he really is doing a true continuation of Ian Fleming (though the book should start, at least, in 1965 and not 1967, as the events of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN happened in 1964. OCTOPUSSY had events all prior to that time). One can only hope.

{The sad thing is that I will have the pleasure of meeting him next month, but will have no idea of what is contained in the novel. Not the best situation to be in!}

[Napoleon Solo]

Say what?

<<<<'But Bond doesn

[Byron]

[quote name='Napoleon Solo' post='850980' date='17 March 2008 - 01:14']Say what?

<<<<'But Bond doesn

[Scrambled Eggs]

If he did his proper research, he would find that Bond always pondered every action he did and did not 'just move on'. That recent interview with him sounds as if he, like all the other authors, is more influenced by the motion pictures than Ian Fleming.

I think we should be delighted to have a Bond author who says that he instinctively wants to "slow the pace, have some description and see what Bond feels about this." Even if he's felt it neccesary to reign in some of that instinct, its clear that Faulks is a craftsman on a different level to any other continuation author. Yes, better than Amis.

28th of May I'll be heading straight to a bookshop and might even take a day off work to read Devil May Care in one sitting. I'm giving it the full "fourteen year old with new Harry Potter" treatment. I've never done that for any book before and I hope I'm not let down. I don't think I will be.

[chivasregal]

I find Sebastian Faulks continued insistence that Bond doesn't have any sort of emotional life very odd. Bond, like his creator, is from a time, culture, and social class, which didn't place much stock is 'getting in touch with ones feelings' or psychobabble. He is from a time before the therapy speak and the ongoing feminisation of our culture made intense (preferably public) introspection mandatory.
In many of the Bond stories the stakes are intensely personal. There are many reflective moments throughout the books. Admittedly they are thrillers, not psychological character studies. Fleming is far too good a technician to ever let emotional baggage obstruct the plot of his stories or slow down the action. Nevertheless, compared to cardboard thriller heroes of today like Dirk Pitt, Jack Ryan or Robert Langdon, Bond is positively deep.
I think this whole Bond has no feelings idea is a very contemporary post 1960s one, in which outward emotional reserve is seen as a character flaw, rather than a coping mechanism. The so called Stiff Upper Lip so satirized today is now almost totally misunderstood. Bonds relishing of silly inconsequential details of life, of food and drink meticulously prepared, of the right kind of cotton shirt, are like the romantic encounters, moments of respite from a life and a calling that is often ugly brutal and cold.

I really read Fleming for two things, his starkly elegant and addictive prose, and for the characterization of Bond. Sharks and explosions have been done far more loudly and spectacularly in the movies.

I really want to like this Faulks book and hope I won't be disappointed. Unlike most other people I'm not much of a fan of Colonel Sun, precisely because the psychological element was missing. It seems all plot and no soul, not unlike most airport thrillers today. We shall see.

[MkB]

Having read the few A FOOL'S ALPHABET paragraphs kindly posted by Loomis in he other thread he pointed to above, I'm quite reassured. Faulks seems to have all the qualities to become the best continuation author.
Maybe this nonsense about Bond's absence of emotional life is simply due to the fact that Faulks has a different conception of the "emotional life" of a character... I hope so at least! No comics hero shoehorned in a Bond novel, please!

[Loomis]

Having read the few A FOOL'S ALPHABET paragraphs kindly posted by Loomis in he other thread he pointed to above, I'm quite reassured. Faulks seems to have all the qualities to become the best continuation author.

Yeah, I'm not championing Faulks because he's a famous name. I'm championing him because I've read some of his work and found - to my surprise and delight - that he has already (and, presumably, quite without meaning to) nailed Fleming's "voice".

Byron mentions Fleming's description of Bond's inner thoughts during the turbulent flight to Istanbul in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE - believe it or not, there's something extraordinarily similar in Faulks' A FOOL'S ALPHABET (which was published in the early 1990s, if I'm not mistaken). I'd type it out, only it's too long and I can't be bothered.

A FOOL'S ALPHABET is not a spy novel or even a thriller (what it is is only really apparent towards the end - and it's the same deal with ENGLEBY), but it is bizarrely Bondian in parts, with acres of vivid, Flemingian travelogue and the sort of understated pathos sometimes found in the Bond novels.

Of course, it may just be that I'm saying all this only because I started reading Faulks after he was announced as the new Bond novelist, and I was finding plenty of Flemingian qualities in his work purely because I was actively looking for them, whereas if I'd read Faulks before I knew he was involved with Bond I'd never have gone on about all the "Fleming" that's in his books. Well, maybe, maybe not. At any rate, I'd say that all you gotta do in order to judge Faulks' suitability as the new Bond writer is this:

READ HIM!

As for, as MkB puts it, this nonsense about Bond's absence of emotional life, I strongly suspect that Faulks is merely downplaying things. If he gives the impression that he's only writing about, as Fleming himself put it, a "cardboard booby", in a book that's only meant to be a bit of fun, critics are likely to be a lot kinder towards DEVIL MAY CARE. When they've read it, they'll talk about "the surprising degree" to which Bond's emotional life comes through, because they were primed to expect nothing but cars, guns, sharks and blondes.

On the other hand, if Faulks were to talk about Peeling Back The Layers™ - which, incidentally, is something he'd be more than capable of doing much better than anyone else - he'd be obviously setting himself up for a fall, with reviewers being a lot less charitable than they might otherwise have been. ("Faulks has claimed publicly to be depicting the man within James Bond, and analysing his mental state and the demons that make him tick, but this book is essentially just another escapist yarn featuring the same old 007....")

Now, I'm not trying to suggest, exactly, that Faulks has written a searing psychological masterpiece (although he may well have done!) that's being smuggled into the world as a Bond adventure - I suspect that he does view DEVIL MAY CARE as (as Graham Greene would have put it) an "entertainment" rather than A Proper Novel™, and a fun exercise in which he adopts the voice of Fleming more or less just to see whether he can pull it off. In which case, it will indeed be just another 007 thrills n' spills yarn, with Faulks refusing to let, to quote chivasregal, "emotional baggage obstruct the plot of his stories or slow down the action".

However, I also suspect that DEVIL MAY CARE will still have plenty of the melancholy and Bondian introspection that runs through most if not all of the Flemings. Sensibly, though, Faulks is attempting to downplay it, making self-deprecating remarks that will lull people into thinking he's merely written the literary equivalent of DIE ANOTHER DAY. That way, he retains the "Oh, well, it was only ever supposed to be a bit of a laugh" defence if people don't like DEVIL MAY CARE, as well as helping to create a situation in which people will be Pleasantly Surprised™ by the novel's "thinking person's" qualities.

I reckon Faulks' brief was not to write a new Bond novel, but to write a new Fleming Bond novel, and that he's followed it to the letter. Once it's in shops, DEVIL MAY CARE will speak for itself, and readers will find their own Surprisingly Good™ treasures within it, as has for decades been the case with the Fleming novels. It appears that Faulks is unwilling to hold people's hands through how to appreciate the Fleming books (including his own Fleming book), or to show them how to look beyond the guns and the martinis. For me, this is just another encouraging sign that the man knows what he's doing and was the best possible choice for the 2008 continuation novel.

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree it sounds like he is downplaying it as much as possible. He's mentioned a few times that Bond is wounded and is coming back for one last fight - obviously there will be some retrospection there.

I still think "writing as Ian Fleming" is lame - whether it was contractual, a clever idea™, or what have you.

Robert B Parker was hired to finish Raymond Chandler's Poodle Springs - that is an instance where you could say one writer was "writing as" another with some legitimacy.

"Adopting" Fleming's voice is an interesting idea - but it is a luxury that was not granted to Amis, Pearson, Gardner, or Benson. Would their books have been more successful had they been told to keep Bond in the 60s and adopt as much Fleming writing style as possible? I don't know. Probably.

Was Faulks chosen because his "voice" is close to Fleming's as Loomis suggests? Maybe. But he wasn't their first choice so that may not have been a factor. (Cue voice of Cubby Broccoli: Faulks was our first choice all along, I read a book report of his from primary school and knew he was our man...")

[Loomis]

Was Faulks chosen because his "voice" is close to Fleming's as Loomis suggests? Maybe. But he wasn't their first choice so that may not have been a factor.

1. Do you know who their first choice was?

2. Are you willing to say who it was?

[doublenoughtspy]

Lee Child was approached not once, but twice.

http://commanderbond.net/article/4330

Another name I've been told in confidence.

[Trident]

Ah, the choice question! Now there is something that will never cease to intrigue us fans, it seems.

Well, it's been reported by Lee Child that supposedly he has been asked. And if this is true, it would certainly have seemed like an almost natural choice. Had IFP wanted to go the old route of Gardner/Benson i.e a contemporary Bond continuation series of four, five or more continuation novels

Edited by Trident, 18 March 2008 - 02:20 PM.

[Loomis]

Cheers, guys. Well, regardless of who may or may not have been approached before Faulks, I'm convinced that Faulks is the right man for the job.

It may also have been the case that Daniel Craig was not the first actor approached to take over from Brosnan, but regardless of whether he was the first choice, the third choice or the eighteenth choice, he's turned out to be the perfect James Bond. (Which is an assertion that I know you'll only partially agree with, DNS. )

[Trident]

Cheers, guys. Well, regardless of who may or may not have been approached before Faulks, I'm convinced that Faulks is the right man for the job.

Don't get me wrong. What I mean is: you (that is IFP, of course) don't go to Lee Child, a writer that has shown his ability to punch out a number of fairly good thrillers with action, sex, violence and some creepy villains as well as an almost comic-like

Edited by Trident, 18 March 2008 - 02:40 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

But the contracting of Faulks seems to indicate to me an entirely new direction that wasn't their strategy until the Centenary came up.

Maybe, maybe not.

Child says he was approached twice for the gig, and I agree the first time was immediately post Benson.

Maybe they got turned down by a number of authors and as the centennary came closer they changed their tune to "You'll only do one - and it will be a period piece in Fleming's voice".

Why else would they come back to Child unless the deal was significantly different?

Loomis, I'm not suggesting that Faulks is a lesser writer because he wasn't #1 on the list. I'm just trying to figure out the sequence of events and wonder what elements were his decision versus what was the IFP's decision.

[Trident]

Child says he was approached twice for the gig, and I agree the first time was immediately post Benson.

Maybe they got turned down by a number of authors and as the centennary came closer they changed their tune to "You'll only do one - and it will be a period piece in Fleming's voice".

Why else would they come back to Child unless the deal was significantly different?

Very good point! Got me thinking again. Yes, seems as if it would have to be a dramatically different deal, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to approach Child a second time. Still, I think it'd be rather strange to step from Child's door directly to Faulks'. If asking Child turned out futile I think I'd rather ask several others before even thinking about going in the literary direction Faulks stands for. For example, a list that mentions Child near the top would surely also have Follett on it (and close to Child), wouldn't it? But Follett stated he hadn't been asked.

[zencat]

[quote name='Napoleon Solo' post='850980' date='16 March 2008 - 18:14']Say what?

<<<<'But Bond doesn

[Scrambled Eggs]

[quote name='Byron' post='851056' date='17 March 2008 - 08:59'][quote name='Napoleon Solo' post='850980' date='17 March 2008 - 01:14']Say what?

<<<<'But Bond doesn

[zencat]

Faulks has said that his Bond is damaged and ageing. I fully expect a chapter along the lines of "Reflections in a double bourbon" at the start of DMC. I imagine Faulks will do it brilliantly and it'll be great reading. But, after that the pace will be quick and there won't be much room for introspection. Thats just what the Fleming books are like.

Yep, I expect you're bang on there, Scrambled Eggs.