Edited by jwheels, 09 April 2009 - 10:22 PM.
Continuation novel time-line
#1
Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:21 PM
#2
Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:59 PM
http://www.pjfarmer....newton/Bond.htm
#3
Posted 10 April 2009 - 01:15 PM
1) It ignores the fact that Raymond Benson has specifically stated that his novels do *not* follow on from the Gardner ones, so do not belong on the same chronology.
2) It includes novelizations of films with original stories (Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, etc.), but not films *without* novelizations (Octopussy) without giving a viable reason why it does so. It just *does*.
3) It includes clearly unauthorized items. (This is the result of Farmer's "Wold Newton" view, so these could just be simply removed.)
4) A proper chronology should not include conjecture. Point out the discepancies, yes. But leave speculation to a separate undertaking.
Still, worth a look.
#4
Posted 10 April 2009 - 04:25 PM
Wow, I've never seen this. This is excellent.I don't know if this is what you've seen before but I think it's what you're looking for:
http://www.pjfarmer....newton/Bond.htm
#5
Posted 10 April 2009 - 06:02 PM
I don't know if this is what you've seen before but I think it's what you're looking for:
http://www.pjfarmer....newton/Bond.htm
Ah, yes this is what I was looking for, thanks Righty.
#6
Posted 10 April 2009 - 06:14 PM
1) It ignores the fact that Raymond Benson has specifically stated that his novels do *not* follow on from the Gardner ones, so do not belong on the same chronology.
Indeed?
Benson's Bond does recall some of Gardner's heroines in "Zero Minus Ten", though...
#7
Posted 10 April 2009 - 08:22 PM
No problem!I don't know if this is what you've seen before but I think it's what you're looking for:
http://www.pjfarmer....newton/Bond.htm
Ah, yes this is what I was looking for, thanks Righty.
#8
Posted 15 April 2009 - 04:34 PM
That's an interesting undertaking, but it is based on Philip José Farmer's "Wold Newton" concept and, as such, has some issues that preclude it from being a legitimate chronology of Bond. (Though it serves as a good basis for one.)
1) It ignores the fact that Raymond Benson has specifically stated that his novels do *not* follow on from the Gardner ones, so do not belong on the same chronology.
2) It includes novelizations of films with original stories (Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, etc.), but not films *without* novelizations (Octopussy) without giving a viable reason why it does so. It just *does*.
As I recall, the idea is that it is a chronology of the literary Bond. As the novelisations penned by Christopher Wood and John Gardner and Raymond Benson don't specifically correspond to pre-existing novels (OK, there are a few names in "Licence to Kill", and a shark, but what the hell), they have been counted as 'books' not 'films'.
Dennis Power, though, has penned some articles trying to bring in the movies:
http://www.pjfarmer....nd/bond-rev.htm
If you play away with archive.org, I recommend the original text of the "Casino Royale" article. Very clever.
(as for Raymond Benson's opinion on chronology... one thing that was forced down my throat at university was that you MUST ignore authorial intentions on pain of pain. Only the 'reader' decides what a book is about. On the other hand, that could have been drivel that they were talking)
...and re-lurk.
AJB