20 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Dave White Presents radio show to discuss lost James Bond novel

Up for discussion: Geoffrey Jenkins' Per Fine Ounce; 19 January

[zencat]

Oooo, I look forward to this!

[Bonita]

What bunk. Ian Fleming no more asked this guy to collaborate with him on a Bond novel than he asked the Queen to do a striptease at a Bar Mitzvah. There was no novel. It was never written. The guy tried to get a commission, peddled his limited friendship with Fleming, stretched the truth, came to London, got a few people excited, then went into a hotel room with a typewriter, and what he turned out just wasn't up to snuff. Off he went back to S.A. Toodle-ooo. Good bye. And now, when all the principles are dead, some mishmashed memories have everyone searching for a book that never existed. Like every other paperback writer of his time, he churned out some spy / adventure fiction later on, but this has no more link to Ian Fleming than any other spy book of the era.

Keep dancing...

[spynovelfan]

What bunk. Ian Fleming no more asked this guy to collaborate with him on a Bond novel than he asked the Queen to do a striptease at a Bar Mitzvah. There was no novel. It was never written. The guy tried to get a commission, peddled his limited friendship with Fleming, stretched the truth, came to London, got a few people excited, then went into a hotel room with a typewriter, and what he turned out just wasn't up to snuff. Off he went back to S.A. Toodle-ooo. Good bye. And now, when all the principles are dead, some mishmashed memories have everyone searching for a book that never existed. Like every other paperback writer of his time, he churned out some spy / adventure fiction later on, but this has no more link to Ian Fleming than any other spy book of the era.

Keep dancing...

Do you have evidence for any of this? Because without evidence, it comes across as rather needlessly aggressive towards a writer you don't seem to know much about.

'Like every other paperback writer of his time, he churned out some spy / adventure fiction later on...'

'Later on' meaning after he wrote PER FINE OUNCE? Jenkins' first novel, A TWIST OF SAND, published in 1959, was translated into 23 languages and sold three million copies worldwide. The New York Times called it 'an old-fashioned novel of adventure such as hordes of readers dream of and rarely find in these decadent days', and TIME said Jenkins' writing was 'taut as a wind-filled sail, and hardened fantasists will return from his voyage happier men'. Fleming also praised it, saying Jenkins had 'the supreme gift of originality'. Fleming also praised Jenkins' 1962 novel A GRUE OF ICE, calling it 'a thundering good yarn' that was 'in the highest tradition of the Buchan-Household-Hammond Innes school'.

By the time he was commissioned by Fleming's literary estate (then called Glidrose) to write a Bond novel in late 1966, Jenkins had published four novels, all of them best-sellers. His reputation has faded now, but along with the likes of Innes, Duncan Kyle and Desmond Bagley (who was a huge fan of Jenkins', incidentally, and had all his books), he was one of the biggest adventure thriller-writers of his day. Have you ever read any of his work? Which?

'There was no novel. It was never written.'

What is your source for this assertion? I have two saying the novel was written. The first is Duff Hart-Davis' biography of Peter Fleming, first published in 1974:

'Glidrose told [Jenkins] to go ahead, but on this book - as on Amis's - they retained the right of suppression; and when they saw Per Fine Ounce they exercised their right, for they considered the book unpublishable.' [Page 375 of the 1987 Oxford University Press edition]

How could they have considered the book unpublishable if there were no book? As well as being a close friend of the Fleming family, Duff Hart-Davis had extensive access to Glidrose's archives - why would he have invented that Jenkins wrote the book but that it was thought unpublishable? Why not just say he never wrote it, if that were the case?

My second source to suggest that the book was written is one of the principles involved at the time - they're not all dead, in fact. Peter Janson-Smith, formerly Ian Fleming's literary agent and chairman of Glidrose, told me in an interview I conducted with him on February 25 2005 that the book was rejected because Glidrose felt it was not up to par: 'Frankly, I thought it was extraordinarily badly written.' He couldn't have easily thought that about a book that was not written. Are you saying that Janson-Smith lied, and if so do you have any evidence to support that, and perhaps reasons why he might do such a thing?

Apart from both of these rather solid sources, I think common sense would dictate that Jenkins wrote the novel. He was a fast and prolific best-selling thriller-writer, and he'd just been given a dream commission: writing the first James Bond continuation novel. So what's your source that he didn't write the book? If you don't have one, excuse me for regarding your claims with some scepticism.

'The guy tried to get a commission, peddled his limited friendship with Fleming, stretched the truth, came to London, got a few people excited, then went into a hotel room with a typewriter, and what he turned out just wasn't up to snuff.'

But I thought you said the novel was never written? Are you saying he wrote some of it, but did not complete it - what are your sources for all this? I would grant that he tried to get the commission and probably made the most of his friendship with Fleming. It is also possible that he stretched the truth about how keen Fleming was on the idea - but you say all this very vehemently, as though it were fact. Again, do you have any evidence to support these claims, or is it just bluster?

Jenkins certainly did get some people excited, particularly John Pearson, who loved the synopsis for the novel which he found in Fleming's papers, and wrote to Jenkins to tell him so on November 3 1965:

'I hope that you write that book. Just reading your synopsis through I can understand why Ian got so excited about it, and you can’t possibly allow such magnificent material to go to waste. Gold bicycle chains and baobab wood coffins. What else can the Bond-lover ask for?'

Pearson, incidentally, is also very much alive. His view of the synopsis says something, I think, as does the fact that he found it in Fleming's papers, as do the quality and tenor of Jenkins' previously published novels.

Jenkins succeeded in exciting Glidrose enough to be commissioned to write a James Bond novel. Indeed they didn't feel it was up to snuff, and perhaps it wasn't. It's also possible that it was very good, but not what they were looking for in the years immediately following Fleming's death, and not as appealing a proposition as a book by someone of the stature of Kingsley Amis. And it is, of course, subjective. Peter Janson-Smith also told me that they might have been 'a little stricter' in those days. I think the novels Jenkins published before PER FINE OUNCE are rather better than John Gardner's, for instance, and a couple hold their own with Fleming.

You seem convinced that Jenkins was lying about his relationship with Fleming, didn't write the Bond novel he was commissioned to write by Fleming's estate despite Hart-Davis and Janson-Smith saying he did, and that whatever he did write cannot have been any good. What are you basing all this on? And what Jenkins novels have you read to make you conclude so readily that he wasn't up to the job - don't you think reading his work would be a precondition for making such judgements?

Keep providing spurious unsourced information online...

[zencat]

Thanks spynovelfan. I was also a little baffled by Bonita's post.

[zencat]

So did anyone hear this? Is it available anywhere to listen to? I don't see it at the link in the main page story.

[Trident]

So did anyone hear this? Is it available anywhere to listen to? I don't see it at the link in the main page story.

Didn't have the time to check that one out as yet, but I think it ought to be here: Listen To The Latest

[zencat]

So did anyone hear this? Is it available anywhere to listen to? I don't see it at the link in the main page story.

Didn't have the time to check that one out as yet, but I think it ought to be here: Listen To The Latest

That's today's show. We need yesterday.

EDIT: Oh, wait, maybe that is it. Let me try and figure this out.

[Loomis]

Keep providing spurious unsourced information online...

[Jim]

What bunk. Ian Fleming no more asked this guy to collaborate with him on a Bond novel than he asked the Queen to do a striptease at a Bar Mitzvah. There was no novel. It was never written. The guy tried to get a commission, peddled his limited friendship with Fleming, stretched the truth, came to London, got a few people excited, then went into a hotel room with a typewriter, and what he turned out just wasn't up to snuff. Off he went back to S.A. Toodle-ooo. Good bye. And now, when all the principles are dead, some mishmashed memories have everyone searching for a book that never existed. Like every other paperback writer of his time, he churned out some spy / adventure fiction later on, but this has no more link to Ian Fleming than any other spy book of the era.

Keep dancing...

What an eccentric post.

[zencat]

Listened to it. Interesting, but not much new. He did mention that Per Fine Ounce would have been published under the Robert Markham name.

[Trident]

What bunk. Ian Fleming no more asked this guy to collaborate with him on a Bond novel than he asked the Queen to do a striptease at a Bar Mitzvah. There was no novel. It was never written. The guy tried to get a commission, peddled his limited friendship with Fleming, stretched the truth, came to London, got a few people excited, then went into a hotel room with a typewriter, and what he turned out just wasn't up to snuff. Off he went back to S.A. Toodle-ooo. Good bye. And now, when all the principles are dead, some mishmashed memories have everyone searching for a book that never existed. Like every other paperback writer of his time, he churned out some spy / adventure fiction later on, but this has no more link to Ian Fleming than any other spy book of the era.

Keep dancing...

What an eccentric post.

Most.

Listened to it. Interesting, but not much new. He did mention that Per Fine Ounce would have been published under the Robert Markham name.

Ah, glad it was there then.

[zencat]

Listened to it. Interesting, but not much new. He did mention that Per Fine Ounce would have been published under the Robert Markham name.

There's also some interesting stuff at the end about how the rejection of Per Fine Ounce is the reason Eon has never made a continuation novel. (?) They were mad about this and vowed to never make a film of any future continuation novel. At least that's what Harry told him. I doubt this was Cubby's feeling.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Listened to it. Interesting, but not much new. He did mention that Per Fine Ounce would have been published under the Robert Markham name.

There's also some interesting stuff at the end about how the rejection of Per Fine Ounce is the reason Eon has never made a continuation novel. (?) They were mad about this and vowed to never make a film of any future continuation novel. At least that's what Harry told him. I doubt this was Cubby's feeling.

I feel the same. Eon hasn't used the continuations because they don't need/have to. I recall an MGW interview at the time of either GE or TND where he was asked about CS as a possibility. He said they still had an option on it.
PJS's comments hint at PFO not being any worse than Gardner or Benson. I would be interested to read it if it were at Gardner's level, even if it turned out to be a disappointment after all this time, etc but if it's as bad as Benson, no thanks.

[Single-O-Seven]

Listened to it. Interesting, but not much new. He did mention that Per Fine Ounce would have been published under the Robert Markham name.

There's also some interesting stuff at the end about how the rejection of Per Fine Ounce is the reason Eon has never made a continuation novel. (?) They were mad about this and vowed to never make a film of any future continuation novel. At least that's what Harry told him. I doubt this was Cubby's feeling.

I feel the same. Eon hasn't used the continuations because they don't need/have to. I recall an MGW interview at the time of either GE or TND where he was asked about CS as a possibility. He said they still had an option on it.
PJS's comments hint at PFO not being any worse than Gardner or Benson. I would be interested to read it if it were at Gardner's level, even if it turned out to be a disappointment after all this time, etc but if it's as bad as Benson, no thanks.

I recall an interview with MGW and BB - I think it was prior to DAD - in which they were asked about the continuation novels. MGW stated he had read "most" of them but was not particularly "inspired" by them. Obviously there was some inspiration there, as bits and pieces have turned up in the films.

[spynovelfan]

PJS's comments hint at PFO not being any worse than Gardner or Benson. I would be interested to read it if it were at Gardner's level, even if it turned out to be a disappointment after all this time, etc but if it's as bad as Benson, no thanks.

Well, everything's subjective and comparisons always tricky, but the four draft pages of PER FINE OUNCE I've read made me hunger for more. I think Jenkins' two Commander Peace novels, A TWIST OF SAND (1959) and HUNTER KILLER (1966), probably offer a good idea of what the full manuscript was like, and as I've said before I think there may be some faint echoes of plot ideas in A CLEFT OF STARS (1973), which is set in precisely the same area as PFO seems to have been. Judging by Jenkins' previous novels, I think we'd have seen Bond more against nature than we usually saw him in Fleming (think of him wading through the swamps with Honey in DR NO), more emphasis on his naval experience, more action, less digression, less style than Fleming (which may have been very important in 1966), but that it would nevertheless have been a gripping thriller with exotic locales, beautiful women, nasty villains - and a deep understanding of Bond and his universe.

I think Peter Janson-Smith's comment that he thought Jenkins' submitted novel 'extraordinarily badly written' can be taken a number of ways. The first, and most obvious, is that it was. I don't discount that possibility, but tastes vary and contexts can change over time. Amis' COLONEL SUN is well-written, but a large chunk of it drags, and that's probably more important to me as a reader. It might not have been to Glidrose in 1966. Janson-Smith also said that PER FINE OUNCE's plot had been 'rather good'. Jenkins' four novels prior to this were all exciting, taut and well-written thrillers, with some similarities in feel to COLONEL SUN, in fact. But they're all, to my mind, better thrillers than Amis' - and more Bond-ish. Despite a different name, biography and other differences, I find Geoffrey Peace much more in the line of Fleming's Bond than the character depicted in COLONEL SUN, who I think could easily have been named John Brown and you'd not notice much.

Jenkins' prose style could occasionally be hamfisted, but his work was often ingenious, sophisticated and extremely well-written. I think A TWIST OF SAND, A GRUE OF ICE and a couple of others are as good as Fleming. I prefer A CLEFT OF STARS to several of Fleming's novels, and think all three of these are classic thrillers.

Another way of taking the comment is politically, ie if asked by some young ruffian forty years after the event why you didn't publish the novel, saying that it was good but not your cup of tea and Amis seemed like a better bet is perhaps not the answer you'd give. I'm sure there were genuine reservations about the quality of the manuscript, especially as it would have been the first to follow Fleming, but I also wonder if those reservations would be stressed more if there were additional factors influencing you to reject it, and stressed more still when asked to justify the decision retroactively.

'Additional factors', I think, could have been that Jenkins was seen as being too pushy - for example, he wanted his own publisher to bring out the novel, not Cape. Glidrose agreed to that, but the contract (like most) also stipulated that they could refuse to publish the book if they didn't think it was good enough, so they may have already decided that they wouldn't go through with it anyway. Glidrose told Jenkins they would give him a contract to write a Bond novel in May 1966, and sent it to him in August. But - presumably unknown to Jenkins - Peter Fleming had already written to Ann Fleming on March 15 of that year proposing to 'tell Kingsley Amis to go ahead' in writing his Bond novel. By May '67, Amis had finished writing COLONEL SUN. So it would appear that Glidrose had Jenkins and Amis in play at the same time - both had contracts for the same amount, with the condition that their novels wouldn't be published if they were deemed unsuitable in any way.

So 'extraordinarily badly written' could also include a large dollop of 'unsuitable'. Jenkins was a best-selling thriller-writer, but Glidrose at that time may have been more interested in the literary side of Fleming. Amis' own book of criticism had, ironically, helped establish Fleming as a more serious writer, and directly after Fleming's death a roustabout action-adventure thriller might not have been as atrractive an option as a book from Amis, who was one of the best-known literary novelists of the time, and so had enormous cachet. Glidrose would rightly have wanted to preserve Fleming's literary reputation, as they had always done: Fleming's own short story THE PROPERTY OF A LADY was not included in the hardback of OCTOPUSSY AND THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS because Glidrose didn't feel it was good enough (to be fair, Fleming hadn't been pleased with it himself). And in the same paragraph of his biography of Peter Fleming noting that PER FINE OUNCE was rejected, Duff Hart-Davis wrote that COLONEL SUN struck Glidrose as 'a workmanlike job' and they decided to publish it instead. Hardly a ringing endorsement!

I've gone on again, sorry. But that's a bit more context, and some hopefully well-informed (and, um, sourced!) speculation. In the absence of PER FINE OUNCE, I strongly recommend Jenkins' early novels. I think they're really very good.

[Trident]

As I've read both the Geoffrey Peace adventures 'A Twist Of Sand' and 'Hunter Killer' I now even suspect that Fleming, confronted with the question who would/could/should pick up with Bond after his early death, might actually have thought rather of Jenkins than of Amis. Ok, he undoubtedly was deeply flattered by Amis' appraisal in the 'James Bond Dossier', but apart from being a great fan and showing a decent understanding of Bond in theory, there really wasn't much in Amis' own work to suggest he would indulge in his own Bond-extravaganza. I don't claim Fleming would have denied Amis the honour, but I doubt he would have thought of him as the first and most likely one.

Jenkins on the other hand shows a deep fondness and affection for many elements Fleming himself indulged in: colourful adventure in exotic locales, physical exertion against the elements and ruthless enemies, a vivid sense for the fantastic, obscure and bizarre. Particularly 'Hunter Killer', which includes Jenkins' very own homage to Bond, is a good example why he would have been a more likely choice. I can easily see what attracted Fleming in Jenkins' work and why he felt a cooperation on one of his future books might be a possibility. I daresay Fleming wouldn't have thought of such a venture with Amis.

What might have turned out a little awkward, had Jenkins actually picked up, might have been his naval fondness. Bond is in his own words really only 'a chocolate sailor' and giving Bond all of a sudden an intimate knowledge of various naval routines would have been contradictory. But then again, contradictions never bothered much in the Bond business and wouldn't have been too much of an obstacle.

[Major Tallon]

I listened to this. Not very much new, except that he said he has a New York publisher who's offered a million dollars for the manuscript of Per Fine Ounce, even though they'd have to remove the Bond series names from it. I'm more than a bit dubious of that.

[Trident]

I listened to this. Not very much new, except that he said he has a New York publisher who's offered a million dollars for the manuscript of Per Fine Ounce, even though they'd have to remove the Bond series names from it. I'm more than a bit dubious of that.

Well, the hunt is obviously open for the manuscript. But I suspect, as Jenkins was a diligent writer, he may well have cannibalised his original work with large parts of it rewritten to fit into what became 'A Cleft Of Stars' which would supposedly share some elements with 'Per Fine Ounce'. So it may well be that the original doesn't even exist any more. It's actually difficult to tell after so many years and could hardly ever be proven. The only way to know for sure would be the original manuscript turning up.

[zencat]

Listened to it. Interesting, but not much new. He did mention that Per Fine Ounce would have been published under the Robert Markham name.

There's also some interesting stuff at the end about how the rejection of Per Fine Ounce is the reason Eon has never made a continuation novel. (?) They were mad about this and vowed to never make a film of any future continuation novel. At least that's what Harry told him. I doubt this was Cubby's feeling.

I feel the same. Eon hasn't used the continuations because they don't need/have to. I recall an MGW interview at the time of either GE or TND where he was asked about CS as a possibility. He said they still had an option on it.

Well, I've heard various stories about why Eon hasn't used the continuation novels, and while I won't repeat them online (and who knows what's true), the tales I hear are all political, personal, and petty.

I feel Eon badly needs a better foundation for their stories, especially if they are going to turn out these movies in two/three year cycles. CR aside (and maybe because that was based on a book), I think the past several "original" Bond films have had very weak scripts. Even if they change it, using a continuation novel as a foundation will help. There are some very fine villains, plots, and situations that can be expanded on, and would at least provide a structural and tonal roadmap from the start (not to mention some good titles). I know it's a waste of time to hope or suggest this. But QOS really should embarrass them into at least considering this.

(Sorry, I've had a glass of wine. Feeling a little honest. )

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Listened to it. Interesting, but not much new. He did mention that Per Fine Ounce would have been published under the Robert Markham name.

There's also some interesting stuff at the end about how the rejection of Per Fine Ounce is the reason Eon has never made a continuation novel. (?) They were mad about this and vowed to never make a film of any future continuation novel. At least that's what Harry told him. I doubt this was Cubby's feeling.

I feel the same. Eon hasn't used the continuations because they don't need/have to. I recall an MGW interview at the time of either GE or TND where he was asked about CS as a possibility. He said they still had an option on it.

Well, I've heard various stories about why Eon hasn't used the continuation novels, and while I won't repeat them online (and who knows what's true), the tales I hear are all political, personal, and petty.

I feel Eon badly needs a better foundation for their stories, especially if they are going to turn out these movies in two/three year cycles. CR aside (and maybe because that was based on a book), I think the past several "original" Bond films have had very weak scripts. Even if they change it, using a continuation novel as a foundation will help. There are some very fine villains, plots, and situations that can be expanded on, and would at least provide a structural and tonal roadmap from the start (not to mention some good titles). I know it's a waste of time to hope or suggest this. But QOS really should embarrass them into at least considering this.

(Sorry, I've had a glass of wine. Feeling a little honest. )

Couldn't agree more, cat. With CR/QoS it became apparent since they tried to make a sequel out of a novel that didn't have one.